Art and Money

The other day, I went to Sotheby's auction house for their exhibit of postwar and contemporary art for their big fall auction.   What was there was a dazzling selection of all the big names in postwar art, with major paintings by Rothko, Pollock, Bacon, and anyone else you can think of whose work hangs on the walls of MOMA's galleries of postwar art.   As in all the "blue-chip" artists.  But the atmosphere is very different from a museum, because all the art is for sale.  Instead of art lovers and tourists, you see lots of very important looking people clutching their cellphones, or more likely, people who are busy catering to the needs of very rich people.  Instead of descriptions, you get price  estimates.  (Rothko, estimated value $30 million, and in fact sold for $75 million).  It is very disconcerting to see the extent to which the contemporary art world is wrapped up into the world of the one percent.  As I staggered out of the 500 or so works on sale, I happened on an exhibit of Pre-Columbian Art (also for sale).  Intriguing and beautiful and a welcome contrast.

A few days ago, Vera and I went to the Frick Museum to see a collection of drawings on loan from the Courtaud Institute (wonderful).  What resonates with me is that Frick himself was one of the original predatory capitalists, a union buster who was often called the most hated man in America.  He spent the last years of his life spending as much money as he could, buying the most expensive paintings he could find.  (Three Vermeers, a late Rembrandt self-portrait, etc.)  What is amusing is that these masterpieces are all hanging in the formal picture galleries, while the rooms for daily life have mostly pictures of English aristocracy, etc. to which he doubtless aspired to be one of.