Without calling them by their name, Beninese artist Georges Adeagbo, 59, had been
doing installations for over 20 years when Frenchman Jean-Michel Rousset came scouting
around the capital Cotonou in search of new artistic talents for a big collector.
By chance, he fell upon Adeagbo’s home and discovered his work (above picture). That
was back in April 1993. A few months later, Adeagbo’s pieces went on show in France
for the first time. At the beginning of this year, works by the Beninese artist were
exhibited at the prestigious P.S.1 museum in New York.
|
A
few indicators
— Each year,
the German magazine Capital publishes a world ranking of living artists called Kunst
Kompass. Highly influential around the world, it supposedly reflects their aesthetic
value based on the opinions of “experts” and exhibitions in major museums and shows.
In 2000, the 100 “best” artists included 33 Americans, 28 Germans, eight Britons,
five French, four Italians and three Swiss. Of the 16 other artists, only five came
from the developing world (South Africa, Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Thailand).
— On November 16, 2000, Christies held one of its two major annual contemporary art
auctions in New York. Of the 48 artists whose works were sold, 26 came from the United
States, six from the United Kingdom, five from Germany, four from Italy, three from
Switzerland, two from Japan and one each from France and South Africa.
— On November 17, 2000, Sotheby’s held a similar auction in New York. Of the 63 works
sold, 50 were by American artists or artists living in the United States. Just one
was by an artist from a developing country, where he still lives (Mexico).
|
|
Despite
the international veneer of the art market, research by French sociologist Alain
Quémin shows that a handful of rich countries dominates the scene
How
has contemporary art been affected by globalization?
Contemporary art lovers and professionals believe that it’s becoming increasingly
internationalized. Any gallery director, art critic, museum curator or exhibition
commissioner would more or less agree that it would be absurd to take nationality
or country of origin into account when judging an artist’s work. All that matters,
they say, is whether or not he or she is good. In other words, an artist’s fame and
market value should have nothing to do with nationality. As proof, those in the art
world point to the fact that exhibitions and biennales are scattered around the planet2
(they are even held in Havana, Taipei and Dakar), and to the rise of Asian artists
after the Eastern European wave of the early 1990s. In contemporary art, globalization
and its corollaries in the art world—cultural mixing and relativism—are taken for
granted.
But do these claims match what is actually happening on the art market?
To answer that question, I have developed or compared several indicators, including
rankings of “reputation” by experts (those who contribute to an artist’s fame or
“name recognition”), the composition of large private and public collections, acquisitions
by large museums, participation in major fairs and biennale exhibitions, sales on
the international market, and so on. These indicators sometimes give different rankings,
but they reveal a very strong geographical hierarchy (see box). The most famous artists
and those whose works have the highest market value are from the United States. Several
countries in Western Europe form the second group, sometimes equal to or outdoing
the United States, especially at fairs and biennales.
But the ranking in this group is very marked. Germany is far ahead of the United
Kingdom, France, Italy and Switzerland. After them, the contribution from other nations,
including developed countries such as Spain, the Nordic countries, Japan and South
Korea, is insignificant. The third world is at the very bottom of the list.
In art as in many other fields, there is obviously a gulf between a “centre,” made
up of only a few countries that are themselves ranked in a very rigid hierarchy,
and a huge “periphery.”
But artists from the periphery, as you call it, have achieved a certain degree
of fame and their works have attained a very high market value…
That may be true, but the proportion is very small. And how long will it last? Artists
from Eastern Europe, who were very fashionable in the early 1990s, have now fallen
into oblivion in the Western art world. And there’s nothing to indicate that the
Asian or African artists currently in vogue will not in their turn be as “disposable
as Kleenex” themselves.
In any case, how should they go about getting known? There are practically no exceptions
to the rule: they must be exhibited in a country at the centre or go there to live
in the hope of finding their place in mainstream contemporary art.
But hasn’t this inequality always existed? Without going too far back, didn’t
France occupy this “monopolistic” position from the late 19th to the mid-20th century?
Yes, but the big difference is that this dominant position was recognized and fully
accepted in the name of France’s contribution to art history. Today, on the contrary,
contemporary art circles cannot recognize America’s supremacy in this field because
they simply don’t “see” it. In the artistic fields where this supremacy is recognized,
it tends to be stigmatized because the United States is considered a latecomer on
the art scene.
So why is there this contradiction between image and reality?
I’ll answer with another question: why would the contemporary art world be an exception
to the dominant globalization credo, according to which everyone, wherever they are,
has a chance as long as they have talent? And more specifically, why would it be
free from two contradictory movements that are part of globalization? On the one
hand, you have an endless search for innovation, which sometimes goes as far as including
the periphery. On the other, the tendency to minimize risk, especially financial
risk, ends up boosting the value of artists from well-established art centres, who
are therefore the easiest to promote.
But playing the devil’s advocate, can’t we say that “good” contemporary artists
simply wouldn’t choose to live in places where their work cannot be properly exhibited
or sold?
Today, artists from the periphery have a growing number of opportunities to aid them.
For example, fine arts schools are now more open to the world. However, these artists
rarely make it on the international scene. Is that because they might be “naturally”
worse? Let’s take a sporting metaphor. For decades, people thought you had to be
Scandinavian to be a champion middle-distance runner. Then they came from Eastern
Europe. Now, athletes from North and East Africa are winning all the races. And each
time, the success of these different groups is considered “natural.” At the very
least, the geographical concentration of contemporary art hampers the recognition
of the artistic potential that exists outside the United States and in some European
countries.
1.
Experts sometimes disagree, but they generally define contemporary art as an innovative
form of creation that emerged after 1960. The main media are painting, sculpture,
photography, video, montages and installations.
2. Fairs are events where art works from galleries chosen by the organizers are
sold. The most famous one is in Basel, Switzerland. In contrast, biennales are non-commercial
art events (exhibitions) that display works selected by commissioners. By definition,
they are held every two years. The most recognized biennales take place in Venice,
Italy and Kassel, Germany. |
