The Groove 203 - Time to Change the Pathological Relationship Between Art and Money
Welcome to the 203rd issue of The Groove.
I am Maria Brito, an art advisor, curator, and author based in New York City.
If you haven’t done so, please subscribe here, to get The Groove in your inbox for free every Tuesday.
TIME TO CHANGE THE PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ART AND MONEY
Andy Warhol, $ (4), 1982. Color screenprint with on Lenox Museum Board.
The relationship between art and money has been contentious for centuries. Money often challenges the notion of art as something pure, emotional, and beyond material concerns. Some argue that commodifying art diminishes its intrinsic value, while people like me believe that being compensated for creativity is necessary and just. (Hence why I wrote an entire book about it.)
Artists like Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, and Georgia O'Keeffe found ways to navigate this tension, proving that financial success and artistic integrity can coexist. Picasso mastered the art market; when he died in 1973 his estate was valued at $500 million (more than $2 billion today). Warhol blurred the lines between commerce and art, and his estate was valued six years after his death in 1987 for $220 million ($490 million today). O'Keeffe remained fiercely independent, controlling how her work was sold and exhibited, and her estate was valued at $75 million in 1987 (approximately $175 million today). None of these artists ever felt shame, rejected the money they made or thought for a second that they didn’t deserve it.
Yet last week, a novelist (whom I really didn’t know before) wrote an essay for the Financial Times expressing his disdain for what he calls “the uneasy marriage of art and money”. The author, Rumaan Alam, had to update his insurance policy on the art he had bought at auction. (Which is the worst place to buy anything and then complain about the art-money relationship, but I’ll get there in a minute.)
He goes on to describe the powerful, visceral reaction he had to the Agnes Martin retrospective at the Guggenheim, underlining that a work of art’s price doesn’t always reflect its value, which is both true and not. What would Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa or Picasso’s Guernica fetch on the open market? Likely many billions. And yet, museums like the Louvre and Reina Sofia still pay astronomical insurance premiums to protect them, with sums most of us can’t even imagine. Yes, Mr. Alam, many of us are deeply moved by art, sometimes to tears, and we still buy, sell, and value it without feeling any sense of disgust.
It gets worse. Mr. Alam claims that taking pictures of art in museums or galleries to post on Instagram “transforms that moment of pleasure into work. We think this ennobling; it's sadly debased.” Debased? On the contrary, as an art advisor with over 15 years of experience and 13 as an active user of Instagram, I can attest that sharing art on social media can elevate, not diminish, the experience.
Far from corrupting it, social media has democratized access to art, allowing more people to engage, discover, and connect with artworks in ways that were previously unimaginable. I’ve received thousands of DMs and comments that prove this - people are not merely scrolling, they're learning, engaging, and expanding their appreciation of art. To claim that this is “debased” reflects an elitist mindset, one that fails to recognize how technology has broadened the scope of who can participate in the conversation around art.
Incidentally, when I scrolled through Mr. Alam’s Instagram page there are photos he has taken of art, at auction houses, no less. (Are those exempt from being debased?)
Mr. Alam continues writing about his experience buying from auction houses or visiting them. He mentions Christie’s a few times but also, I saw that Christie’s has recently hosted a party for Mr. Alam’s book. Is that a conflict of interest? Is it native advertising for the FT?
Here’s my biggest issue with Mr. Alam’s piece. He doesn’t mention galleries or even seem to be aware of their existence. He lives in New York, like I do, where there are thousands of galleries. The galleries that represent alive artists work very hard to make sure their artists are successful and get acquired by great collectors and museums, not to mention incurring absurd costs to maintain operations, show in art fairs and organize great shows. Additionally, when someone buys art on the primary market from a gallery, at least half goes to the artist. Auction houses, on the contrary, are masters of the secondary market and have only one goal and mandate: to make money for their owners.
If Mr. Alam is so distraught by the “uneasy marriage of art and money,” he should absolutely stop buying from auction houses and turn his attention and his wallet to art galleries in New York. Prices really start at $2,000 if he’d like to get a small painting or work on paper from an excellent emerging artist.
I want to emphatically argue for ending the pathological aspect of art and money. It helps to start with these points:
1. Value Exchange: Art is a product of labor, skill, and talent, like any profession. Being paid for it does not detract from its value but honors the artist's contributions. Everyone who excels in their craft deserves financial reward, just as in any other field.
2. Historical Precedent: Many iconic artists understood how to operate within the marketplace while maintaining artistic freedom. These examples prove that success and financial stability don't necessarily corrupt artistic integrity. I mentioned above Picasso, Warhol and O’Keeffe, but there are thousands more, both dead and alive.
3. Agency and Control: Artists can and should control how their work is monetized. This eliminates exploitation and allows them to benefit directly from the value they create.
4. Cultural Impact: Arguing that financial success corrupts art can lead to the undervaluation of artists' contributions to society. Just as we recognize doctors, engineers, or lawyers for their expertise and financial success, we should celebrate artists' achievements without guilt.
Let’s reframe the conversation and challenge the idea that money inherently corrupts art. The focus should be on ensuring that financial success stems from genuine talent and innovation, not compromising the artist's vision or integrity. Oh, and if the thought of money and art make you cringe, please stay away from auction houses.
Show of The Week
Kara Walker and Caron Davis in “Edges of Ailey” at The Whitney Museum.
I was treated last week to an empty pre-opening of "Edges of Ailey" at The Whitney Museum. Boy, was I floored! This is a stunning show that does justice to the incomparable legacy of Alvin Ailey.
The entire fifth floor of the museum, comprising more than 18,000 square feet of exhibition space, is filled with videos, archives, choreographic notes, interviews and more, all surrounded by beautiful paintings from Black artists like Jean-Michel Basquiat, Kara Walker, Caron Davis, Emma Amos, Geoffrey Holder, Purvis Young and Barkley Hendricks and many more.
As someone who spent several years of my life practicing many forms of dance, this show hits close to home. On top of that, "Revelations" by Ailey is one of my absolute favorite dance performances ever. I was delighted and very moved to see this tribute to his genius.
From The Archives
If you are an artist who can make a living out of selling your work, you are an entrepreneur. If you are an entrepreneur, you can get extra benefits if you let yourself think and dream like an artist and use that freedom to apply fresh ideas to your business. Here are three mistakes to avoid in your creative career.