Self Portrait
4 Mar 2007 The Observer
Is there a link between a painting's artistic merit and its market value? John Windsor thinks not. There has never been so much money sloshing around the art market. A record £392m was spent during Christie's and Sotheby's auctions of Impressionist, modern and contemporary art in London last month. Rich first-time buyers competed fiercely with art dealers, some of whom left in disgust. Celebrity artists led the field: at Christie's, a record £14.02m for a leering Francis Bacon pope and £5.39m for a garish Andy Warhol Brigitte Bardot. German emigre Frank Auerbach, now 75 - a core member, with Bacon, of the School of London in the Fifties - was back in fashion: his vigorous Camden Theatre in the Rain of 1977 fetched £1.92m at Sotheby's. Only £500,000 had been expected.
Those of us who have difficulty finding four-figure sums to rub together might wonder whether it is ever possible to buy an inexpensive great work by an artist who has slipped under the market's radar. But my visit to the first comprehensive exhibition for 23 years of British-based Jewish German emigre Martin Bloch (1883-1954) at the Sainsbury Centre in Norwich has convinced me the criteria for market success do not necessarily have much to do with an artist's merit or even his influence. Bloch was a unique and extraordinary colourist. He was 50 when, in 1934, he and his family fled to London from Berlin, where he had been at the height of his career. His fresh battle for recognition was disrupted by nine months of internment. Upon release, he painted blitzed cityscapes, stunning evocations of light and hope rising from ashes. In 1958, four years after his death, his name was billed with Francis Bacon and Henry Moore in an exhibition in Liverpool.
Since then, his commercial reputation, though not his artistic influence, has waned. Of the 18 paintings of his that have appeared at auctions during the past decade or so, none has sold for more than £3,450. Last March two Blochs estimated at £2,000-£3,000 failed to sell. Bloch's technique is impressive for his sensitive tonal juxtapositions of warm and cool colours, at a time when British artists tended to see tone as no more than light or dark. If you have ever taken brush to canvas you will marvel at the way he solved problems of composition and perspective by applying the most unlikely-looking blues and yellows. So how come the auctioneers can sell an Auerbach for £1.9m but not a Bloch for £2,000? When you compare London street scenes painted by these two refugees, the answer seems farther away than ever. The £1.9m Auerbach, to my mind, is ... I could say 'slapdash', but I think 'exaggeratedly expressionistic' is more art-crit speak. The ensemble tends towards a muddy monochrome, lacking depth and differences in texture. It's park-railings stuff. Bloch's House With Figureheads, 1936, is observed, pondered, then recreated from within, in contrast to Auerbach's apparently heedless attack on the canvas. Warmth and hospitality exude from the curious building. In the cool blue twilight, the bay is warm purple and the orange interior beckoning through the window is bright as a furnace. The eye is drawn from the bright window to the silhouetted policeman. The Auerbach, on the other hand, has a confusion of focal points. Tear off the price tags and I'd choose the Bloch every time. Here is a tick-list of criteria for commercial success: a reasonably prolific oeuvre (beans or Blochs, dealers need a constant flow of stock); membership of an art movement; recognition in art history; artwork in public galleries; backing from powerful collectors such as Charles Saatchi. One might add: high quality art. But the market does not judge art; it merely rides the reputation merry-go-round. Good art is art that sells.
Bloch co-founded the now-forgotten School of Contemporary Painting in 1934 but did not ally himself with any art movements; he is scarcely mentioned in history books; he is owned by plenty of public galleries because many of his loyal pupils became curators, but his work tends to end up in store; he was never championed by a powerful collector. But his big drawback is too small an oeuvre. There remain probably fewer than 300 paintings, many of whose owners would not dream of selling. Much of his work was lost in Germany or during the Blitz. By contrast, Auerbach lived in Britain from the age of eight; he has his niche in the School of London and has shown at the Hayward, the National and the RA. The plus side for Bloch is that he has knowledgeable and devoted champions outside the market.
The Sainsbury exhibition was instigated by the film maker Cyril Frankel, an admirer, collector and friend of Bloch's. He says: 'Bloch is an anomaly - top-class work overlooked by dealers. He is not just slightly undervalued, but seriously undervalued. 'Bloch's descendants, particularly his grandson Peter Rossiter, an artist and Courtauld art history graduate, are assiduous promoters of his reputation. Rossiter curated the exhibition and understands the need to supply the market. He is offering drawings from under £1,000 to £2,000. A couple of the paintings are also for sale. And the exhibition is a hit. About 1,000 people a week are going, rivalling the centre's previous exhibition devoted to Bacon. The hope is that it will move to London. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has also been approached. Is it worth hoping that Bloch's reputation can be raised from such oblivion? Remember van Gogh.· 'Martin Bloch: A Painter's Painter' is at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, until 15 April. See http://www.scva.ac.uk
Is there a link between a painting's artistic merit and its market value? John Windsor thinks not. There has never been so much money sloshing around the art market. A record £392m was spent during Christie's and Sotheby's auctions of Impressionist, modern and contemporary art in London last month. Rich first-time buyers competed fiercely with art dealers, some of whom left in disgust. Celebrity artists led the field: at Christie's, a record £14.02m for a leering Francis Bacon pope and £5.39m for a garish Andy Warhol Brigitte Bardot. German emigre Frank Auerbach, now 75 - a core member, with Bacon, of the School of London in the Fifties - was back in fashion: his vigorous Camden Theatre in the Rain of 1977 fetched £1.92m at Sotheby's. Only £500,000 had been expected.
Those of us who have difficulty finding four-figure sums to rub together might wonder whether it is ever possible to buy an inexpensive great work by an artist who has slipped under the market's radar. But my visit to the first comprehensive exhibition for 23 years of British-based Jewish German emigre Martin Bloch (1883-1954) at the Sainsbury Centre in Norwich has convinced me the criteria for market success do not necessarily have much to do with an artist's merit or even his influence. Bloch was a unique and extraordinary colourist. He was 50 when, in 1934, he and his family fled to London from Berlin, where he had been at the height of his career. His fresh battle for recognition was disrupted by nine months of internment. Upon release, he painted blitzed cityscapes, stunning evocations of light and hope rising from ashes. In 1958, four years after his death, his name was billed with Francis Bacon and Henry Moore in an exhibition in Liverpool.
Since then, his commercial reputation, though not his artistic influence, has waned. Of the 18 paintings of his that have appeared at auctions during the past decade or so, none has sold for more than £3,450. Last March two Blochs estimated at £2,000-£3,000 failed to sell. Bloch's technique is impressive for his sensitive tonal juxtapositions of warm and cool colours, at a time when British artists tended to see tone as no more than light or dark. If you have ever taken brush to canvas you will marvel at the way he solved problems of composition and perspective by applying the most unlikely-looking blues and yellows. So how come the auctioneers can sell an Auerbach for £1.9m but not a Bloch for £2,000? When you compare London street scenes painted by these two refugees, the answer seems farther away than ever. The £1.9m Auerbach, to my mind, is ... I could say 'slapdash', but I think 'exaggeratedly expressionistic' is more art-crit speak. The ensemble tends towards a muddy monochrome, lacking depth and differences in texture. It's park-railings stuff. Bloch's House With Figureheads, 1936, is observed, pondered, then recreated from within, in contrast to Auerbach's apparently heedless attack on the canvas. Warmth and hospitality exude from the curious building. In the cool blue twilight, the bay is warm purple and the orange interior beckoning through the window is bright as a furnace. The eye is drawn from the bright window to the silhouetted policeman. The Auerbach, on the other hand, has a confusion of focal points. Tear off the price tags and I'd choose the Bloch every time. Here is a tick-list of criteria for commercial success: a reasonably prolific oeuvre (beans or Blochs, dealers need a constant flow of stock); membership of an art movement; recognition in art history; artwork in public galleries; backing from powerful collectors such as Charles Saatchi. One might add: high quality art. But the market does not judge art; it merely rides the reputation merry-go-round. Good art is art that sells.
Bloch co-founded the now-forgotten School of Contemporary Painting in 1934 but did not ally himself with any art movements; he is scarcely mentioned in history books; he is owned by plenty of public galleries because many of his loyal pupils became curators, but his work tends to end up in store; he was never championed by a powerful collector. But his big drawback is too small an oeuvre. There remain probably fewer than 300 paintings, many of whose owners would not dream of selling. Much of his work was lost in Germany or during the Blitz. By contrast, Auerbach lived in Britain from the age of eight; he has his niche in the School of London and has shown at the Hayward, the National and the RA. The plus side for Bloch is that he has knowledgeable and devoted champions outside the market.
The Sainsbury exhibition was instigated by the film maker Cyril Frankel, an admirer, collector and friend of Bloch's. He says: 'Bloch is an anomaly - top-class work overlooked by dealers. He is not just slightly undervalued, but seriously undervalued. 'Bloch's descendants, particularly his grandson Peter Rossiter, an artist and Courtauld art history graduate, are assiduous promoters of his reputation. Rossiter curated the exhibition and understands the need to supply the market. He is offering drawings from under £1,000 to £2,000. A couple of the paintings are also for sale. And the exhibition is a hit. About 1,000 people a week are going, rivalling the centre's previous exhibition devoted to Bacon. The hope is that it will move to London. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has also been approached. Is it worth hoping that Bloch's reputation can be raised from such oblivion? Remember van Gogh.· 'Martin Bloch: A Painter's Painter' is at the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, until 15 April. See http://www.scva.ac.uk
1 comment:
It's shame that buyers are so dumb and money-minded instead of sensitive and artistic. I personally know, especially among Indian buyers, many who have made a quick buck in IT and are suddenly calling themselves "collectors", but know nothing about art. When asked why they buy art, "oh, we love art" is always their stupid answer (and they even don't know that part of their answer!!).
Post a Comment