论文部分内容阅读
What does art market mean to art?Noah Horowitz displayed a classical irony of the art market,explained art simply as“a commodity”.Meanwhile,an aca-demic essay characterized the art business rather differently as“a trade in things that have no price.”In both statements,money matters,in other words,value matters.
According to Joseph Koerner and Lisbet Rausing,when talking about value today,it is irrelevant to the aesthetic perception of an object itself but evaluating subject and questioning the authority.As Kant may suggest,art is not a quality of the object itself,but a valuation by the subject.This judgment is commonly reached against what is proposed as the delusion which would hold that aesthetic value is an inherent property of objects and a kind of ineffable thing.
However,the history of aesthetics reveals how rarely such an opinion was ever current.Value seems to be“a judgment made freely by the individual in his or her irreducible subjectivity”,and good taste appears therefore to be a natural inclination,but in fact,these are ways of maintaining social distinctions“by masking the real privileges that enable judgments in the first place.”The central modern problem for the study of value in art has been neither the invention and maintenance of universal norms nor the relative critique of these norms,but rather the investigation of how expectation of the fundamental subjectivity of taste.However,that seems to be irrelevant to the major concerns of what is happening in emerging Asian markets.
More than one annual report on contemporary art market announced that Asian art market took up nearly half of the global market in2010-2011,in which China played an important role.With its rapidly growth,Chinese art market has become the new focus of global art market.How exactly,the self-centered west-ern art market started to pay attention to eastern market?During World War II,New York became a dreaming destination for European artists and intellectuals.For more than half a century,with the New York marketplace as its locomotive,the United States has imposed its leadership on the rest of the global market.Nevertheless,while Asian market’s rocket ahead,the New York market remains the world’s mosthigh-endvenueforContemporaryart.Buttheemergingnew centers,Beijing and Hong Kong,are alluring for investors.
Beijing is the world’s second global market for Contemporary art.The mar-ket,particularly its top end,is focused on Asian artists whose demand levels and prices have exploded over the last decade.Leading auctioneers has wider ambi-tions and are planning to open offices in New York to develop their portfolios of American clients.For Hong Kong,with numerous commercial advantages,it hasemerged as a major new centre of the global art market and its growth looks set to continue.The city’s free port status,tax exemption on the import and export of artworks,respect of bank confidentiality and more liberal regulations than Beijing are all tempting arguments for the commerce of art via Asia. As part of the Asian art market,why China has grown more dramatically and allowed more cash flow than any other Asian countries?The dominant factor is probably the attraction of high revenue.But,Chinese art market is booming under a more complicated circumstances which rarely happened in the United States or European countries.Government control still takes key role in economic activi-ties,which means capital monopoly and oligopoly market in most high-return in-vestments.Non-government fund has limited way to go.Based on the commodity nature of art objects,it seems to be a descent choice to investment in art market.Meanwhile,few scholars in this field had paused to consider the actual business models of these investment practices or to investigate their impact on the ecology of the art market,which is natural but fatal.At the same time,art investment funds only reflect partly truth of the art market.These investments typically base their business models on a specific and limited product,while practically ignoring the rest of art production.Therefore,what happened in Chinese art market,is not only the echo to the call of revenue,but also the result of limited exits of increas-ing capital.
Bibliography
[1] Horowitz,Noah.Art of the Deal:Contemporary Art in a Global Financial Market.Princeton:Princeton University Press,2011.
[2] Nelson,Robert S.and Shiff,Richard,eds.Critical Terms of Art History,2nd edition.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,2003.
[3] Ott,John.“How New York Stole the Luxury Art Market:Blockbuster Auctions and Bourgeois Identity in Gilded Age America.”Winterthur Portfolio42,No.2/3(Summer/Autumn2008):133-158.
[4] Preziosi,Donald,ed.The Art of Art History:A Critical Anthology,2nd edition.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009.
[5] Joseph Koerner and Lisbet Rausing,“Value,”in Critical Terms of Art History,2nd edition,Robert S.Nelson and Richard Shiff,eds.(Chicago:The U-niversity of Chicago Press,2003),421.
作者簡介：
潘彦霖（1987--）女，汉，重庆人，重庆铁路投资集团有限公司，硕士研究生，历史学艺术史方向。
According to Joseph Koerner and Lisbet Rausing,when talking about value today,it is irrelevant to the aesthetic perception of an object itself but evaluating subject and questioning the authority.As Kant may suggest,art is not a quality of the object itself,but a valuation by the subject.This judgment is commonly reached against what is proposed as the delusion which would hold that aesthetic value is an inherent property of objects and a kind of ineffable thing.
However,the history of aesthetics reveals how rarely such an opinion was ever current.Value seems to be“a judgment made freely by the individual in his or her irreducible subjectivity”,and good taste appears therefore to be a natural inclination,but in fact,these are ways of maintaining social distinctions“by masking the real privileges that enable judgments in the first place.”The central modern problem for the study of value in art has been neither the invention and maintenance of universal norms nor the relative critique of these norms,but rather the investigation of how expectation of the fundamental subjectivity of taste.However,that seems to be irrelevant to the major concerns of what is happening in emerging Asian markets.
More than one annual report on contemporary art market announced that Asian art market took up nearly half of the global market in2010-2011,in which China played an important role.With its rapidly growth,Chinese art market has become the new focus of global art market.How exactly,the self-centered west-ern art market started to pay attention to eastern market?During World War II,New York became a dreaming destination for European artists and intellectuals.For more than half a century,with the New York marketplace as its locomotive,the United States has imposed its leadership on the rest of the global market.Nevertheless,while Asian market’s rocket ahead,the New York market remains the world’s mosthigh-endvenueforContemporaryart.Buttheemergingnew centers,Beijing and Hong Kong,are alluring for investors.
Beijing is the world’s second global market for Contemporary art.The mar-ket,particularly its top end,is focused on Asian artists whose demand levels and prices have exploded over the last decade.Leading auctioneers has wider ambi-tions and are planning to open offices in New York to develop their portfolios of American clients.For Hong Kong,with numerous commercial advantages,it hasemerged as a major new centre of the global art market and its growth looks set to continue.The city’s free port status,tax exemption on the import and export of artworks,respect of bank confidentiality and more liberal regulations than Beijing are all tempting arguments for the commerce of art via Asia. As part of the Asian art market,why China has grown more dramatically and allowed more cash flow than any other Asian countries?The dominant factor is probably the attraction of high revenue.But,Chinese art market is booming under a more complicated circumstances which rarely happened in the United States or European countries.Government control still takes key role in economic activi-ties,which means capital monopoly and oligopoly market in most high-return in-vestments.Non-government fund has limited way to go.Based on the commodity nature of art objects,it seems to be a descent choice to investment in art market.Meanwhile,few scholars in this field had paused to consider the actual business models of these investment practices or to investigate their impact on the ecology of the art market,which is natural but fatal.At the same time,art investment funds only reflect partly truth of the art market.These investments typically base their business models on a specific and limited product,while practically ignoring the rest of art production.Therefore,what happened in Chinese art market,is not only the echo to the call of revenue,but also the result of limited exits of increas-ing capital.
Bibliography
[1] Horowitz,Noah.Art of the Deal:Contemporary Art in a Global Financial Market.Princeton:Princeton University Press,2011.
[2] Nelson,Robert S.and Shiff,Richard,eds.Critical Terms of Art History,2nd edition.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,2003.
[3] Ott,John.“How New York Stole the Luxury Art Market:Blockbuster Auctions and Bourgeois Identity in Gilded Age America.”Winterthur Portfolio42,No.2/3(Summer/Autumn2008):133-158.
[4] Preziosi,Donald,ed.The Art of Art History:A Critical Anthology,2nd edition.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009.
[5] Joseph Koerner and Lisbet Rausing,“Value,”in Critical Terms of Art History,2nd edition,Robert S.Nelson and Richard Shiff,eds.(Chicago:The U-niversity of Chicago Press,2003),421.
作者簡介：
潘彦霖（1987--）女，汉，重庆人，重庆铁路投资集团有限公司，硕士研究生，历史学艺术史方向。