
The Art World’s Patron Satan - aaronbrethorst
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-art-worlds-patron-satan.html
======
brazzy
TLDR:

Players in an extremely intricate and extremely lucrative social game are
upset about someone who's gaming the system without regard for its unspoken
rules.

~~~
RyJones
thank you.

------
forrestthewoods
I think it's kind of awesome. Art prices are so made up and abstract that if
someone can game the system then good for them. And this article feeds into
that plan perfectly. If he gets someone's $500,000 hospital bill taken care of
in exchange for two large paintings well I'd call that a hell of a deal for
the artist.

~~~
whybroke
>...I'd call that a hell of a deal for the artist.

And I'd call that a hell of a deal for the hospital.

------
niels_olson
If you find this guy interesting, you should read the $12 Million Stuffed
Shark: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark-
Contemporary...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark-
Contemporary/dp/0230620590)

------
GabrielF00
I read the article. I honestly do not understand what this guy is doing that
is so problematic.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
He's a symptom, not a cause.

(Although possibly not a very original symptom.)

~~~
GabrielF00
But a symptom of what, exactly?

It sounds like what he's doing is providing material support for artists (many
of whom would not otherwise be able to pursue art full time) as well as
connections to collectors. In exchange he buys up the art for very cheap.

I think they're making an argument that he's creating a lot of hype around
these artists and that this creates a bubble for their work which bursts after
a few years. Maybe that's a reasonable criticism, but it's not clear to me why
someone whose work was very popular for a few years couldn't then parlay the
connections that they've made and the lessons that they've learned into a
reasonably successful career, even if the value of the work declines
dramatically from the peak. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable deal to make,
especially when you consider how incredibly hard it is for artists to get any
kind of attention in the first place.

I'll admit that I really don't understand how the art world works, despite the
fact that my Mom is a professional artist.

~~~
brazzy
A symptom of a business where a large part of the monetary value is assigned
to a small number of star producers, and this assigning is heavily influenced
by a class of middlemen who are busily pretending, through social conventions
and traditions, that the money is not important, since they profit greatly
from the consumers' belief that the non-monetary aspects are the most
important ones.

Simchowitz is basically a "munchkin middleman" who blithely ignores said
conventions and traditions and addresses a different class of consumers.

 _edited in reaction to reply_

~~~
_delirium
Based on this article's description, I wouldn't say he's _disintermediating_
it so much as differently intermediating it. It sounds like he's building up
an interesting web of social and business conventions to position people as
art-stars, cultivate investors in said art-stars' careers and works, cultivate
"appreciators" who key on status signals he's inflecting certain artists with,
etc. It's still ultimately a lot of a status and positioning game, trying to
build someone up as a "major artist" in a way that a critical mass of critics
and investors buy, while setting yourself up as the intermediary who controls
access to this corner of the art world.

~~~
gbhn
I'm certainly no art high roller, but my understanding is that the art world
has a long history of patrons like this, who have eclectic tastes, large
networks of trusting collectors, and an eye for the new. Everyone hates them,
until eventually they build the Guggenheim museum and then everyone thinks
they were awesome.

------
ebiester
I would like to hear the other side of the story. It is entirely possible
that, in effect, the work is not likely to be valuable in the future and so
he's gaining trust of those who do not understand the value of a piece and
selling what will eventually be a worthless piece for inflated value.

Honestly, I don't take pity in the games of the wealthy.

~~~
mc32
That very well may be true, but in essence the values of lots of art are a
product of the whims of curators, directors and art dealers. So those people
who see their monopoly on power threatened probably would make a disingenuous
stink about what he's doing.

Basically he's sort of being the itunes/pandora/spotify/whatever to the radio
DJ of old who could make or break a music artist.

There may be a few pieces of art which are historically significant because of
how they shape(d) future artists and appreciators of art --but those pieces
are few and far between and moreover you don't see the same value assigned to
similarly significant things in life but which aren't regarded art.

------
jgalt212
In the first paragraph:

> “Who do I know in the States who’s not a kid on heroin?”

Are we to really believe that Amalia Ulman only knows young heroin users in
the US, and no one outside of that group? How did this get through the NY
Times fact checking process?

------
rivera1100
Worth visiting ArtRank.com which subverts much of the emerging art speculation

------
jasonsmiff
If you enjoy reading about the art world you might like
[http://tondo.is/](http://tondo.is/)

The whole industry is incredibly fascinating.

------
alecco
> all of Ulman’s medical bills, which, after a month in the hospital and an
> additional month in rehab, totaled nearly half a million dollars.

This guy takes advantage of a desperate situation for the poor in US. The
discussion is focused in the wrong problem.

~~~
seanp2k2
Require care for 60 days, spend 10-20 years paying for how you didn't die.
Remind me again why we don't have actual public health care, and how our
system is so much better for people.

