Secession From What?

 A couple of weeks ago I found myself in Belvedere Palace in Vienna, Austria looking at Judith, one of Gustav Klimt's famous paintings from his "gold period." It is a striking image, although like many works of art from a couple of centuries ago, you wanted to give it a good spritz of 409 and wipe away the dingy fog. Alas, we are the visual victims of hi-rez images and 60" flat screens.

Judith

You hear a lot about Gustav Klimt in Vienna, a local bachelor made good, leaving behind a raft of world class images and, less emphasized, a dozen or so illegitimate children. But from an art history perspective Klimt is also of note as the first president of a group of artists known as the Vienna Secession.

These artists, like those of the Berlin Secession and the Munich Secession, broke away from the traditional artistic elites of their cities to pave the way for the growing wave of expressionists, impressionists and other modernists of various stripes. The common motivating factor in these secessions was the continuing rejection of their more modern works by the established elites who controlled the standard-setting galleries and exhibitions.

It got me to thinking, "whither the secessionists of today?" Or something like that. And that was when it struck me: To be a secessionist you needed to have a dominant elite from which to secede. We have no such dominant artistic elite, an established group that determines what styles, subjects, underlying cultural norms are appropriate for fine, or high art.

Hitler's reich made a concerted effort to establish strict artistic norms by "shaming modern art" with the "Degenerate Art" exhibit in 1937 which displayed, and denigrated, the works of modernest artists. The Nazis also mounted a parallel exhibit of praiseworthy works in keeping with Hitler's perceptions of "wholesome, aryan, classical art. The fact that far more people attended the degenerate exhibition than the purist presentation might well be seen that, even in that repressive regime, people were curious about "forbidden artistic fruit."

Certain authoritarian regimes still attempt to exert such control over the arts within their borders, but the Internet has pretty well blown the doors off any attempts to corral art into nice, manageable units - good, bad, acceptable, questionable, "our art," "their art." Categories from the past. And at first blush that seems excellent and liberating. But not exclusively.

The Internet, like nature, abhors a vacuum. So it seems inevitable that in the absence of the elites of old, the Internet would enable some sort of contemporary parallel that attempts to differentiate between the "good stuff" and the "bad stuff." Ta da! Enter the "influencers," folks with no greater claim to legitimacy other than popularity, who seek to "influence" our perception of what is good, desirable, and valuable.

And it is that last category that gives me the greatest pause. Valuable. We need to remember that part of the secessionists' objections to the power of the elites was the control they exerted over access to the best galleries, clients, commissions. The secessionists were professional artists who needed access to monied audiences in order to make a living. The world of entities who could afford professional art in the age of the secessionists - the mid- to late-1800s was quite small - perhaps single digit percentages of the population.

The market for professional artists on the Internet is huge. Literally millions, if not billions of people who might be persuaded to purchase art in a staggering variety of forms - physical, digital, non-fungible, immersive. The central conundrum for the artists - and the potential client - remains the same: access and value.

The issue of access for contemporary artists is the opposite of that of the original secessionists. They have, theoretically, access to countless clients. The reality is that most of those potential customers have to be guided to the artists' offerings. Try it for yourself. Do a search on a variety of terms: art for sale, artists sites, painting for sale, music. Whatever. Or if you have a kind of art in mind, search that. Mind-boggling! Even worse for the artist trying to get their creations in front of the eyes of those who might wish to purchase the work, or the experience.

And then there is the issue of value. There is an established truism in the art world: a painting is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Van Gogh is a classic example. He sold one painting during his life - The Red Vineyard, sold in 1890 for less than 20 bucks. Were an original Van Gogh somehow make its way to auction today it would take many millions to secure it.

So how does the contemporary artist make a living in the new reality of the age of the Internet? I truly do not know. It is seemingly an exercise in which digital sophistication and marketing skills greatly outweigh the stunningly broad wealth of excellent work available in physical and digital galleries. Hence the forest of entities offering their - influence? guidance? assistance? to clients.

I, fortunately, have never had to count on selling my art as my occupation. Creating images has always been a source of relaxation and comfort to me. A hobby, an avocation if you will. I have sold pictures - and for more than $20.00 - but not for many years. 

Still I am willing to set a value on Masque, one of my favorites and offer her for sale. 

I will set the opening value at $1,000,000.00.

The bidding is now open.

Do I hear a million two? $1,500,000.00? You in the back? Anyone on the phones? Tokyo? Dubai?