What makes modern art? How does it sale?
Modern art can be described as not so much as a hard definition, but yet more of a time frame. Most art historians will include modern art from 1860s to today, some even earlier the late 1700s, yet it is somewhere around the time that Courbet and his Anti French Salon movement, Manet and his bridge from Realism to Impressionism to Monet and the Impressionists that set up the time frame for Modern art.
Who does one describe Modern Art though? is it just work that is created recently? In the past 100 years? A time frame cannot really put it in perspective as in in Music, songs and bands from the 70s are known as Classic and those from the 50s and 40s are known as Oldies and music from the time that the impressionist time period, yes that music that is hardly listened to outside of a few of us (I am one of them) is known only as Classical. This is seen as old and not “modern”. So why is it that other pieces of art work from that time period are known and called Modern? Literature is also one that falls to this as not “modern” as one can look at the works of Emile Zola and feel a transportation back to a world of the past.
It can be argued that to be Modern, work has to be avant-garde or works that is in the forefront, is innovatory, which introduces and explores new forms. That can truely be said for the work of Courbet as he broke away from the teachings of the 1800s French Salon and can be considered the great-grandfather of Modern Art. However, with the loose brush works of Manet that helped bridge the way for Monet and the Impressionists that really broke away from the what had been done before, making their work Modern.
Yet, why are artist like Jeff Koons, who is still in practice and working today, selling works for the same amount of money as what Monet, Warhol and other great artists from the past are selling their works for while artist like Justin Bua and Brian Ewing, whos work is just as impressive, doesn’t sell for as nearly as well as what Koons does? Is it the style of art? If that might be the case, then Koons himself should not be as famous as what he is. he has been doing the same work for the past almost 30 years and his time should be coming close to an end, but his works keep becoming evermore popular.
Sure, there has been some publicity of Modern Art, large galleries like MoMA and the Tate Modern and smaller galleries like Crewest in Los Angeles show extensive collections of what is considered New and Modern. Yet the question still remains on why is one artist sold for so much more than another? The question is not about quality of work. The pieces that the three above named artist create are fantastic in their own right (Yes even Koons, even though he doesn’t actually do any of his own work), yet the divide is still there for them. Is the fact that Koons work is more relatable to the general public than what Bua and Ewing’s work is? Is that the reason why in art history classes, more emphasis is placed on people like Andy Warhol instead of Richard Hamilton, Edward Kienholz or even Chris Burden, Joseph Beuys or Marina Abramović.
Now sure, Burden, Beuys and Abramović are preformance artist, but there are images that one could purchaces of their works that a partron of the arts could keep and hang just like any other works of art. In fact I know a couple of people who do. So for this up coming year, I would look for those works, works by artist who are not as big as the Jeff Koons in modern art, but those who are on the verge of making it big, such as Justin Bua (even though OvationTV and Bua have done several projects together), Brian Ewing, David LaChapelle or support preformance art or images from a preformance that have helped make these artist known today. This is where the term investment comes in because one can purchase these works for cheap and sit on them where I predict that one day they will bring you a nice return.
Art and Auction 