Emerging Artists – Avant-Garde

December 6, 2022

Fall Auction Round Up!

The art world is truly the Teflon market—destabilizing economies and weakening currencies just seem to slide off art, as the art market continues to break records each season.

This is true too of the ultra-contemporary art market, where works made in the last few years by young artists are selling for wild figures. While this is technically great news for the artist’s reputation and market, most artists do not benefit from the resale of their work—the only people who reap the benefits of the artists’ popularity are the collectors and auction houses. More on that below. (There was too much to cover, so I’ve selected only a few sales and selected highlights to address.)

First, the big hoopla of the 2022 fall auction season was the sale of art from the Estate of Paul Allen at Christie’s. I admire the late Microsoft cofounder’s taste: while the collection certainly leans towards modern and contemporary, he also collected art from “dustier” periods of history, which is a testament to his sincere interest in the vision of artists throughout time. Thanks to some rare and marquee works, over two nights the collection grossed a stunning $1.62 billion, making it the most expensive single-owner sale in history. That value is 40% of Christie’s total auction turnover from 2021! And some silver lining: the Estate will use the proceeds to fund philanthropy.

Here are some of my favorites from the marquee sale:

Gustav Klimt’s *Birch Forest*, 1903, oil on canvas. It set a new record for the artist at auction. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

I’m a sucker for Gustav Klimt. His exquisite 1903 painting Birch Forest sold for over $104 million, beating his previous record for one of his famous portraits of Adele Bloch-Bauer, which Oprah bought for $87.9 million in 2006 at Christie’s. (She recently sold it for $150 million. It appreciated well!)

This unusual painting by Edouard Manet, *Le Grand Canal à Venise* (1874), sold for $52 million.

While this work sold on the low end of its pre-sale estimate of $45–65 million ($52 million), the tight cropping of Edouard Manet’s Le Grand Canal à Venise (1874) is a testament to the burgeoning influence of photography on mid-19th century art. This little vignette would not exist without photography.

Christie’s lengthy essay on Lucian Freud’s Large Interior, WII (after Watteau) says the painting “stands among the defining achievements of Lucian Freud’s oeuvre.” I love it because I think it asks as many questions as it answers. The masterpiece took in a cool $86 million.

Lucian Freud, *Large Interior, WII (after Watteau)*, sold for $86 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

By some accounts there are only 5 Botticellis left in private hands, which makes it remarkable that Allen’s fabulous Madonna the Magnificat only sold for $48.5 million. But that’s the art market for you: everyone wants Postwar and Contemporary art!

Seurat’s petite *Les Poseuses, Ensemble,* went for big money–$149 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

Last highlight from the Allen sale: Georges Seurat’s, Les Poseuses, Ensemble, from 1888. This small 15 x 20 in. painting is a miniature study (or possibly later version) of a larger canvas in the collection of the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia. The painting was a response to criticism of his breakout (and still probably most famous) work, Un dimanche d’été à l’Île de La Grande Jatte, seen in the background of this work from 1886. Given its importance in the critical narrative of Seurat’s work (and who doesn’t love a painting within a painting?), this little painting achieved over $149 million. It was the highest bid of the night and year, and the new auction record for the artist. Whew!

New talent Anna Weyant’s *Loose Screw* (2020), sold for an impressive $1.5 million.

Christie’s other Modern and Contemporary sales—the 20th and 21st century sales, respectively—grossed almost $422 million in one day for just 100 lots. As noted above, one thing that concerns me with the ultra-contemporary sales is whether the artists are getting compensated for the resale of their art at auction. Some of these works, such as a Anna Weyant’s 2020 work Loose Screw, are being flipped a few years after creation for many times what the buyer paid for it. At just 27 years old, Weyant’s painting sold for $1.5 million, or three times the high estimate for her. But who knows what she pocketed in the initial private sale…

Some of these hot artists have gotten hip to the game, and due to their high demand, are going directly to auction to sell their work: Salmon Toor, in conjunction with his gallery Luhring Augustine, put up his 2019 painting Four Guests for auction. It achieved $856,000, five times its high estimate of $180,000—at least he benefited from the sale!

Salman Toor, *Four Guests*, achieved $856,000. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

If you read my blog post on NFTs, you know I’ve never been a fan (and predicted their market instability and downfall), but one possibly positive use of blockchain technology in our industry is for the creation of smart contracts that enable artists to reap royalties on the resale of their work. I still think we just need to implement some federal law that ensures artists get resale rights, but for now blockchain could be a viable solution (if only it wasn’t soooo bad for the planet…sigh…).

Andy Warhol, *White Disaster (White Car Crash 19 Times),* was the big winner of the Sotheby’s Contemporary sale, achieving over $85 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

In other news, Sotheby’s had a decent fall season too: across six sales of Modern and Contemporary art, Sotheby’s grossed $856 million, with the Contemporary evening sale taking in $269 million, and the Modern evening sale grossing $253 million. The marquee pieces that drove the Contemporary sale was Andy Warhol’s White Disaster (White Car Crash 19 Times), which brought $85.3 million, and Francis Bacon’s Three Studies for Portrait of Lucian Freud, which took $30 million.

But notably several works in the sale, including the Bacon triptych, sold on the low end of—or below—their presale estimates, indicating the Sotheby’s specialists were a little too optimistic with their forecasts.

Robert Gober’s untitled installation underperformed, falling short of its low estimate by about $2.3 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

One of the most disappointing results was for Robert Gober’s Untitled installation (1993-94). The photo doesn’t do the art much justice, and even in person, it takes a moment to realize what you’re looking at: it’s a storm drain with real water trickling in it. As you pay closer attention, you see a man’s chest is the drain, complete with real human hair. The installation had a pre-sale estimate of $6–8 million, but sold well under at $3.68 million. Perhaps the practicality of installing a work that is a storm drain/fountain was just too much of a headache for collectors…

Some other favorites of mine from the Sotheby’s Contemporary sale:

Ed Clark’s Blue Splash of 1967, sold for $882, 000 against an estimate of $200,000 – 300,000.

Ed Clark, *Blue Splash*, 1967, sold for $882,000 in Sotheby’s Contemporary evening sale. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

As lovely as Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Saxophone (1986) is, it sadly was one of the works over-estimated by the Sotheby’s specialists: it sold for $13.67 million, against a pre-sale estimate of $12 – 18 million.

Jean-Michel Basquiat, *Saxophone* (1986), brought $13.67 million at Sotheby’s Contemporary evening sale. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Always love me some Joan Mitchell. Her classic 1956 Untitled had a pre-sale estimate of $1.5 – 2 million, and sold for $3.2 million.

Joan Mitchell, *Untitled* (1956), sold for $3.2 million in Sotheby’s Contemporary sale. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Lastly, Kenneth Noland’s Sounds in the Summer Night (1962), sold for $3.2 million against a $2 – 3 million estimate. Love the palette.

Kenneth Noland, *Sounds in the Summer Night*, took $3.2 million in Sotheby’s Contemporary sale. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Well for now (er, as always?) the art market remains alive and well. Until next time, peace love and art. ❤️

December 9, 2021

Reflections on the Fall Auction Season (Intro to Round Ups)

It was a jam-packed auction season—the first in two years with in-person audiences—with some standout collections and blue-chip artworks that led to a soaring $2.6 billion in generated revenue for Christie’s, Sotheby’s, and Phillips. Due to time, I did not get a chance to cover the Phillips sales, but in the next few blog posts, I summarize some highlights from the modern and contemporary auctions at Sotheby’s and Christie’s. But here, first, an introduction of sorts, with a few over-arching points and themes to touch on:

In a sign of our ever-changing times, it’s worth noting that Sotheby’s has yet again restructured its marquee sales into different categories. You may recall in my December 2020 post, I recounted the confusing structural changes that the auction houses experimented with in the face of the pandemic, including global online “relay” auctions, throwing in some Old Masters (and T-Rexes) into the mix, and generally shaking up the time-honored categories of “Impressionist & Modern” and “Postwar & Contemporary.” And for their 2021 Spring auctions, Christie’s committed to a permanent change away from these categories to respective 20th and 21st century sales, the parameters of which are noted as “flexible.”

This fall, Sotheby’s announced they are restructuring the modern and contemporary evening auctions into 3 sales: “The Modern,” (covering late 19th to early 20th century art), “The Contemporary,” (covering postwar art to the late 20th century) and “The Now” (art of the last two decades). A Sotheby’s representative noted that, like Christie’s’ groupings, these parameters are flexible, because the sales also take into consideration stylistic—rather than strictly chronological—factors.

Sotheby’s’ and Christie’s’ creation of marquee sales just for 21st century art reflects the unprecedented market demand for art by living artists. There is no doubt that the art in these contemporary sales is absolutely fabulous, and when you survey the modern and contemporary sales, the newest work does feel fresh and incredibly satisfying. With waiting lists at galleries for some of the hottest emerging artists—who can only produce so much (good) art in a year—artworks that were painted in 2019, 2020, and 2021 are showing up at auction, and bursting past their estimates at jaw-dropping rates.

The concern of many in the artworld, however, is that emerging artists are missing out on the financial returns. More often than not, it is collectors who are flipping the paintings, after having purchased them at modest “emergent prices” from the artist’s gallery. We are seeing some glimpses where artists are submitting their paintings straight to auction, and reaping the rewards. Until recently, it was considered inappropriate—and even arrogant—for an artist to bypass galleries and sell new work directly to auction. Damien Hirst was one such rare case with his 2008 Sotheby’s auction of new work fresh from his studio, and even as a market veteran, he was called “cocky” by more than one critic for the stunt.

In the NFT market, it is almost exclusively artists who are selling their work at auction (see my post on the Christie’s auction with Beeple’s recent HUMAN ONE, or my general blog post on NFTs, for more on the current NFT trend). But anyways, perhaps with the new trend toward contemporary—and the auction houses’ pivot to serve this market—it’ll be more commonplace to see artists selling directly through auction.

Sotheby’s took another note from the Christie’s playbook, too: they took advantage of the many eyes on the popular modern and contemporary sales to squeeze in an anachronistic but high-profile item: a single lot sale of a copy of the original printed U.S. Constitution, one of only two copies that exists in private hands (out of 13 extant copies total). Wedged between “The Now” and Contemporary evening sale, the Constitution was offered by private collector Dorothy Tapper Goldman, and sold to billionaire collector Kenneth Griffin for $43.2 million.

As always, year on year, as the art market continues to reach dizzying and seemingly endless heights, I reflect on what it says about our culture and society at large. While I love art—which, if you’re reading this blog, I am sure you do too—I am alarmed at the excess of the artworld, especially now, when so many people in the world face financial insecurity in the midst of COVID. The strength of the art market is a symptom—and powerful symbol—of the growing wealth inequality of our times. So until we address wealth inequality in a major way, I don’t think we will see much of a deflation in the art market soon.

There was a lot to cover this year, so I’ve broken up the summaries of the auctions’ offerings into different posts—you can read about Sotheby’s’ sales here, and Christie’s’ sales here. Remember, when I speak of pre-sale estimates it refers to hammer prices, whereas any final selling price I quote includes the buyer’s premium (the buyer’s fees to the auction house).

As always, peace, love and art.

Until 2022.

December 9, 2021

Fall Auction Round Up: Christie’s

Christie’s had one of its most successful weeks in its history–which given the current state of the country and world, is saying something. With just the three auctions discussed below–the 20th and 21st century sales, plus a single-owner auction of Impressionist masterpieces–Christie’s raised nearly $1 billion.

Jean-Michel Basquiat, *The Guilt of Gold Teeth* (1982), sold for $40 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

Christie’s’ first sale of the week was its 21st century sale (i.e. contemporary art). The biggest ticket item of the sale was a massive Jean-Michel Basquiat painting, The Guilt of Gold Teeth from 1982. Interestingly, there is no lot essay for this work, which is surprising given the pre-sale estimate of $40–60 million. Perhaps this work was a last-minute addition to the sale, which may explain why it ultimately did not meet the house’s expectations, selling with fees at the low estimate of $40 million. Peter Doig’s large Swamped, one of his classic images of a canoe on water, took in almost $40 million as well.

Peter Doig, *Swamped* (1990), sold for almost $40 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

The next big seller was from Beeple, the artist with the record-setting NFT collection EVERYDAYS: The First 5000 Days which earlier this year sold for $69 million. Here, Beeple has created HUMAN ONE, a kinetic sculpture with four video screens of rotating landscapes traversed by a lonely astronaut. As Beeple explains in his own Terms and Conditions issued with the art, the sculpture is the “Physical Element” that displays the digital “Artwork:”

“Although the NFT and Physical Element are sold to the purchaser, the Artwork is licensed and not sold to such purchaser. The Artwork is neither stored nor embedded in the NFT, but is accessible through the NFT. The Physical Element displays a copy of the Artwork.”

Beeple, *HUMAN ONE* (2021), sold for almost $29 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

Of course, given the hype of NFTs, and Beeple’s recent success (which instigated said hype of NFTs), HUMAN ONE achieved almost $29 million. While I think Human One is far better than 5000 Days, in my opinion, Beeple is a better opportunist than an artist. Here’s why:

You don’t need a f*cking NFT to create a digital work of art!! It is strictly a marketing ploy. NFTs are being marketed to sell you the idea that you can’t own or trade unique digital artwork unless it has been minted on the blockchain. But this is completely false.

There are hundreds of artists who create digital artwork. Sometimes, the artist designs a special mechanism or sculpture to display the digital creation. There are also artists who have used A.I. algorithms to create digital art that changes and evolves. All of these works can be created as secure, unique artworks (i.e. one copy) or limited edition works (often in small editions of 2, 3, 5, etc.). This can be all be done without NFTs. Let me repeat: the NFT is completely unnecessary.

You may glean from my tone that I am not a fan of NFTs. You can read my fuller assessment of NFTs here (one point I think I failed to make in my previous blog post on NFTs is that they have an astronomical energy footprint and are thus terrible for the environment. One more reason not to be suckered in to this ridiculous hyped-up scam).

I need some cheering up: let me talk about the art that I liked in the 21st century sale.

The first three lots in the sale were among my favorites: opener Darling by Xinyi Cheng from 2017 sold for $300,000, far outstripping its $30,000–40,000 estimate. And the second lot, Hilary Pecis’s 2019 canvas Upstairs Interior, sold for more than ten times its high estimate of $80,000, bringing $870,000. And while I don’t love all of Nicolas Party’s work, I do like the landscape he submitted to the auction, which roared past its $300,000–500,000 estimate to achieve $3.27 million, with fees. All together, Christie’s 21st century sale raked in $219 million.

Just as Sotheby’s’ season benefitted from the marquee sale of the Macklowe Collection, Christie’s’ fall season was enhanced by a collection of Impressionist masterworks from the Estate of the late Edwin Cox, a Texas oil magnate. The heart-stopping prizes of the night included an absolutely magnificent Vincent van Gogh landscape from 1889. Cabanes de bois parmi les oliviers et cyprés has the classic van Gogh palette, with its aquamarine sky and bushes, contrasting against the bright yellow fields and spindly cypress trees. The show-stopper sold for $71.35 million with fees (estimate was by request).

Vincent van Gogh, *Cabanes de bois parmi les oliviers et cyprés* (1889), sold for over $71 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

Two more van Goghs brought in stunning prices as well: a bright watercolor of peasants harvesting threshes by haystacks (Meules de blé) from 1888. Interestingly, this work was stolen by the Nazis from the famous French banking family the Rothschilds in Paris 1941. Christie’s noted that the sale of the work was pursuant to a settlement between the Cox Estate and the descendants of the Rothschilds, who claim rightful ownership. I think they’ll be satisfied with their settlement: this little work on paper sold for over $35.8 million.

The other van Gogh took everyone by a surprise: a portrait of a boy with a blue flower in his mouth, painted one month before the artist’s untimely death in July of 1890. The boy’s red hair is wild; his cheeks ruddy from his antics in the sun; his lips chapped; and he has a rather goofy expression. Given the admittedly less appealing palette and subject, Christie’s had put a more modest estimate of $5–7 million on the painting, but bidding far surpassed expectations, bringing this small portrait (16 x 12 in.) to more than $46.7 million.

Gustave Caillebotte, *Jeune homme àsa fenétre* (1876), sold for $53 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

And finally, a record was set for the evening for Gustave Caillebotte’s Jeune homme àsa fenétre, from 1876. This museum-quality work went, in fact, to a museum: the Getty in Los Angeles acquired it, shelling out $53 million, more than double the artist’s previous record of $22 million.

Andy Warhol, *Jean-Michel Basquiat* (1982), sold for over $40 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

All in, the Cox collection grossed over $332 million, serving as a highly satisfying appetizer to the evening’s main entrée: the new 20th century sale. The fresh catch (to continue the food analogy) of the night was Andy Warhol’s portrait of fellow art market superstar Jean-Michel Basquiat. Dated from 1982, the painting incorporates a brief experimental phase of Warhol’s, in which he coated paintings with a copper metallic pigment and urinated on them, creating an oxidized effect over time. The portrait sold for just over $40 million, making it the highest selling work of the night.

Lee Bontecou, *Untitled* (1960), sold for $9.2 million. Image courtesy of Christie’s.

Another notable sale of the evening was Lee Bontecou’s classic sculptural painting Untitled from 1960. With an estimate of $2–3 million, it sold for more than double the high estimate, bringing $9.2 million and breaking the artist’s previous record of $1.9 million (set over 10 years ago). Cy Twombly also has had a good auction season, with a few works offered at both Sotheby’s and Christie’s; in this sale, a large untitled painting from 1961 brought $32 million.

Some additional personal favorites from the sale: Light, a still life by Alice Neel. More reminiscent of Jane Freilicher than the portraiture for which Neel has become so well-known, this still life was recently featured in Neel’s retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The painting brought over $2.3 million against a $900,000–1,200,000 estimate. David Hockney’s bright study of a Woldgate Tree, May from 2006 sold over its $3–5 million estimate to bring $6.27 million. And Kazuo Shiraga’s dynamic abstraction Chiken-sei kendoskin (1961) sold for $3.33 million, against a $2.5–3.5 million pre-sale estimate.

In total, the 20th century took in $419.8 million, which, when taken together with the Cox collection sale that preceded it, Christie’s had a $752 million dollar evening—one of its most successful nights ever.

December 9, 2021December 9, 2021

Fall Auction Round Up: Sotheby’s

It was a very successful season for Sotheby’s. The big highlight of the week was the sale of divorced mega-collectors Harry and Linda Macklowe.

After nearly six decades of marriage (and art-collecting), the couple went through a bitter divorce. There were 65 artworks for which the divorcees could not agree on a value or settlement, so in 2018 a judge ordered them to sell these works and split the revenue.

Sotheby’s won the bid for the collection, on the promise that they would guarantee at least $600 million to the Macklowes. Well, they delivered: of the 35 lots offered in this single-owner sale, a whopping 20 sold over $10 million, with the final tally coming to a staggering $676 million dollars with fees.

Alberto Giacometti, *Le Nez*, 1947-49 (cast in 1965), sold for over $78 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

The biggest ticket items included Alberto Giacometti’s Le Nez (conceived in 1947-49, cast in 1965) which took home $78,396,000; No. 7, a warm Mark Rothko canvas (1951), which achieved $82,468,500; Warhol’s Nine Marilyns in silver from 1962, which took $47,373,000; and a Jackson Pollock which soared past its $25–35 million estimate to sell for $61,161,000 (Number 17, 1951).

Mark Rothko, No. 7, 1951 , sold for over $82 million (proportions distorted due to blog image block settings, apologies); Andy Warhol, 9 Marilyns, sold for over $47 million. Images courtesy of Sothebys.

My favorite of the sale: Franz Kline’s Crosstown (1955), which brought $12,0401,250 (surprisingly just inside its low estimate of $12–18 million).

Franz Kline, *Crosstown*, 1955, sold for just over $12 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Next, let’s touch on the “The Now” auction. Sotheby’s scheduled this 23-lot auction of ultra-contemporary art as a kind of opening act for its main contemporary evening sale, hoping to generate buzz and interest. It paid off: several artists records, and a 100% sell-through rate that generated $71.8 million, well over its collective presale estimate of $36.6–53.2 million. Perhaps the biggest surprise of the night was the opening lot: Lisa Brice’s No Bare Back, after Embah (2017), which exploded past its estimate of $200,000–300,000 to bring over $3.1 million, crushing the artist’s previous auction record of $34,500.

Lisa Brice, *No Bare Back, after Embah*, 2017, sold for $3.1 million, over ten times its high estimate. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Toyin Ojih Odutola, now ever-present in contemporary art auctions, also set a new record with Through Line, which took $2.2 million for the evening. This beats Odutola’s record of $832,700 that was set at Sotheby’s Hong Kong this past April.

Yoshitomo Nara, *Nice to See You Again* (1996), sold for over $15 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Undoubtedly the starlet of “The Now” auction was Yoshitomo Nara’s 1996 painting Nice to See You Again. This menacing little tyke had a presale estimate of $8–12 million, ultimately earning $15.4 with fees. Other favorites included Matthew Wong’s exquisite Night Crossing from 2018, which tore past its $1–1.5 million estimate to earn $4.86 million; Hernan Bas’s Night Flight or Midnight Migration, or My Merry Way (2008), which took $746,000 against an estimate of $150,000–200,000; and Mickalene Thomas’s Portrait of Maya #10, which sold for $528,200.

In a first, during the “The Now” sale, Sotheby’s allowed live bidding in cryptocurrency on two works by Banksy (Trolley Hunters and Love is in the Air). While the live bidding was conducted in Ether, the winning bidder can settle their tab in crypto or USD, so frankly I’m not sure what the point was. Alternating the currency during bidding seems arbitrary, and in this case a stunt to pump up interest in cryptocurrency. (Not to mention I think that bidding in crypto is incredibly messy, because crypto’s market is still so volatile and unstable. But perhaps that’s another blog entry…)

Sotheby’s fall season also got a nice boost from the collection of the late Douglas S. Cramer, a TV producer who died in June. Works from his collection will be sold throughout November and December, but the Contemporary auction in particular benefited from some standout works of his, including the biggest prize of the night: Roy Lichtenstein’s Two Paintings: Craig… (1983). The artist gifted the work to Cramer in 1992, and it was a gift that kept giving many times over, earning almost $20.4 million, surpassing its $12–18 million estimate.

Cecily Brown, *Spree* (1999), sold for $6.6 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Two Cecily Brown works from Cramer’s collection—Spree (1999) and Bend Sinister (2002)—each exceeded their pre-sale expectations, with the former earning almost $6.6 million (the second highest record for Brown), and the latter over $6.3 million (a third Cecily Brown, Untitled (Trapeze) unfortunately under-performed, bringing only $806,500 against a $1.5–2 million estimate).

My personal favorites from the contemporary auction include two wonderful collages by Romare Bearden which bookended the sale: The Street (1975) and The Cardplayers (1982), with the former setting a new record for the artist when it pushed past its $500,000–700,000 estimate to achieve just over $1.1 million. (Personally, I think it’s insane that a national treasure like Romare Bearden doesn’t have a market even close to the stratosphere of some of today’s popular yet completely mediocre and overrated contemporary art. But what can you do…)

I also loved Charles White’s large charcoal and crayon work Nobody Knows My Name #2 (1965), which exceeded its $400,000–600,000 estimate to bring $867,000; Piero Manzoni’s Achrome (1959), which scored $6.2 million against an estimate of $5.5–6.5 million; and Robert Indiana’s athletic 5 (1964), which broke through its $250,000–350,000 estimate to achieve $528,200.

The total revenue for Sotheby’s contemporary evening sale came to $119.2 million.

Frida Kahlo, *Diego y Yo*, 1949, sold for almost $35 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Finally, the modern sale. The real show-stopper was a double-portrait by Frida Kahlo, with Diego Rivera painted onto her mind’s eye in a self-portrait. Executed in 1949, the tears on her cheeks refer to Rivera’s infamous infidelity. The portrait sold for almost $34.9 million, not only shattering Kahlo’s previous auction record ($8 million) but also breaking the record for any artwork sold by a Latin American artist—a distinction previously held by none other than her husband, Diego Rivera. Sweet revenge for Frida!

Pierre Soulages, *Peinture 195 x 130 cm, 4 août 1961* (1961), sold for over $20 million. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s.

Another record was broken that fateful night: Pierre Soulages, one of my favorite artists, is perhaps best known for his monochromatic black paintings, but in this case it was a black-and-red 1961 canvas that set his new record at $20.1 million, crushing the painting’s $8–12 million estimate and Soulage’s previous record of $10.6 million (set in 2018).

One of the other big attractions of the night was Claude Monet’s Coin du basin aux nymphéas, a classic late work from the artist’s famous garden at Giverny. This 1918 canvas’s gorgeous abstract composition feels decidedly modern, and sold for $50.8 million (the pre-sale estimate was not published). A few more Monet’s were included in the sale that are more squarely 19th century Impressionist works, but seemed to make the cut for the modern evening sale.

Other favorites of mine from the sale include a stunning and tame Symbolist landscape by Edvard Munch ($5.32 million) and a classic German Expressionist work by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner (I’m a sucker for Kirchner), which sold for $2.9 million. In total, Sotheby’s modern auction took in $282.8 million, against a pre-sale estimate of $192.2–266.9 million (remember pre-sale estimates are hammer prices, the final total includes buyer’s premiums to the auction house).

March 16, 2019March 16, 2019

Spring Art Fair Highlights: Scope Art Fair

It’s the most wonderful time of the year! The spring art fairs are like Christmas for the art world—a belated and much-needed Christmas in March to pull us out of our winter blues. “Armory Week,” as it has come to be called, is a cultural smorgasbord of art fairs, parties, openings, panel talks, lectures, and performances that happen around the city. As you can imagine, there’s so much to pack in a few days that I do not have the time to write reviews in real-time (I can’t even get to all of the fairs and events I want to go to!), but I have, in a series of posts, covered some highlights and personal favorites that I saw at the venues I was able to cover. Check out my other posts for highlights from the ADAA Art Show, the Armory Show, and Spring/Break.

Scope Art Fair

I can be a nerd for art theory. The most common of these philosophical head-scratchers is the question of whether there is good art or bad art. Who are the arbiters of taste? That is, who decides what art is good, and what is bad? Isn’t beauty in the eyes of the beholder, one might ask?

Here are my short answers: yes, there’s good art and bad art. The people who decide what’s good and bad are the experts. What makes them experts? They spend a lot of time studying that thing. This goes for a variety of fields: I can’t tell the difference between a real 1961 250 GT California Ferrari and the fiberglass prop they used in the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, but I bet Jerry Seinfeld can. Ergo, those with limited exposure to art may not appreciate the difference between a splashy abstract giclée painting sold at Ikea, vs. a genuine mid-century abstract painting from an avant-gardist of the New York School.

But in the end, that is OK. Because art should be accessible—both intellectually and financially. A broad range from the decorative copyists up to the museum-quality masterpieces means there is always something for everyone. And art experts should do well to remember that, because we have a reputation for being—what’s the word?—ah yes, pretentious and elitist assholes. As an art advisor, I love educating clients, and getting them excited about good art (so yes, I think taste can be learned through exposure). But ultimately, if they’re unconvinced, I’d rather see a Thomas Kinkade on their wall than nothing at all.

That’s all to say that, in this expert’s opinion, much of the offerings at Scope Art Fair this year were schlock. A fair amount of work struck me as ornamental, without much to say. In our era of social media, there has been a rise in Instagram art—works that reproduce well on your 2 x 4-inch screen, but don’t have much substance behind them. But hey, if that’s what works for you, that’s OK. To borrow from the lexicon of addiction, Scope is like a “gateway” art fair; it’s a novice’s dosage of art to which you will eventually develop an immunity. And that’s when you’ll be ready to pack your bowl with a Spring/Break or an Armory show. And if we continue with the extended metaphor, as an art advisor, I want to get everyone high! So I’d rather the Scope audience get excited about this art than be bewildered by the more experimental fare at Spring/Break and write off the arts altogether.

That said, there were some diamonds in the rough (or buds in the oregano? Nope, I’m done with drug metaphors). Below is a tasting. Bon appétit!

Serwan Baran‘s solo presentation at XOL Gallery’s booth was the cream of the crop at Scope. Baran will be representing Iraq at the 2019 Venice Biennale.

Serwan Baran, Hounds of War, 2017, acrylic on canvas. XOL Gallery, Baltimore and Amman. Photo by Emily Casden. Serwan Baran, Fifth Column, 2019, acrylic on canvas. XOL Gallery, Baltimore and Amman. Photo by Emily Casden.

Fifth generation quilter Phyllis Stephens updates the African-American tradition of quilt-making with fresh but nostalgic urban subject matter.

Phyllis Stephens Back in the Days — Phyllis Stephens, Back in the Days, 2019, quilt with sustainable fabric, Richard Beavers Gallery, Brooklyn. Photo by Emily Casden.

Dutch artist Hans van Bentem revives glass and porcelain traditions from around the world, merging pop and antique imagery into imaginative new creations. The pieces are interchangeable, allowing for an ever-interactive and evolving sculpture.

Hans van Bentem sculptures — Hans van Bentem, Group of sculptures with interchangeable pieces, 2019, porcelain. NL=US Gallery, Rotterdam. Photo by Emily Casden.

Hans van Bentem Rocket 2019 — Hans van Bentem, Rocket, 2019, in the style of Chinese celadon porcelain NL=US Gallery, Rotterdam. Photo by Emily Casden.

Mike Stilkey‘s clever repurposing of unwanted books creates artworks that interact dynamically with our lived space. According to his gallerist, Stilkey has become a favorite commissioned artist for libraries.

Mike Stilkey Suds in Your Eyes — Mike Stilkey, Suds in Your Eyes, 2019, acrylic on repurposed books. bG Gallery, Santa Monica. Photo by Emily Casden.

Trevor Guthrie‘s beautiful charcoal drawings hint at eerie and unsettling narratives.

Trevor-Guthrie-Wald-Taxi.-Drawing-95x65cm.-a-space-gallery — Trevor Guthrie, Wald Taxi, 2017, charcoal on paper. a-space gallery, Basel. Photo courtesy of the artist/a-space gallery.

Trevor Guthrie Crash III — Trevor Guthrie, Crash III, 2017, charcoal on paper. a-space gallery, Basel. Photo by Emily Casden.

For me, the thing that saves Laurence de Valmy‘s Impressionist Instagram works from being gimmicky is the real art historical dialogue happening in the comments.

Laurence de Valmy instagram paintings — Laurence de Valmy, Marys Joins the Impressionists, and Edgar’s Resting Dancer, 2019, acrylics on canvas. Kahn Gallery, London. Photo by Emily Casden.

Very impressive photorealistic snapshots of New York life by Yigal Ozeri. Hard to believe it’s painted.

Yigal Ozeri New York Story — Yigal Ozeri, Untitled: A New York Story, 2019, oil on paper mounted on wood. Rutger Brandt Gallery, Amsterdam. Photo by Emily Casden.

Fair-goers had a great time trying on Sarah Sitkin‘s highly realistic body suits. It was remarkable how transformative it was to those who tried on a suit, but the pieces also remind us that our sense of self is not defined by our skin.

Sarah Sitkin Body Suits — Sarah Sitkin, Body Suits, 2018. Superchief Gallery, Los Angeles. Photo by Emily Casden.

According to Laura Jane Petelko‘s website, her series “Soft Stories” was inspired by retreats in the Canadian wilderness for the “furries” subculture. With artist and designer Sara Wood providing the costumes, Petelko’s images convey a longing for connection and intimacy in a bleak and indifferent landscape.

Laura Jane Petelko Soft Series — Laura Jane Petelko, The First Time You Were in My Dream, from the Soft Series, 2018. Contemporary Art Projects, USA, Miami. Photo by Emily Casden

March 15, 2019March 16, 2019

Spring Art Fair Highlights: Spring/Break

Spring/Break

For most people “spring break” might conjure images of drunk frat boys and sorority girls at Daytona Beach, but for the art world it is one of the fresher and more experimental art fairs you’ll experience during Armory week. The talent tends to be more emergent to mid-career, with all its positive and negative connotations: some works still have the undercooked whiff of a recent MFA degree, but many also show greater ingenuity than some of the commercial crap you’ll find at the grander fairs. The best part of Spring/Break, though, is that many artists are onsite to discuss the work, which is my absolute favorite thing to do. And to boot, the art of emerging artists tends to be very affordable! So many wins all around. (Note that unfortunately, I did not have time to get through the whole fair—especially when I stop to talk to each artist for a half an hour—so there is surely more great work that I don’t cover below.)

Meng Okubo installation shot — Lulu Meng and Naomi Okubo, Real Fairy Tale, installation shot at Spring/Break art show. Photo by Samuel Morgan Photography, courtesy of Lulu Meng.

The theme of this year’s fair was Fact and Fiction. In the case of Lulu Meng and Naomi Okubo, they explored the fantasies and falsities of fairytales in a joint installation of their respective work. In Meng’s work, dome-shaped cases have two-way mirrors, which, when a migrating interior light switches on, reveal an image inside each case. The images within allude to fairytale narratives, but the fragmented display disrupts the narrative, and draws attention to the imperfection of memory (the series of little display pods and wires itself mimics brain cells). Hanging from the ceiling, Okubo’s double-sided paintings feature the artist in classic fairytale stories, with mirrors on the reverse side bearing quotes. But these enchanted fables are not what they seem: the paintings have sinister overtones, and the quotes on the back are unsettling variants of fairytale excerpts (Mirror mirror on the wall, please tell me who I am…). As I discussed with Lulu, both artists feel—and I wholeheartedly agree—that fairytale narratives disenfranchise and delude girls, compromising our identities well into womanhood.

Emily Casden - Lulu Weng install — Me (Emily Casden), viewing one of Lulu Meng’s sculptures for her “Fairy Tale” installation at Spring/Break. Photo courtesy of Lulu Meng.

Naomi Okubo Fairy Tale — Naomi Okubo, from the series “Fairy Tale,” painting on canvas. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Naomi Okubo.

Naomi Okubo Fairy Tale Mirror Mirror — Naomi Okubo, from the Series “Fairy Tale,” etched mirror (on reverse of painting). Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Naomi Okubo.

Another delightful installation was the room curated by artists Jennifer McCoy, Kevin McCoy and Jennifer Dalton. The “TV Guide” theme of the room was somewhat tenuous for some works, but the living room arrangement was curated with choice art nonetheless. The crowd pleaser of the room was Dalton’s Hello, I’m (2015), a series of ten sticker dispensers, bestowing visitors with various custom-made phrases to match their mood, such as “wearing the wrong shoes,” “enjoying proximity to wealth,” and the one I chose—”in my element”! I enjoyed a lovely conversation with Jennifer McCoy about the glass sculptures she constructs with her husband Kevin, casting glass from broken shards of fancy stemware and crystal. The sculptures could be read as either the detritus of a wild, decadent party, or they can be interpreted more darkly, as artifacts of an as-yet-to-happen sociopolitical revolution. I can’t but help to see the latter.

Jennifer Dalton Hello I'm — Jennifer Dalton, Hello, I’m, 2015, custom-printed stickers and stickers dispensers. Detail image below. Photos by Emily Casden, courtesy of Jennifer Dalton.

McCoy - Adeline 2016 — Jennifer & Kevin McCoy, Adeline, from the Broker Glass Series, 2016, cast glass. Installation shot from a previous exhibition. Photo courtesy of Jennifer & Kevin McCoy.

I had an interesting conversation with artist Melissa Maddonni Haims about her knit-wrapped trophies. Melissa has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a disorder that she feels is not adequately discussed in our society. With her two-sided trophy sculptures, Haims celebrates our complex psychology, embracing the idea that anyone can hit highs and lows and come out the other side. The front side of the yellow trophy awards the owner as “super sunshiney”; when the top ornament is showing you her rear, the trophy is for “most miserable.” The sculptures are very affordable–and she takes commissions!

I spoke with artist Chris Cohen about his highly personal work, exploring the fact and fiction of family narratives, history and memory. Working from his own family albums, the artist remakes portraits and candid shots of relatives to mine his own fraught relationship to his highly religious family. Aptly titled “White Noise,” curator John Ros installed the work in an intimate living room setting.

Chris Cohen installation — Chris Cohen, White Noise, partial view of Spring/Break installation. Photo by Joanna Gmuender, courtesy of Chris Cohen.

The last piece I’ll address at length is an ambitious and beautiful project by Irish artist and animator David O’Reilly. When I looked up O’Reilly, I learned that he has an expansive studio practice that covers works in the entertainment industry, music industry, television and gaming (the most recognizable project to me was that O’Reilly created the animation sequences in Spike Jonze’s Her, with that little punky marshmallow puff). For Spring/Break, curator Yve Yang showed a trailer for O’Reilly’s Everything, a “video game” that isn’t really played so much as lived and experienced. In the ultimate effort to bestow and spread concepts of cosmic empathy, in Everything you can literally be anything: a speck of pollen, a lion, a plant, a universe. You can create universes within universes. In our era of tribal politics, ravaged Mother Nature, and all around dark times, the karmic message at the heart of this game/art is deeply moving. Suffice it to say it’s better to experience the trailer than have me explain it to you (click image below). In fact, you can buy it or download for your computer or Nintendo Switch for the low cost of $15! Worth every penny.

Everything_KeyArt — Click the image to be redirected to a 10 minute “trailer” for the “Everything” game by David O’Reilly.

Below are a few other works I enjoyed from the fair.

Yelena Yemchuk Lady in the Lake — Yelena Yemchuk, The Lady in the Lake. Room curated by Sara Vanderbeek. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Yelena Yemchuk.

Arghavan Khosravi She Had a Dream — Arghavan Khosravi, She Had a Dream, 2018, acrylic on found wood block printed fabric, acrylic on cotton canvas mounted on two separate wood panels. Room curated by Kristen Smoragiewicz. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Arghavan Khosravi.

Some of the more political art at the fair…

Margaret Roleke Weapons of Mass Destruction — Margaret Roleke, Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2019, light box with video (video not pictured). Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Margaret Roleke.

The translucency of this large painting by Anthony Goicolea makes for a luminous effect.

Anthony Goicolea Reverse Repoussoir — Anthony Goicolea, Reverse Repoussoir, 2018, oil paint on double-sided mylar film. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Anthony Goicolea.

I spoke with Chris Walla about this series of colorful bandanas, embroidered with models from gay magazines. Connecting to the quilting roots of the AIDS crisis, Walla crafted these in response to conservative political discourse during the Bush Jr. administration. Walla’s sculptures on view–phrases made from dangling ball-chains–are poignant and deliciously tactile. Check out my video of its beautiful movement.

March 14, 2019March 16, 2019

Spring Art Fair Highlights: the Armory Show

Armory Show

The Armory Show got off to a rocky start this year: one week prior to opening, the fair organizers discovered that Pier 92 was structurally unsound, causing a last-minute call to postpone the Volta satellite fair that would have been at Pier 90, and move one-third of the Armory exhibitors over to that space. Despite the snafu, the art was generally strong at the twenty-fifth presentation of the Armory Show. Once again, I didn’t get to see everything, and there are too many great works to address in one blog post, but I shall highlight a few personal favorites.

Gustavo Diaz — Gustavo Díaz, Variaciones sobre un bosque hipotético previo a la Gran Bifurcación – Modelo 002/ Era Prearbolítica,” 2019. Cut out paper. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Sicardi Ayers Bacino, Houston.

Gustavo Díaz Cut Out Sculpture — Gustavo Díaz, work displayed at 2018 Armory Show.

I was delighted to see again the work of Gustavo Díaz, the Argentine-born artist who constructs incredibly intricate and delicate worlds in cut-out paper. I became enamored with his work at the 2018 Armory show, in which his gallery Sicardi Ayers Bacino displayed some of his miniature sculptural cities. On view for the 2019 edition, SAB showed Díaz’s wall-hung works: webs of cut paper that magnificently toe the line of man-made construction and something topographical or organic, like an ancient, skeletal cross-section of an anthill. The scale and method of construction (hand-cut, I believe) is technically astounding.

Moving along through the show, I loved the monumental (and difficult to photograph in its entirety) 2018 lightbox installation by Rodney Graham, Vacuuming the Gallery, 1949, apparently inspired by a vintage photograph of art dealer Samuel Kootz smoking a pipe in his gallery. The artist upends the airs of the art world, as well as gender stereotypes, in the cheeky tableau. The classic mid-century vacuum also conjured the image of Richard Hamilton’s 1956 collage, Just What is it that Makes Today’s Homes so Different, so Appealing?

Rodney Graham Vacuuming — Rodney Graham, Vacuuming the Gallery, 1949, 2018, monumental lightbox installation. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of 303 Gallery, New York.

Like most visitors taking in the display of recycled plastic tapestries at Nicodim Gallery, my first thought was that El Anatsui was back in action (according to his own website, he hasn’t really had a group or solo show since 2016). But the gallerist informed us it was the work of newcomer Moffat Takadiwa, a young Zimbabwean artist. The themes of Takadiwa’s sculptures share many of the same concerns as Anatsui—reflections on consumerism, waste, colonialism and the environment—but are satisfying works in their own right, and surely more affordable than his well-established predecessor.

Moffat Takadiwa Sculpture — Moffat Takadiwa, Bottled Water, 2019, found blow molding pre-forms, plastic bottle caps, cuttings. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Nicodim Gallery, Los Angeles and Bucharest.

Florine Démosthène installation shot — Florine Démosthène, installation view of her works on paper at Mariane Ibrahim Gallery at the Armory Show. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Mariane Ibrahim Gallery, Seattle.

I think I have a crush on Mariane Ibrahim. The young gallerist, who has been based in Seattle but will be relocating to Chicago in 2019, has been killing it at the art fairs, promoting the work of some excellent talent from Africa and the African Diaspora. Her monographic display of glittering works on paper by Florine Démosthène sold out on the first day at $7,000 a pop—a total steal in my opinion.

One of my favorite sculptures of the fair was Alan Rath’s Yet Again (2017) at Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery, a dynamic pair of swinging arms resembling something sentient, like birds or snakes, engaged in a mating ritual. The artist wrote a code for the kinetic sculpture in which the movements of each arm is random, making each movement and interaction between the two unique. Photographs do not do it justice—click on my short video clip below for a taste of this dancing, flirtatious piece.

Below are just a few more works that I enjoyed—some by established artists, some by emerging artists. I wish there was time and space enough to discuss them all—if you’d like to discuss anything, feel free to leave a comment or email me with questions!

Love the vibrant palette of this Lee Mullican painting. It feels so much fresh and contemporary, but was painted over fifty years ago!

Lee Mullican Untitled 1965 — Lee Mullican (1919-1998), Untitled, 1965, Oil on canvas. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of James Cohan Gallery, New York.

The artist Michael Sailstorfer cultivated a beehive inside the concrete base in the picture below; he then used the hive to create a mold to cast these delicate bronzes. He went through several attempts, and only saved a few as satisfactory for sale.

Sailstorfer bronze — Michael Sailstorfer, Kopf und Körper Marzahn 02, 2017, bronze and concrete. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Proyectos Monclova, Mexico City.

Brothers Jake & Dinos Chapman’s sardonic revision of Goya’s Disasters of War etchings, entitled The Disasters of Yoga, (an anagram of Goya), is wonderful. The violence that is obscured and denied by the glitter is, instead, present in the brothers’ bronze sculptures of suicide vests nearby (not pictured). Apologies I couldn’t get a clear shot of the whole installation together, but see some details from the Yoga series below.

Chapman Disasters of Yoga — Jake and Dinos Chapman, The Disasters of Yoga, 2017, set of 80 reworked Goya etchings from The Disaster of War series, with glitter. Below: two details. Photos by Emily Casden, courtesy of Blaine Southern Gallery, London.

Below, a few offerings from the excellent Yossi Milo gallery:

Pieter Hugo Hyena and Other Men — Pieter Hugo, From the series The Hyena and Other Men, Digital C-Print, from an edition of 9. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Yossi Milo Gallery.

Nathalie Boutte FH Hawpine — Nathalie Boutté, F.H. Hawpine, 2019, Collage of Japanese paper, ink. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Yossi Milo Gallery, New York.

Boutte Hawpine detail — Nathalie Boutté, F.H. Hawpine, 2019, detail. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Yossi Milo Gallery, New York.

Nick Cave, dazzling as always, at Jack Shainman Gallery.

Nick Cave Hustle Coat — Nick Cave, Hustle Coat, 2018, mixed media including a trench coat, cast bronze hand, metal, costume jewelry, watches, chains, and vinyl. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Jack Shainman Gallery, New York.

Mel Bochner. Still got it.

Mel Bochner Out of Your Fucking Mind — Mel Bochner, Are You Out of Your Fucking Mind?, 2018, etched and silvered glass. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Two Palms, New York.

Hard to photograph, but beautiful assemblage by Lyle Ashton Harris at David Castillo Gallery.

Ashton Harris Black Hummingbird 1 — Lyle Ashton Harris, Untitled (Black Hummingbird #1), 2019, unique assemblage (Ghanaian cloth, dye sublimation prints, ephemera). Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of David Castillo Gallery, Miami Beach.

And lastly, love supporting the “young” galleries and their emerging to mid-career artists, such as Massinissa Selmani at Selma Feriani Gallery (Sidi Bou Said, Tunisia). Selmani takes images from the media and recreates them in new, drawn arrangements. The vast negative space of the drawings opens up the narrative to questioning and interpretation.

Massinissa Selmani No Plan is Foolproof — Massinissa Selmani, Untitled No.11, from the No Plan is Foolproof series, graphite and color pencil on paper. Photo by Emily Casden, courtesy of Selma Feriani Gallery, Sidi Bou Said, Tunisia.

February 21, 2019February 20, 2019

Censorship in Cuba: Decree 349 and the Future of the Havana Biennial

In May of 2015 I had the great privilege of visiting Cuba for the Havana Biennial, about a month before President Barack Obama announced a restitution of diplomacy with Cuba. Just a few months prior, in April 2015, Obama and Raúl Castro had made history when the U.S. and Cuban leaders met for the first time in fifty years; just a few weeks later, I was eager to see what Cubans made of this historic moment.

Lidzie Alvisa, *Revolucion* at the 2015 Havana Biennial. Image courtesy of in-cubadora.org

We were greeted at José Martí International Airport by our government-assigned tour guide, Mirelys. On the bus to our hotel she expressed joy at the thawing relations, and noted that Cubans were eager to embrace Americans. But while our bus idled at a stoplight, I looked out the window to a billboard with a morbid picture of a noose, and text that read in Spanish, “the American embargo is the noose around Cuba’s neck.” I pointed at the sign and asked Mirelys if indeed Cuba was warming up to the U.S.; she provided a nonsensical and almost certainly government-fed response that Cuban-American businessmen in Miami had paid for that billboard. Such Cold War emblems were at odds with the generally warm reception we received as tourists; I could tell this place would be rich with fascinating contradictions.

Arlés del Río’s installation at the 2015 Havana Biennial. Image courtesy of the *New York Times*

Such paradoxes were only magnified on the grounds of the Havana Biennial. I was impressed and surprised by the volume of politically loaded art in a state-authorized art fair. Artist Lidzie Alvisa, a Havana native, departed from her photographic explorations of the body to install a green chalkboard with the word “Revolucion,” erased and rewritten several times. Cuban artist Arlés del Río hung colorful, elongated snorkel tubes from the ceiling, like plastic stalactites; the snorkels a symbol of leisure, but also tools for swimming underwater, undetected by those policing the shores. Another artist (whose name, sadly, I did not record and cannot locate in Google searches) presented a simple photograph of the ocean, with a black light dangling nearby. When a viewer raised the black light to the image, the ghostly letters of at least a hundred names appeared—the names of those who had died trying to flee the island in times of crisis. Perhaps the biggest illogicality of all was learning that the artist Kcho, whose frequent use of boats conjures both Cuba’s fishing economy and the desperate exodus of its citizens, was one of Fidel Castro’s favorite artists. (As a symbol of the island’s physical and socio-political isolation, the ocean is an important and consistent theme for Cuban artists.)

Kcho at 2012 Biennial.png — Kcho (Alexis Leyva Machado), *The Conversation*, installation at the 2012 Havana Biennial. Image courtesy of the *New York Times*

But not all dissident art was tolerated. Performance artist Tania Bruguera has frequently been harassed and arrested in the past twenty years, and her “artivism” was under careful watch of the Cuban government. For the first half of 2015, Bruguera had been forbidden to leave Cuba for “disturbing the public order,” and so naturally, she opened the biennial with a public reading of Hannah Arendt’s 1951 The Origins of Totalitarianism, which landed her another arrest. (Unsurprisingly, the itinerary of my government-approved guided tour kept us away from Bruguera’s performances.)

Despite such unsettling instances of censorship, and despite the fact that Mirelys’s rosy assessment of Cuban life didn’t always line up with what we observed around us, I would say that in 2015 there was hope among young Cubans that real change was coming to Cuban society. For artists, an influx of curious (and well-heeled) American collectors was a good thing. In fact, Cuban artists were already benefiting from the global art market: they were exhibiting abroad at international galleries and art fairs; they were permitted to travel more freely than the average citizen; and they were making real money beyond the modest income afforded to them in the closed and tightly regulated economy of their native country. Arlés del Río, for instance, has gallery representation in Florida, and exhibited an installation in Times Square in 2014, among other international shows. But recent developments seem to have halted this progress for the creative community in Cuba.

Arles del Rio - Times Square — Arlés del Río with his Times Square installation *Fly Away* in 2014. Image courtesy of *Times Square Arts*

First, there was the issue of the cancellation of the 2018 Havana Biennial (since 1994 the event has in fact been triennial). News outlets reported that the biennial was postponed due to severe damage caused by Hurricane Irma in September 2017, which did indeed have a serious impact on the country’s already fragile infrastructure. But as some astutely noted, the 2018 Biennial was also scheduled to follow on the heels of Cuba’s biggest political event in nearly half a century: a transfer of power to a non-Castro family member, Miguel Diaz-Canel, who was handpicked by eighty-five-year-old Raúl Castro to take over as president. In such a delicate time of political transition, the last thing the government needed was a Tania Bruguera performance to disrupt the state’s broadcasted socio-political “unity.”

In light of the cancellation of the 2018 Biennial, a group of artists decided to put together an independent art festival—the “Alternative 00 Havana Biennial,” the first artistic event organized without the involvement of the state, which ran in May of 2018. The various artistic events took place in artists’ homes, studios, and other found spaces. Hyperallergic reported that the Alternative Biennial was approved by the Cuban government, but several artists reported harassment and, later, fines and other penalties for participating. The Havana Times published the following dismissive response from state-led artistic organizations:

“Very few people have joined this abomination of a Biennial, without any important works mostly, who, maliciously or confused, are after the fame that this mercenary platform and overexposure on social media can give them. They have announced that it will be held at non-important venues and is only a failed attempt to attack the government’s cultural policy, where quite a few of them are skirting with the law. They want to mislead artists so that they use their studios, which have institutional support, so as to provoke the government.”

Walfrido Valera - 00 Biennial — Exhibition in the studio of Walfrido Valera during the 2018 Alternative 00 Biennial in Havana. Image courtesy of Hyperallergic

Now, at the close of 2018, the Cuban government put into effect a more direct and antagonistic assault on artistic freedom of expression: Decree 349, a law that regulates the subject matter and display of art in Cuba. The law requires that artists must obtain government approval before performing or displaying their art, and certain taboo subjects—such as sexually explicit language or addressing racial discrimination—are forbidden. Government authorities are empowered to cancel shows and confiscate property, and revoke artists’ license if they deem it necessary.

The law has elicited an outpouring of rage and remonstration: 250 artists signed a letter in protest, and met with cultural officials to address the danger of such censorship. Tania Bruguera has reported that she is under constant surveillance by the state, and other artists have organized demonstrations against the new draconian measures. But few have any faith that their concerns will be addressed in a meaningful way. One exiled Cuban artist told the Wall Street Journal that the decree was in direct response to the new freedom and wealth that artists were enjoying: “The purpose of the decree is to regulate a new world: private businesses, art galleries, people working from their homes. The alarm went off because it is a sector that is not under state control.”

What will the 2019 Havana Biennial look like under Decree 349? Will it apply to just Cuban artists, or international artists as well? If the latter, surely most international artists will not tolerate such cultural regulation, and will pull out of the biennial altogether. This new crackdown on the arts is, in a word, awful. The world must do its part to pressure the Cuban government to lift this restrictive law.

To learn more about the decree, as well as a brief history of censorship in Cuba, read this New York Times piece.

Artist and activist Tania Bruguera, performing *Self-Sabotage* in 2009. Image courtesy of *W Magazine*

February 12, 2019

Siu Wong Camac & The Prince Street Gallery (in Chelsea)

“You can’t have a golden age without gold,” someone quips in the recent HBO documentary on the billion-dollar art industry, The Price of Everything. To this, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott comments, “by that standard we are currently in the epoch of platinum.”

Between the headline-grabbing sales of hundred-million Basquiats and Hockneys and da Vincis; the closure of small and midsize galleries, competing in the shadow of powerhouse galleries; and a collecting class that just seems to keep accumulating more wealth, the reputation of the art world has become one of bloat and excess. In this current atmosphere, one would be forgiven for assuming that one needs to be a millionaire to afford to buy art. But as I often remind people, there is good art in this town at far more affordable prices. And while we can always celebrate the success of artists who deserve critical and popular acclaim, it is also an important to support emerging artists, so the art market can stay strong from the ground up.

Camac - So I Changed My Name

That is why I am taking a moment today to introduce you to the Prince Street Gallery and its current solo show, Lost and Found, works by Siu Wong Camac. The Prince Street Gallery began in 1970 as an artists’ collective called the Alliance of Figurative Artists; over the years they expanded their mission to include abstract as well as figurative art, and in 2001 the collective moved to their Chelsea location at 530 West 25^th Street (but maintained their downtown roots by keeping the Prince Street name). In addition to shows of their represented artists, the gallery hosts juried exhibitions with some past notable jurors, including artists Philip Pearlstein, Yvonne Jacquette, and Susanna Coffey.

Camac - Who Needs Ken

Siu Wong Camac, a member of the collective, currently has a solo show of her recent work on view at the Chelsea space through February 23. I happened upon the show while checking out some other gallery openings in the same building, and I was immediately drawn to the work for its vibrant palette, deft brushwork, and palpable and evocative moods. Finding inspiration from printed matter, found photos, films and stories, Wong Camac explores concepts of nostalgia and memory, capturing “recollections lost, then found:” the tone of the paintings range from warm innocence, to dreamy whimsy, to occasional unease and apprehension. Wong Camac’s facile ability to capture a spectrum of narration, sensation and emotion is a testament to her empathetic skills as an artist.

And now for the icing on the cake: all the works in the show range in value from $800–$3,400. Well worth the value, in my opinion! Support emerging artists and check out Lost & Found, on view at Prince Street Gallery now through February 23 (530 West 25^th Street, 4^th floor).

Works by Siu Wong Camac: So I Changed My Name, oil on wood, 2018; Who Needs Ken, oil on canvas, 2018; The Skaters, mixed media on wood panel, 2018; The Fields, mixed media on canvas, 2015; Three’s a Crowd, oil on canvas, 2018

Camac - Skaters Camac - The Fields Camac - Three's a Crowd