by Heather A. Fraser.
Introduction.
Defining 'legitimate' art.
The Drabinsky and Friedland Galleries.
The public art institution at odds with
the commercial gallery.
Threatening art market events.
Conclusion.
Introduction.
"We sell legitimate aesthetic choices," explained Marilyn Burnett
co-director of the Drabinsky and Friedland Galleries, located in posh Yorkville,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
'Legitimate' is a powerful word. And when one considers its economic implications,
the word is even more compelling. But what does it mean? What are the economic
benefits and challenges in selling what has been sanctioned legitimate in
Canada? This question will be answered employing Marilyn Burnett's gallery
as a case study. An answer to the question "what is legitimate art?"
is complicated at best.
Defining 'legitimate' art.
The larger Canadian art market is a complex weave of artists, curators,
dealers, auction houses, collectors, government, critics, historians, media
people and many others. The most knowledgeable participants in this market
are educated and committed to art. Their committment generally has earned
them strong positions in the market. These people have the power to decide
what is legitimate art. These 'legitimizers' -- well known curators, art
critics, administrators, collectors, etc. -- also share a taste in art.
In years past, legitimate taste was influenced by developments in European
art. After WW II, New York became the world's centre for contemporary art.
This outside influence on the market for Canadian art, however, has provoked
some loud protests in recent years. Some readers may recall the objections
raised by Harold Town in the 1960's over the influence of New York critic
Clement Greenberg on Canadian artists. Or Greg Curnoe's nationalistic "oregionalism",
a philosophy which held that art created in the Canadian artist's backyard
was as valid as anything found in N.Y.
In actually describing legitimate art, however, it is best to simply list
some works already deemed legitimate. The following works are represented
in Dennis Reid's A Concise History of Canadian Painting : Tom Thomson,
Autumn Foliage (1916); David Milne, White Poppy (1946); Paul-Emile
Borduas, Fence and Defence (1958); Guido Molinari, Mutation rhythmique
(1965). A list of more contemporary legitimate art may be obtained by researching
the collections of the Art Gallery of Ontario or the National Gallery of
Canada, for example.
Legitimate art commands tremendous power within the market. It is revered.
An evangelical verve envelopes it and frightens much of the general public
away. It is made even more inaccessible by prices higher than most people
could ever pay.
Significantly, the very fact that so much money can be made from legitimate
art has divided the legitimate market into two camps: those who strive to
generate revenue from art; and those who do not. Those in the latter group
-- some visual artists, art museum workers, art councils -- generally avoid
discussion about the economics of art as well as the economic implications
of their activities. The aim of the workers in this group is to produce
legitimate art and related products such as exhibitions and catalogues.
They are very successful in their efforts. They can largely afford not to
strive to make money at their activities because they are subsidised.
In the midst of this awkward market we find the Drabinsky and Friedland
Galleries. For Marilyn Burnett of the galleries, the market for legitimate
art has two remarkable features: there is little connection between public
art institutions and commercial art galleries; and recent market events
have had the potential to destroy her gallery.
The Drabinsky and Friedland Galleries.
Originally two separate businesses, the Drabinsky Gallery and the Marianne
Friedland Gallery merged in September, 1995. The Drabinsky half is named
after part owner and Live Entertainment mogul, Garth Drabinsky.
The Drabinsky gallery deals in 20th century Canadian art and the Friedland
gallery deals in 20th century American art. Mrs. Burnett and her husband
David, who are also part owners of the gallery, are extremely knowledgeable
about art. Dr. Burnett is a graduate of the prestigious Cortauld Institute
in London, England. Mrs. Burnett has an MA in Canadian Studies from Carleton
University, Ottawa. Prior to opening the Drabinsky Gallery, the Burnetts
were corporate art consultants.
At the galleries, the Burnetts do not deal in accessible art such as that
produced by naturalist Robert Bateman, or romanticist Trisha Romance. As
well, it is "taboo" explained Mrs. Burnett, to exhibit art reproductions.
Their gallery sells legitimate aesthetic choices.
The public art institution at odds with
the commercial gallery.
The Drabinsky gallery has seen little support from public art museums, stated
Mrs. Burnett in a November, 1995, interview. And the Canada Council's Art
Bank, when it was buying, never paid them a visit.
"I feel that there is no support from public institutions for our gallery,"
she continued, "I know that they do not have budgets to purchase, but
there is no interest. They do not look at our new artists. They do not send
us clients."
Mrs. Burnett believes that there "should be a relationship between
public museums and commercial galleries". It would help to develop
and maintain a thriving arts community and it would be mutually beneficial.
"We can arrange for them to get gifted. We have connections. Many people
call about making donations. Jessica Bradley [Curator of Contemporary Art
at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto as of July, 1995] has never been
in our gallery."
Certainly, there is obvious benefit to the dealer befriending the museum,
the ultimate legitimizer containing legitimate art selected by legitimate
professionals. But why do museum administrators perceive little benefit
in such a relationship? While the author was unable to contact Jessica Bradley
at the AGO for an answer, there is a logical explanation for the lack of
interest art museum administrators have in commercial galleries: there is
no economic incentive.
Government intervention has created an imbalance in the art market. There
are more producers of art than there are distributors or consumers. Artists
and art museums that produce legitimate art, exhibitions and catalogues,
outnumber the buyers of those products. Dealers attempting to balance the
scales, to further distribution and encourage consumption, are rebuffed
by big producers such as art museums. They are rebuffed because the market
is driven by producers who do not strive to make money from what they produce.
Case in point, the Ontario Arts Council provides art museums, some visual
artists and art groups with substantial grants. According to the OAC's "Statement
of Objectives" in their Strategic Plan, 1994-95 to 1996-97 ,
the OAC seeks: "...a society in which all artists of talent and commitment
have full opportunities to create art; and in which all Ontarians regardless
of circumstance or location may share the benefits of the arts." Noble,
but unbalanced. The OAC does not seek a society in which consumers buy art
on a regular basis. Nor does the art museum.
Threatening art market events.
The business of selling legitimate art can be lucrative. Prices can soar.
The Drabinsky gallery represents east coast painter, Alex Colville. A small
Colville can sell for more than $100,000. However, there are enormous risks
in dealing in legitimate art, especially in times of general economic instability.
"There was the Lavalin scare," Mrs. Burnett recalled.
In 1991, Lavalin Inc., a Montreal engineering firm, declared bankruptcy
and was forced to sell its assets to pay debt. Its assets included a collection
of approximately 1300 pieces of legitimate art, mostly by Quebecois artists.
In order to preserve the collection as a whole for Quebeckers and Canadians
to experience, the Quebec Ministry of Cultural Affairs provided the Musée
d'art contemporain in Montreal with a loan of $5.4-million to purchase the
collection. According to MAC spokesperson Louise Faure, who was there at
the time, there was thought given to the effect the sale of the collection
on the open market would have on dealers. The market for legitimate Quebec
art might have been flattened. In fact, a Globe and Mail article
(Toronto, June, 25, 1992) contends that pressure was exerted by art dealers
on the government to protect the market. According to the article, much
of the art was reported to be of uneven quality. Under normal circumstances
this art would not have been acquired by the museum. The museum is still
struggling to pay back the government loan.
This is one instance where government intervention benefited the commercial
dealer. Whether it benefited the museum is another matter.
Conclusion.
No wonder Marilyn Burnett uses the word 'legitimate' with ease. She is a
knowledgeable participant in the market and recognises the network of support
the word evokes. However, an important implication of the word is the power
it gives to legitimizers. In Canada, influential legitimizers have persuaded
government to continue its support of the production of art. Government
intervention also saved many Canadian commercial galleries from potential
market disaster. However, intervention has also allowed the market to favor
producers over distributors and consumers. A result of this imbalance is
that the ultimate legitimizers, the art museums, are allowed to ignore the
economic implications of their activities. Without an economic incentive
to associate with commercial galleries, art museums may actually be hindering
the development of a thriving arts market.
Meanwhile, government continues to cut spending to the arts. And what if
subsidy levels hit a critical low? Arts councils may cease to exist. Some
art museums may go out of business. And their collections, too large to
be assumed by other institutions, would spill out onto the legitimate art
market. Prices of legitimate Canadian art would drop. At that point, would
the consumers of legitimate Canadian art begin to outnumber the producers
of that art? And what of the dealers? No doubt these are questions we will
all be facing in Canada in the near future.
Back to the Bank