Has anyone ever done a study of the art collections, or even 
enthusiasms, of US politicians? Except for the Rockefellers the 
results would probably be pretty distressing.

This extends to much of the American ruling class. A friend of mine 
was for a long time a curator of the Prudential Insurance art 
collection, one of the largest modern and contemporary art 
collections anywhere. Like a lot of corporations it buys art to 
decorate offices and buildings, which is why one sees Alex Katz or 
Frank Stella paintings in the entranceways of corporate headquarters 
and Jasper Johns prints in the hallways. The offices are another 
matter. Corporate art collections are supposed to create prestige, 
and it's the curatoor's job to decide who gets what on the walls. 
Problem is, the higher up the corporate ladder the greater the 
resistance tends to be. All the big shots at Prudential wanted 
pictures of dogs or fish or those Remingtons.

I've been selling etchings, lithos and woodcuts for about 15 years. 
Here's some of what I've noticed.

The market for art since 1950ish is almost completely separate from 
the market for art from say 1450 to 1950. You can pick up a 
reasonably good Durer or Rembrandt or Goya or even Picasso print for 
less than a lot of lithos hot off the stone. A Warhol Marilyn will in 
general set you back more than a Durer The Knight, the Devil and 
Death, and a lot more than any Picasso etching.

Nudes are often more difficult to sell than still-lifes, because if 
the customer is a heterosexual couple the woman may not want the 
competition or may find the presence of female nakedness on the walls 
(most nudes are female) disturbing.

Appropriateness sells--a buyer who owns a ranch will decorate it with 
western scenes, etc.

A Thomas Hart Benton is money in the bank, especially if there's a 
horse or a train in it. In general, a landscape does better if  there 
are cows in it.

One-liners outsell complexity.

Old money in general has no taste--the taste they appear to have is 
usually convention.

New money in general has no taste--the taste they appear to have is 
usually trendiness.

New money often buys one-liners or art that's difficult to live with 
if it intrigues guests who don't have to live with it.

Neither old nor new money has much education in art.

The rare customer with an intelligent passion gets special treatment.

Mark






At 08:52 AM 2/6/2008, you wrote:
>US senators don't have anything to do with the state laws governing such
>things, even in their home states, I think. Insofar as McCain has any
>aesthetic sensibilities, I suspect they run to the sentimental and
>patriotic. It would be interesting in this regard to know what sort of art,
>if any, hangs on the walls of his senate office. From the few opportunities
>I've had to observe (interview backgrounds, etc.) most senators from the
>west seem to have Frederick Remington paintings and sculptures of cowboys.
>Perhaps McCain has a picture of the A-4 Skyhawk from which he dropped bombs
>on civilians in Vietnam.
>
>jd
>
>On Feb 6, 2008 6:41 AM, Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > In that regard, remember the reaction Stockhausen received with his
> > interpretation of 9/11 as a large-scale work of site-specific performance
> > art.
> >
> > Perhaps someone who lives(d) in Arizona can enlighten us re John McCain's
> > stance towards art.  I heard James Turrell talk about his work, and I
> > didn't get the impression that his large-scale, site-specific sculptural
> > installation Roden Crater, located outside Flagstaff Arizona, was being
> > blocked by the state of Arizona.  Maybe delayed by compliance to assorted
> > codes on occasion, but Turrell in fact was proud of his compliance with
> > the
> > national regulations mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
> >
> > Barry Alpert
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:45:34 -0500, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > >John McCain himself, in fact, once attempted to become an artist of
> > >large-scale landscape pieces: he attempted to turn downtown Hanoi into
> > >rubble with high explosives. For some reason the Vietnamese took
> > exception
> > >to the project and shot him down.
> > >
> > >jd
> >
> > >
> > >On Feb 5, 2008 4:17 PM, Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Stephen,
> > >>
> > >> Your post reminds me to try to arrange to visit Smithson's Spiral Jetty
> > >> (if
> > >> it's not buried in oil), Walter de Maria's Lighting Field, Donald
> > Judd's
> > >> Marfa, Larry McMurtry's Booked Up, & James Turrell's Roden Crater on my
> > >> next leisurely drive across the southwest USA.
> > >>
> > >> Why not write to John McCain about the problem?  Who else would have
> > more
> > >> sway in the southwest at this moment?  I'm unable to sort out the inner
> > >> workings of government in Utah (and wouldn't want to, at this remove),
> > but
> > >> I wouldn't be surprised if McCain was aware of the Spiral Jetty.  I
> > have
> > >> no
> > >> idea of his aesthetics, however.  He'd have to be more sophisticated
> > than
> > >> W(orst).
> > >>
> > >> I wonder why I haven't ever physically positioned myself next to the
> > site-
> > >> specific public sculptures by Nancy Holt and Miriam Schapiro in nearby
> > >> Arlington Virginia.  Slides and photos have passed before my eyes, but
> > it
> > >> must be that I can't visualize their respective street addresses.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Barry
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Joseph Duemer
>Professor of Humanities
>Clarkson University
>[sharpsand.net]