In a belated response to Rebecca's comments on the Banksy Exhibition at Bristol Museum (have you seen it yet Rebecca?...what's it like?) I thought I'd add some further ingredients into the discussion. I noticed a report in The Art Newspaper on the exhibition (appropriately in the 'Art Market' sections), stating; 'all of the 100 works exhibited are for sale, and The Art Newspaper understands that a work showing a policeman on a child's rocking horse sold for £140,000.'.....
Kate Brindley, the museum's director, is reported to say that Bristol Museum would not get a cut of the proceeds, but "it was usual practice" for living artists (excuse the obviousness there) to sell work shown in public galleries. Did I miss something here? When did this become 'usual practice'? (Saatchi, perhaps, but you can't actually 'buy' the things off the wall at the Duke of York's Headquarters (can you?)...and I'm aware of 19th century precedents - I'm a museum historian! (of sorts...). It is clear that public museums play a significant, and synchronic, role in the art market - but surely Bristol Museum is not (should not be?) Gagosian?
Or is it another subtle subversive move by Banksy?
Mark
Welcome to the Leeds University Museum Studies Blog. Here you can follow the activities, conversations and debates associated with the University's School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Studies courses. We envisage it as an informal space for museum-related discussion, interests & the sharing of ideas. To join the conversation click the 'Get involved!' tab. We hope you enjoy it! Rosa and Mark
Search the blog
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No, I've not been yet, but I'm hoping to go before it closes at the end of August. I'll report back as soon as I do.
ReplyDeleteIs it perhaps the case that the work was not-not for sale? I agree that there are some peculiar processes happing here, perhaps some of the discomfort is caused by the museum setting (although it is a museum and art gallery) suggesting that the objects should not be so freely available to the market.'How much is that geological specimen please' just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I think there are real similarities with the Saatchi strategy of displaying contemporary art in a setting that has historical and cultural heft (the obvious example is the Royal Academy) to add value. I think it was Julian Stallabrass that described this practice as a high-interest bank account for art. As far as the work being for sale at the Saatchi Gallery goes, it's possibly a matter of when rather than if.
If anyone's trying to be a Gagosian it's Banksy's agent, Steve Lazarides. He's got a great line in disingenuous comments about street, cult and outsider art.