Success in the Contemporary Art World: an

Examination of Market and Cultural Forces

Permanent link
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37736787

Terms of Use
This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available
under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://
nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA

Share Your Story

The Harvard community has made this article openly available.
Please share how this access benefits you. Submit a story .

Accessibility
 Success in the Contemporary Art World:

An Examination of Market and Cultural Forces

Golan Z. Marom

A Thesis in the Field of Visual Arts

for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies

Harvard University

November 2017
© 2017 Golan Z. Marom
 Abstract

This work considers the contemporary art world with respect to what constitutes

‘value’ and how success can be engineered in this field. Though art is an ephemeral

concept for which little can be taken for granted, especially in terms of trends and

valuation, this work argues that circumstances can be made more favorable for the

individual artist in order to better ensure his or her success. To elaborate upon this

consideration, this thesis focuses on the different forces which are present in the art

world, and presents a means for engineering success in this market.

A core view to inform the work to follow – which is in the literature – is the idea

that fine art has never been a more commercialized marketplace, and never more subject

to trends and habits of increasingly-wealthy buyers, and that determining their practices

and motivations must be core to any artistic endeavor, now more so than ever.

Commercialization in this market has given way to a system by which various trends and

fads in the art world (and in artistic purchase decisions) are more important than any rote

understanding of technical acumen on the part of the individual artist. This may not

necessarily be a preferable state of affairs, but this work will use examples to show such

commercial factors are dominant.

It is into this atmosphere and marketplace that this work presents a literature

review and proposal for a case study of a unique artistic establishment with which this

author is involved on a personal and business level, the SoHo Arts Club. This

organization has been informed by a thorough consideration of the forces which present
in the art market today. Survey and interview methodologies are mounted to determine

the various factors which go into determining the valuation of artwork – and especially,

the political and social elements which go into such valuation – in light of SoHo Arts

Club’s novel community-based collaborative marketing model.

iv
 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 1

Problem Statements………………………………………………………………... 3

Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………4

Chapter I: Review of the Literature………………………………………………... 6

The Global Art Market……………………………………………………...8

Motivational Impetus: Cultural Significance……………………………….11

Aesthetic Appeal…………………………………………………………… 12

Humanitarian Patronage…………………………………………………….15

Artistic Success……………………………………………………………..18

Soho Arts Club and Humanitarian Patronage……………………………… 22

Chapter II: Methodology……………………………………………………………25

Survey Instrument………………………………………………………….. 26

Subjects…………………………………………………………………….. 29

Protection of Subjects……………………………………………………… 29

Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………30

Chapter III: Results………………………………………………………………… 33

Survey Results: Buyers…………………………………………………….. 33

Demographic Questions……………………………………………. 34

Survey Prompts to Buyers…………………………………………. 35

Interview Findings: Buyers………………………………………………… 39

Survey Results: Artists…………………………………………………….. 43

v
 Demographic Questions……………………………………………. 43

Survey Prompts to Artists………………………………………….. 44

Interview Findings: Artists………………………………………………… 47

Chapter IV: Discussion and Recommendations…………………………………… 52

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….. 57

Appendix I: Survey for Art Buyers………………………………………………… 59

Appendix II: Interview Prompts for Art Buyers…………………………………… 61

Appendix III: Survey for SoHo Arts Club Artists…………………………………. 61

Appendix IV: Interview Prompts for Artists………………………………………. 63

Appendix V: Survey Results………………………………………………………..64

vi
 Introduction

This thesis will attempt to define the factors which play a role in the ability of

new artists to increase an overall likelihood of success in the art world in which success is

determined by the valuation of their art based on economic trends, promotion and

marketing of their works, their relative level of artistic skill, and popular art trends.

Models of success followed by successful artists are also examined. This focus

necessitates a thorough deconstruction of the economics of art and the ways in which art

is made “valuable.” In the last decades, the art world has been rocked by a succession of

high-profile works – made by masters old and new – which have sold for

unprecedentedly large amounts of money. It has begun to seem that art itself has become

the purview of the world’s mega-wealthy alone and that the best that ordinary individuals

of modest means can hope for is a print or replica. To this end, it would be appropriate

for artists who are seeking vast success in this market to cater their tastes to the wealthy.

However, this model of success is highly suspect in the larger art community.

Sources to be considered in this thesis argue that art has never been more of a

‘flat’ market with respect to the ability of individual consumers to procure any works of

art. On the other hand – inequality aside – works by well-known artists are now routinely

sold at auction for vast sums of money which is not necessarily reflective of the

presumed quality of the works. This thesis will provide evidence that contemporary art

has become even more embedded in a process which is primarily economic in nature than

1
in previous decades, determined primarily by profit and stoked by sophisticated

marketing, and governed by global economic forces that characterize the twenty-first

century.

Art has begun to trend toward works that are not necessarily excellent based on

aesthetic determinants, but rather are reflective of the artist’s capacity to marshal

economic forces toward a commercial end. While the world of contemporary art is now

dominated by major economic actors and pressures, art works can be defined by the

middle-end galleries in which they first emerge, particularly if those galleries offer an

environment or service perceived as interesting or novel. In this regard, New York’s

SoHo Arts Club serves as an example and will be examined in this thesis. As one of the

founders of the SoHo Arts Club, I am able to provide first-hand analysis of this gallery

and its operations.

In the course of the following work, a series of factors are considered. These

include the economics of the art world, particularly as considered through the work and

theoretical perspective of Pierre Bourdeau, and the essentially-human and subjective

nature of the economic systems which have grown to maturity around valued artistic

expression in capitalistic society. In addition, the so-called ‘intrinsic’ value of art are

considered, as a basis from which to consider the human elements which so often enter

into any system of artistic valuation. This exploration will be broadened to consider the

modern-day concepts of globalization and ‘vanity capital’, which have, in turn, rapidly

increased the scope of the global art market (and number of potential buyers), while

decreasing new artists’ barriers to entry as well as any sense of ‘intrinsic value’ that

pieces may have commanded in the past, in favor of fads and commercialized artworks

2
now overwhelmingly-designed to appeal to the wealthy buyer. From this point, a further

exploration of the wealthy art buyer is launched, from which the measure of artistic

success in the context of these increasingly-wealthy buyers can be explored in greater

detail.

Based on these considerations, politics and group culture will enter into this

discussion, particularly ways by which artists can find ways of enjoying greater success

through a collaborative and communal approach to marketing. This is where the SoHo

Arts Club will be established, as this organization seeks to establish a group atmosphere

which will replicate the vitality of the New York City arts scene from the 1970s and

1980s. The mission of this organization, as will be shown, is to both insulate these artists

from having to market their work individually, as well as providing them with a common

mission, by which patrons may be attracted to the Club itself (perhaps for humanitarian

reasons) and purchase from its artists on the strength of the culture it has established. The

success or failure of this organization will then be considered in the course of a case

study review of SoHo Arts Club in light of these many factors.

Problem Statements

A series of core problems will inform the work to follow. First, through the

literature review to follow, this work seeks to determine (1) How is art valued? This is a

broad question with a wide range of potential answers, all of which hinge upon the

current economics which surround the artistic market in the United States and across an

increasingly-globalized world. As will be shown in the review, this is a difficult question

to answer, as artistic valuation has never been more arbitrary, and based on human

3
emotions and preferences in a static economic system without guards placed on price. To

this end, this work will also seek to determine (2) What types of art are preferred by the

wealthy? This question is crucial to any approach to determining how to become

successful because, as will be shown in the review, the wealthy are a dominant force in

artistic sales at present, especially in light of their own increasing numbers.

Literature to support finding answers to this question will dovetail with

considerations of different trends and factors shown to be winning variables, that is,

current trends and perspectives with regard to what constitutes valuable art, as

determined by their wealthy buyers. Finally, the primary problem that this work will seek

to solve is: (3) Is there a way to engineer artistic success? SoHo Arts Club will form the

primary basis upon which this consideration is mounted, as it seeks to accomplish aid its

artists through a novel approach to shared marketing and culture which simultaneously

frees them from the strictures of individualized marketing.

These problems will be considered in greater detail in the following review.

Definition of Terms

• Copyright: The exclusive right, as determined by law, to publish, distribute or

otherwise profit from a literary, musical, or otherwise artistic material, or an

authorization by which others are allowed to do so.

• Humanitarian Patronage of the Arts: Artistic patronage which involves an element

of social awareness and critique of the economic forces which underpin the values and

concepts that have led to there being such a volume of works affordable only to high-

4
wealth art patrons. This term applies to other social and charitable giving that offsets

giving that lacks humanitarian interest regarding the artists patronized or the larger world.

• High-Value Art: Art which is considered sufficiently desirable to sell for a large

sum of money at auction or private sale.

• Intrinsic Value of Art: The ethical or philosophical value which a work of art has

‘in itself’, or, any value ascribed to a work of art aside from any specific market

valuation.

• Taste: An Individual or wider cultural pattern of choice and preference for style,

consumer goods, and artwork, which is based in a conceptualization of beauty. This can

also be considered to be an aspect of aesthetic preference insofar as it reflects a larger

social understanding of what is valuable or important to the consumer.

• Vanity Capital: The pursuit and accumulation of works, accessories, and fashion

which is used as a means of enhancing the buyer’s sense of self-esteem and self-worth

through a subjective understanding of an art work’s use for enhancing appearance and

prestige, especially in a social context.

• Value: A subjective understanding of worth as determined by individual or

market forces, which only nominally reflects the usefulness or benefit which can be

accrued from a particular object, or its rote monetary worth.

5
 Chapter I

Review of the Literature

Pierre Bourdieu, in his work Distinction (1979), argues that while art (and artists)

may claim to maintain a certain distance from economics and economic relations,

economics is actually integral to any consideration of art and what is artistically valuable.

Bourdieu (29) describes the cultural world as the “reverse” of the economic world, yet

despite his argument that all art has cultural significance, the emphasis on market

forces—under which art must operate, but are rarely acknowledges— suggests that there

is essentially no such thing as cultural significance. Instead, art is only what the market

will bear. Bourdieu presents as much of a critique of economics as he does art in general

by arguing against those who would appeal to the valuation imposed by the market as a

frictionless and efficient means by which an appropriate value might be obtained for a

given work. He argues that such thinkers necessarily ignore the idea of the market as a

human system. While free-market advocates might argue that the valuation of artistic

works—as determined by the market—present an utterly objective force (as its

machinations are ultimately invisible), they are also the product of individual choice as

well as groups of powerful interests, albeit in a diffuse and seemingly invisible manner.

The combination of novelty and utility are crucial to any consideration of the

value of art – and how best to produce high-value art—in the world today, as these two

attributes constitute how artists can “[overtake] the existing rules;” novel works embody

6
“economic, aesthetic, or ethical value,” also known as utility (Zorloni 7). Prices for given

works are based on the ability of the market to bear such costs for utility, but it cannot be

understated that wealthy patrons are just as receptive to novelty in art work as anyone.

Similarly, the “intrinsic value” of a work of art is considered. Traditionally, there are two

different ways to assess the value of an artwork. The first is its value with regard to

culture or aesthetics (its “significance”), and the second is its “price or exchange value,”

the price that it can command at sale or auction (Ruccio 1). With regard to the parameters

of the contemporary art world, as well as the current understanding of economics, the

price a given work can command on the open market constitutes the price that the market

will bear, and this number both constitutes and embodies its significance. One view

argues that there is a natural tendency of the free market to produce and support any

given price for any object – even works of art – and this argument advocates for a

consideration of a work’s non-monetary significance as effectively an argument from

redundancy (Ruccio 1). Any given artwork’s worth, it is often argued by economists, is

solely determined by the price that it can command at sale or auction.

Several factors serve to mitigate the impact of market forces. The first is the

notion of vanity capital, the idea that art itself is purchased by patrons with little

knowledge or consideration of the aesthetic worth of the piece in the larger art world; the

work is purchased for either the personal appreciation or pleasure derived from viewing

the work, or how the ownership of that work will reflect upon the owner in high-wealth

social circles. In this regard, ‘bubbles’ of subjective worth are often built around artworks

and artists whose works may not have much value among art critics and other art

professionals, but whose creators are excellent at marketing their pieces. It can be argued

7
that in the case of any trend, the artist at the center of the art has been ‘claimed’ by these

patrons. In essence, the chief value of art in these cases may be construed within

definitions limited to economics and an artist’s ability to stoke or otherwise engineer

appreciation for their works among the wealthy will determine the artist’s success

regardless of the perceived aesthetic value of the work in the larger art community.

The Global Art Market

Within the context of contemporary art, it is most necessary to consider the

globalized nature of the contemporary art market. As described by Harris, both

‘globalization’ and ‘contemporary’ are fluid concepts that are difficult to define in a

definite manner (Harris 2). The globalized networks in which contemporary art is traded

are best understood in the context of the manner in which they have come to influence

artists who seek to sell their work. In the globalized economy for art, “artists. . . conceive,

realize, manifest, and attempt to sell” as well as “propagate” their works (2). The

international market for artworks may best be considered as something that makes itself

known not by its presence but by its effect on artists. To this end, Harris argues that the

most active role that globalization is currently playing is one of an increasingly

globalized sense of style. In the same way that globalization implies that a single system

would come to define international economics, the eventual goal of art that is produced

for sale on the global market may have to adopt an international style.

In spite of the global market for art, national borders and local cultures continue

to proliferate. One key example is in the work of Zeng Fanzhi, an artist from China who

8
has been able to command vast amounts of money for his paintings, but has yet to

achieve worldwide acclaim or mass interest in his works, especially in the West. As

described by Ehrmann (1), in 2013, one of Fanzhi’s oil paintings (similar in style to The

Last Supper) sold for $23.3 million. By this economic indicator, this artist might be

expected to have international acclaim, but he does not. This lack of interest in his work

can partly be due to the fractured nature of national boundaries in relation to culture, but

it would seem that if the globalized nature of liberal economics is as determinant as it is

presented by its advocates, then this artist would be better-known in the West. If this

Chinese artist was indeed as valued as the price of his works would indicate (and the

prices which it commands puts him in the league of Damien Hirst and Jean-Michel

Basquiat), then it would follow that he would command as much international attention

as these other artists (1). Because Fanzhi is relatively unknown not only outside China

but to the collectors’ market in general, clearly other cultural forces are at work.

Key to this thesis is the idea that art is an intangible luxury good purchased by the

wealthy. Who are these wealthy individuals? Take for example the recent $179 million

auction price for Picasso’s painting Les Femmes d’Alger (Version O) (1955). Based on

the presumption that no individual would reasonably spend more than 1 percent of his or

her total net worth on art, anyone who would bid upon and ultimately purchase an

expensive painting like Picasso’s for the final bidding price would have to have at least

$17.9 billion in the bank. This sum effectively excludes the vast majority of people, as

such a floor on net worth would exclude all but “exactly 50 plausible

buyers…worldwide” (Irwin 1). The last time this particular Picasso was sold at auction,

in 1997, it would have necessitated buyers to have $12.3 billion in total wealth. At that

9
time, there were only a dozen families who could reasonably part with the 1 percent of

their income that it would require to purchase.

In short, two arguments are made here. First, the price of art has increased over

the years, but this has been driven by a major increase in the number of super-wealthy

buyers capable of making such a purchase. The increase in the number of people with

enough money to bid on works with a “more or less fixed supply” – such as art – serves

only to drive up the price of that commodity (Irwin 1). To this end, I argue that art has

become a commodity increasingly more divorced from its intrinsic value, and now

instead is determined more by market exigencies which increasingly favor bubbles

predicated on there always being interested and wealthy patrons. Art has become as

effectively commoditized and bubble-driven as wine or real estate (1).

A second economic argument for the major prices that often accompany works of

contemporary art is presented by Gaugy (1), who argues that works are priced in an

inherent vacuum in value relative to one another. The relative price of paintings is

determined within the dictates of a “large and ‘niched’ marketplace,” similar to that of

“food or cars. Where the price of apples, for instance, is not affected by the price of beef,

so too is art priced within a vacuum where the price of a given work is determined

relative to the price of another similar artwork. Where Impressionist art, for instance,

commands a certain spectrum of prices at sale or auction, these prices are generally

unrelated to those of modernist artworks.

The creation of an atomized marketplace for artworks has all but ensured that

works solely attract the attention of predominantly wealthy patrons with an interest in

that particular type of artwork (Gaugy 1). Each work, and as a result, each type of work,

10
is “bought, sold, and priced” within these particular “marketplaces,” a factor which

thereby increases the likelihood of prices being driven up in the market (Gaugy 1). Were

artworks sold under some larger standard of quality, prices might be driven downward.

However, as it stands, art is only priced and sold under these limited set of circumstances,

which ultimately serve to increase prices.

Motivational Impetus: Cultural Significance

The course and logic which is implemented by a given wealthy buyer in the

course of choosing which work of art to purchase is described in some detail by Jones

(204), who describes one auction house’s operations in the course of educating their

customers about their wares. Wealthy buyers, reveal this source, have grown accustomed

to the style presented by auction houses, which often present “beautiful and

comprehensive…catalogues” for public consumption, which contain “high production

values”, as well as a great degree of information about the artworks which are for sale

(204). In addition, these publications provide information with respect to the given

works’ “relative significance,” both in terms of the artist themselves as well as their

“oeuvre and body of work,” in addition to the placement of the work within the larger

“aesthetic evolution of the genre” (204). As this source explains, modern artistic

valuation is generally focused on the works of the individual artist themselves, while

simultaneously placing a premium on the placement of the piece within a larger “social,

cultural, and artistic context” (204).

11
 In this way, the ‘auction house’ model must be extended to all other contexts in

which wealthy buyers are to be courted for their purchasing dollars. Though this section

has considered many extraneous factors thought likely to increase the need and

expectation of these buyers to purchase works of art based on ‘fads’ and ‘trends’, artistic

sales are at their core simpler than that: These are sales, and as such, the chief aim of the

artist must be to find a means by which they can best gain the attention of the buyer.

While this can indeed be satisfied by the ‘legacy’ reputation of the artist – as in the case

of highly-valued older works, such as in the Picasso example – or in terms of the current

popularity of the artist, but overwhelmingly the choice to purchase a given work is based

on a conversation between the artist and patron. In this context, the ascribed value of the

work of art will be emphasized. Value found in a piece – and which contributes to a sale

– goes far beyond the subjective aesthetic pleasure associated with the work itself.

Instead, as Jones (204) explains, artists (and artistic collaboratives) must offer “edifying

and value-constructing discursive elements” in their presentation, if not in a traditional

catalogue, then in the way they present themselves to the buying public, and at shows.

Aesthetic Appeal

Other areas in which works are valued are based on their relative aesthetics. As

described by Winch (151), aesthetics are a crucial dividing point whereby a great range

of works (not simply ‘traditional’ forms, like paintings and sculpture) can be appreciated

for their beauty, as opposed to their utility. However, works made “for a utilitarian

purpose” can certainly be “potential objects of aesthetic appreciation,” but the difference

12
between one made for a purely utilitarian objective and objects of utility which are also

art are, again, a matter of argument, judgment, and persuasion. To this end, aesthetic

value, when delineated along these broad lines, are described by Yanai (81) by these

varying degrees of perception which result in differences in value ascribed to these works

by both sellers and purchasers of these works.

Aesthetic value is delineated by Winch (151) as consisting of two primary factors:

(1) First, value is ascribed to a given work by the “experiences one had while perceiving

them,” that is, the subjective experience of the viewer and potential buyer, as well as (2)

the “creative effort which was needed to bear them,” referring to the amount of time and

energy which was expended in the creation of a given piece. In this way, an artistic work

can be evaluated both in a causal manner, referring to the value ascribed to the actions of

the artist themselves, as well as with respect to the subjective beauty ascribed to the piece

by the subjective observer. In this context, the level of effort which is on display in a

given piece – though it may be self-evident – forms a necessary component of

measurements of valuation, and a clear way in which artists themselves can enhance the

valuation of their piece, through the presentation of a narrative.

Such stories and presentation of ‘background’ material can help potential buyers

to better-understand the value inherent to the piece (and increase the potential selling

price), through enunciating and emphasizing the creative effort which went into creating

the piece in question. A work which shows considerable effort on the part of the artists –

especially one which reflects years of toil – is shown by this author to carry a greater

level of aesthetic beauty than a similar piece which did not require as much effort.

Through creating works which seem to have required a great deal of effort, and by

13
presenting a narrative presentation which emphasizes this point, artists may increase the

subjective level of aesthetic appreciation that potential buyers have for their works, and

increase the selling price as a result. Put simply, “the awareness of a high degree of

artistry” stands to “enrich an aesthetic experience” (Yanai 81).

Technical acumen must be objective and provable, however. Terms which help to

define qualities in these forms of art are described by Yanai (81) as “originality of

conception, the overcoming of technical difficulties, perception of execution,” and other

qualities which can be presented both by the piece itself as well as in the sales narrative

which surrounds the piece. The necessity of the narrative explication of such effort is

described here as a factor of “competence and knowledge,” as being able to identify

whether a given piece reflects a great deal of effort – and is possessing of the traits

considered above – requires “competence and knowledge,” traits which an “ordinary

perceiver may lack” (81). Therefore, as in the ‘auction house’ example, it is incumbent

upon the staff of the organization (or the individual) who is selling the piece to help the

sellers to understand the effort which went into making a piece. Absent such awareness

with respect to technical proficiency or effort, aesthetic appreciation is necessarily limited

to the level of subjective appreciation which the patron has for the piece itself, and may

hinder sales as a result: In the instance that a work is only valued for its beauty, it may

present qualities of “richness, intensity,” as well as “sensual and emotional elements”

which trigger “imagination and reflection,” but these are qualities which vary widely

based on the proclivities, preferences, and life experiences of the potential buyer (81).

It is crucial to distinguish between these two levels of aesthetic appreciation

because they are both contributing factors in the valuation which is ascribed to a given

14
piece. While the amount of beauty that a piece expresses presents a means by which a

sale can be secured, it is ultimately a highly subjective and variable quality. In essence,

the aesthetic appreciation that a piece carries can be enhanced, then, through the two

objective quality measures considered in this section. First, from the ‘auction house’

model, pieces can be enhanced in value by arguments and points made to reflect upon

their cultural significance. Second, from a technical standpoint, works can be similarly

enhanced in value through narratives and evidence to show the level of effort which went

into their production. Both from enunciating the objective cultural value and level of

effort which contributed to the creation of a given work, can such works’ aesthetic and

subjective beauty be enhanced, and their cost at sale be increased commensurately.

Humanitarian Patronage

There is a third major area that must be considered with respect to how best to

gain the attention and support of art buyers. Humanitarian patronage, in which artistic

value is meted out based not on cultural relevance or technical precision (or even due to

aesthetic beauty) is an avenue for the establishment of value which reflects a sense of

philanthropy on the part of the buyer. As described by Martin (86), this can also be

deemed cultural patronage, as it reflects a higher sense of purpose and greater political

and social goal than that which is merely satisfied through the collection of an artwork

which is visually pleasing, culturally relevant, or likely to appreciate in cost. This author

argues that the key difficulty faced by such patrons is how to determine which cause is

most relevant to this consideration, and as a result, argues for the importance of defining

15
the cultural role performed by the organization or individual in question, and how best to

court buyers who may wish their purchase to have a stronger social purpose.

Humanitarian patronage is similar to charity, but because there is a transaction

taking place, there is more of a sense of social participation at work in the practice of

humanitarian patronage than in simple artistic purchase. In terms of the decisions to be

made by these patrons, the difficulty often comes down to whether to support “successful

organization or promising but struggling groups” (Martin 86). This angle seems to reflect

the idea that all organizations who could stand to benefit from a charitable purchase are

equally-deserving. However, as with the indicators explored above, a great deal can be

done by the individual or organization to induce such spending, through framing their

artwork as more deserving of a charitable purchase. Through deft presentation of sales

techniques, the comparative social value of a given organization can be increased, and

with it, the likelihood of a ‘humanitarian’ sale to an interested patron.

As described by Chandler et al. (12), patronage can “indeed be altruistic and

inspired by humanitarian concerns,” using examples of patronage of Jewish artists who

had escaped from Nazi Germany as a key – if extreme – example of this concept. This

explication of “patterns of patronage, solidarity, and support” as arising between refugee

artists and their patrons shows ways in which the political can inform the artistic, and

lead to the advancement of a cause and greater awareness: In these instances, the refugees

did not seek charity outright, but were in need of assistance. Through establishing routes

by which these refugee artists could put on shows – and, if indirectly, describe their

plight – the patrons and show attendees presented their wholehearted support for these

artists in a manner which did not tread upon their dignity (12). Through recognizing that

16
the cause was just, the works these artists produced – and the artists themselves –

received premium valuation based on the political context in which they were sold.

Crucially, the political decisions by which such patronage is supported can lead to

greater support for a marginalized group, without having the direct appearance of charity.

This is helpful for two reasons: First, the wealthy patrons can gain artworks with a great

deal of political significance, as based on their relative worth as enhanced by the

humanitarian purposes of their patronage, and recipients of funds in exchange for their

works can receive positive benefits of success enhanced by the political context in which

their works were sold. However, because there are always “trends or areas which happen

to become fashionable at a certain time,” and which necessarily contribute to “patrons’

ideas” of who ought to “benefit from their benefactions,” it is crucial that the potential

recipients of artworks for which sales are humanitarian in nature sell their cause in a

robust manner (Carlebach 218).

The benefits of purchasing artworks for humanitarian purposes can quickly

outweigh the relative cost of the works, especially for the wealthy art buyer. As described

by Giuffre (74), when describing a charitable art auction in New Zealand, charitable

giving is typically a means by which the wealthy can gain an “air of disinteredness” and

compassion, while they simultaneously engage in luxury buying. Through humanitarian

art buying, these individuals were able to transform a luxury purchase into “outward-

directed, community-minded actions,” sufficient to cause “buyers [to be] praised for

buying,” and artists to be praised for creating works which bring to light the particular

plight or cause which they are championing (74).

17
 Humanitarian patronage can be further extended to concepts of social change.

Again, where any consideration of rote charitable giving would result in the clear

advancement of a particular political goal through such giving, humanitarian artistic

patronage carries a greater potential for impact for its basis in community-building. As

described by Shoemaker (16), patronage offers both “public recognition and a welcome

bulwark against the corrupting, commercial commodification of art.” It is likely that

wealthy patrons of the arts are just as aware of this corrupting influence on the purpose of

art buying as any other member of society, but are often ill-prepared to find a way to

solve this problem themselves. They may, in fact, aspire to the “elitist aspirations of high

art” purchases, through conducting themselves in a manner which serves to remove their

practices from the “contingent sphere of everyday exchange,” and satisfy some “higher

calling” through art collection (Shoemaker 16).

However, engaging in the traditional mode of artistic collection and purchase

carries with it many of the same economic factors as have been considered throughout

this piece, particularly the likelihood of contributing to a market which delivers its

rewards in an unfair manner, and through which no ‘higher calling’ is justified aside from

satisfying the wants and needs of the patron for artworks which are either relevant or

visually pleasing. Through humanitarian patronage, a greater sense of purpose is derived

from the action of purchasing art, and some of the guilt that these wealthy actors may feel

as a result of their actions may be assuaged.

Artistic Success

18
 As described by White (1), there are generally three different levels of what might

be deemed “success” in the artistic and creative fields, loosely tied to the income accrued

to the artist for their art. At the lowest levels of art-derived income, success might be

defined as survival, in which financial success is necessarily secondary to the need to pay

the rent; works by artists in this category are not yet visible or popular enough to be

returning much on their investment of time (White 1). At this level, the chief benefit

conferred on the art is not money, but credibility, pride, and satisfaction. The other two

levels are making enough money through the art to gain emotional and social benefits but

also being able to afford to be self-sufficient. These two of the three categories represent

a statistically small percentage of all persons engaged in creative acts or productions.

While the idea that love of the craft and pride in the product as its own best outcome is

well and good, there is little sustainability at the lowest level. According to Day (1), few

artists are able to make a full-time living at their art, and the proportion of those who are

able to use art as a path to wealth is even smaller.

Under these dire conditions for artists, there is often a sense of malaise or fatalism

about how the wealthiest artists came to be. There is a perception of moderately to very

successful artists as privileged outliers whose success was perhaps due in part to their

personal effort but mostly due to institutional and economic forces (Gaugy 1). This

attitude necessarily requires a critical examination of the actions and associations that

proved pivotal to the success of a Jeff Koons or Damien Hurst. This thesis will posit that

the ‘superstar’ artists are no different in how they moved through their artistic careers

than anyone else during the early years of their careers. As this is the case, there is no

19
reason to expect that their choices or strategies were a secret or somehow ‘cut off’ from

those of any other artist.

To determine what shifts artistic success from the low and middle levels to the

highest level, this thesis considers factors such as where works by these artists are seen

and the preferred art styles of the high-end galleries representing them. Most important in

determining movement from one level to the next is determining how any given artist can

gain access to these galleries. Who needs to see and write about an artist’s works in order

for them to make a “big splash” in the art world? These are areas of inquiry that might

reveal appropriate courses of future action for artists looking to move to the next level of

success. If the end-goal is major financial success, is it wise to create art that caters to the

tastes of the wealthy? As many artists and others in the art community would argue, there

is a broader definition of success that is far more valuable and maintains the integrity of

the artist. Artists may value acceptance and respect by contemporary art critics, and art

historians as well, as a more meaningful indicator of the value of their work.

This thesis considers ways in which art can be created or marketed or otherwise

presented to these crucial participants in the art world. In essence, there are avenues by

which success can be made more likely, which have been followed by major artists

throughout history and to today, that have less to do with economics than with shared art

community perspectives on art’s merits and the historical significant of a work of art. I

propose that an effective means of gaining success in the art world is through the creation

of alternative markets for art to those already established and engrained in the status quo.

To this end, SoHo Arts Club will be used as a model.

20
 Founded in New York City in 2014, the SoHo Arts Club is a place of awareness

and togetherness fostered through the shared cultivation of artistic talent and success by

individual production and group marketing. SoHo Arts Club is committed to supporting

artists through a collaborative approach to marketing artwork. The goal of the Club is to

bring back the artistic spirit characterized by New York City in the 1970s and 1980s.

Average works of art range between $15,000 and $75,000. The club generates income

from sale of lithographs, but if it is to continue to afford its $30,000 monthly rent, it must

sell original pieces to buyers with enough income to afford art at these middle level

prices. Under these unique pressures, this organization has sought to provide its artists

and patrons novel value by design. The space is designed to act as a “buffer” against the

commercial pressures which are all-too-common to contemporary artists, a space for

artists to produce work without distraction.

There are two primary goals of the SoHo Arts Club. The first is one of

fundamental insulation of the artists who do work there, both from their potential patrons

and from the larger exigencies of the wider art market. This is what is meant by a

“return” to the New York of the 1970s and 1980s. The idea put forth here is that this will

allow artists to produce works of extraordinary diversity, complexity, and beauty, all

because they will not be forced to contend with the massive amount of pressure put forth

by wealthy patrons who know what they like, and are in a position to demand it, and as

such tend to unnecessarily influence artistic decision-making at the granular level.

The second goal is to ensure that these artists become as successful and as

possible through a shared approach to marketing and—this is crucial—once the

individual works have been completed. Through this twin methodology of first insulating

21
the artists and then inviting those same artists to share in the marketing of the works that

they generate, it is anticipated that a strong body of artwork will be created which will

then achieve as high a price at auction as possible. This twofold approach of shared

success can be generated which will easily attract the attention of high-wealth art buyers.

In my thesis, I will thoroughly examine the operations of the SoHo Arts Club and its

possibility for “humanitarian” patronage of the arts. The following section will consider

the various methodological and data-collection elements that will inform this analysis,

and the results and implications of that process will follow.

Soho Arts Club and Humanitarian Patronage

In addition, humanitarian patrons of the arts have a strong potential of use to be

engines of social change beyond those which are reflected in charitable need. In

particular, as has been considered, these patrons may have strong objections with respect

to the current ‘state’ of the art market, both in terms of production and with respect to

sale and price. To this end, they may be ‘sold’ on supporting artists and artistic products

which seek to break from the traditional mold, and which constitute a departure from the

prevalent model which has come to identify the modern art market. These buyers are

often highly-interested in novelty, as well as subversion, as each of these concepts carry

with them a great deal of legitimacy which might serve to enhance the value of any

artistic product they purchase. It is the view of this work that the SoHo Arts Club, as will

be considered, represents a clear way by which major change in artistic practice may be

effectuated in the larger market, through a vector of humanitarian artistic purchases.

22
 While in this instance, there is no charitable purpose being satisfied by inducing

buyers to patronize the artists who sell their wares from the SoHo Arts Club, there is a

larger social purpose at work in the club’s design and organization which these patrons

may appreciate. In particular, the club harkens back to an earlier time in the history of

New York, when art had less to do with financial success (or blockbuster artists), and had

a greater sense of community to support it, through artists collectives and other group-

minded activities. Through stoking nostalgia (and in particular, by invoking patrons’

potential disgust with the current system and economic principles surrounding artistic

valuation and pricing), these patrons may come to view their involvement, and purchases,

as a ‘vote’ for a return to a more vital means of producing art.

Thus it can be argued that there is no greater means by which changes can be

made in the art world except through the kind of humanitarian patronage SoHo Arts Club

seeks. Through establishing itself as a wholly-unique entity, the organization and

economics of which are a radical departure from the current status quo in the art world, it

is anticipated (and hoped) that wealthy buyers may take notice. These are discerning

individuals for whom trends and the appearance of being on the ‘cutting edge’ of a new

trend is apparent through their actions and purchasing decisions. However, until now,

there have been few means by which these patrons can actually effectuate political and

social change by their purchasing decisions.

Though the wealthy have a great deal of money, they have been just as much a

victim of the extravagant and garish artistic market (with its obscene valuations and

blockbuster artists) as anyone. By following trends – and paying extravagant amounts of

money – they may attain ‘bragging rights’ among their contemporaries, but it is the view

23
of this work that such patrons are just as aware of the lack of connection between the

value of a piece and their obscene valuations as anyone. Therefore, SoHo Arts Club

intends to provide wealthy buyers with a means by which they can purchase artworks

which are pleasing and relevant, as well as a path to artistic purchase which constitutes a

substantial vote against the corrupting norms of the current art scene.

24
 Chapter II

Methodology

While much of this thesis is based in primary and secondary research at libraries

and archives, it will be exploratory in nature in that it seeks to determine the best ways

for artists to generate value as the producers of works. This thesis seeks to determine

whether it is possible to apply principles of adding value through shared marketing of

individually produced work which maximizes the potential for its sale in the art world

while at the same time maintaining the artistic integrity of the artist and the work. This

thesis closely examines trends in the art world and the patterns of success for artists who

have primed their work toward wealthy buyers. It also examines data collected from the

SoHo Arts Club to determine the success of this alternate venue for advancing individual

artists. This data will be solicited to determine a SoHo Arts Club artist’s freedom to

create their own work and evaluate the support they receive from the Club. Specifically,

artists will be asked if the return on their dues was satisfactory, and if not, whether their

dues might be better spent in other ways to advance their careers. The stated purpose of

the SoHo Arts Club is to provide a stable and productive environment for artistic

expression and to facilitate a financially profitable outcome. To this end, evidence of the

successful achievement of these goals will be sought through the data collected.

25
 A combination of a qualitative and quantitative study is mounted in order to

determine the efficacy of the practices that have been considered in the course of the

above review, and the factors identified, particularly in light of the special qualifications

of the Soho Arts Club as opposed to other individual artistic creators. The following

section presents a methodological overview of a study which will explore the perceptions

and views shared by a range of stakeholders in this scenario, beginning with the artists

themselves, but also broadening to consider the perspectives presented by the purchasers

of such art, and any other major stakeholders whose opinions can be solicited. In

addition, the quantitative elements of this consideration will consist of contrasting the

valuation and profit obtained from a series of artworks when obtained through the

‘shared’ marketing model of the club environment itself, as opposed to the artists’ own

ventures. Similar ventures by independent artists will also be solicited as a means of

uncovering whether there is a major level of difference in pricing obtained in the course

of these artists’ collaborating on the marketing and sharing in the benefits of the unique

sales atmosphere provided by the SoHo Arts club. A more comprehensive explication of

the research methodology will follow.

Survey Instrument

A two-fold instrument is implemented in the course of this analysis, the purpose

of which will be to determine the relative effectiveness of the advertising and marketing

posture held by the SoHo Arts Club during the sales season that will form the basis for

this analysis. The primary data-collection instrument takes the form of a survey to be

26
distributed among members of this community, particularly among those whose interest

in SoHo Arts Club is only a ‘part-time’ venture, and have sought to sell their works in an

independent capacity.

The purpose of this survey is to determine whether the specific qualities afforded

to these artists within the SoHo Arts Club framework (namely that they have a shared and

communal space and are each subject to but also beneficiaries of a common marketing

posture) is of a perceived benefit to these members. In particular, this benefit is

contrasted with these subjects’ and participants views with respect to the value they have

gained against the dues they have paid. This is a qualitative and subjective analysis of

views held by these participants.

A second survey instrument is presented to certain solicited and sought-out

members of the wider world, particularly those with an interest in SoHo Arts Club, or

who have purchased works made by the artists in this community. The focus of this

qualitative approach to data-collection will be to determine whether participating subjects

recognized the unique value that has been added through the community structure which

SoHo Arts Club espouses. In addition, these subjects were surveyed with respect to the

valuation of pieces they have seek or purchased from SoHo Arts Club, and asked to

comment as to whether the valuation of the artistic products they sought was colored by

the community atmosphere out of which the works originated. Finally, this data-

collection process will solicit these stakeholders’ views as to their perspective on whether

so-called ‘humanitarian’ patronage factors played a role in their purchase decisions.

In short, this second body of survey data collection will seek to determine whether

(and if) SoHo Arts Club’s shared marketing posture and community elements have

27
served to add value to the pieces produced and sold from this organization. Both the first

and second surveys (Appendices I and II) will also include prompts for further interviews

to be conducted of a more open-ended nature. The purpose of these interviews is to help

to further clarify any points made in the course of the initial survey, as well as to identify

other areas of concern or consideration which are germane to this larger topic discussion.

Questions and answers from the interview process will be open-ended, and analyzed to

find common core themes and trends to use as a basis for data-driven conclusions in the

sections to follow.

At core, however, the data-collection to drive this case study is a mixed study, as

it contains a strong degree of quantitative analysis as well. While much of this work will

focus on determining the subjective proclivities of the various subjects collected for this

process, it will also be crucial to solicit bodies of data which serve to support the

qualitative findings above. The quantitative data-collection will be a direct outgrowth of

the data collected in the qualitative section. For instance, among subjects who agreed

with the statement, “I believe that SoHo Arts Club is worth my dues, in terms of the

return in sales I receive,” these subjects will be asked if they would disclose the prices on

artworks they had produced under the Soho Arts Club banner, and to which degree these

sales were greater than comparable works sold independently.

In addition, the third-party and external subjects will also be solicited in such a

manner. Quantitative data will be solicited, with respect to their purchasing decisions

made from the SoHo Arts Club, as well as their purchasing decisions with respect to

similar (or comparable) pieces obtained from other independent artists. Through these

findings, a quantitative valuation might be determined to show the degree to which the

28
community atmosphere fostered and grown at the SoHo Arts Club aids in the financial

success of its community of artists.

Subjects

Three primary artist-participants in the SoHo Arts Club community agreed to

participate in both the survey and interview process, namely David King Reuben, Harif

Guzman, and Anthony Lister. The results of these interviews and survey mechanisms (as

presented in detail in the Appendices) will be outlined in the third chapter. In addition,

this researcher was able to solicit the feedback of nine high-value art buyers who have

purchased works from the SoHo Arts Club in recent years, though none of these subjects

allowed themselves to be identified by name for the purposes of this study. Out of these

subjects, all of the artists agreed to take the survey provided, as well as to engage in the

follow-up interview process. Of the nine buyers solicited, all agreed to take the survey –

on the condition of their anonymity – but only four agreed to the follow-up interview

process. The following section will consider ways in which these subjects will be

protected through the course of the survey and interview data-collection process.

Protection of Subjects

In a traditional study, subjects’ identities would be fully anonymized and any

information they provided would be included only on condition of their names being

29
removed from data presentation. However, because SoHo Arts Club represents such a

small community of artists, many of whom have strong and vibrant public images, it is a

distinct possibility that these subjects may not wish to remain anonymous in the course of

this data collection and presentation. This researcher provided these subjects with the

option of remaining anonymous, but also made it clear that their names and personally-

identifying information could remain anonymous if they wished. These protections (and

the option for publication) were retained through the survey bodies of data-collection, as

well as the optional interview stages, as well as in the course of the collection of survey

data to inform this study.

The same factors certainly present with respect to the interested buyers and other

artistic critics whose views will be solicited from the second body of analysis. These

stakeholders may wish to remain anonymous, or they may wish to have their names

disclosed in the course of the data presentation and analysis. As with the artists ‘in-house’

from whom data was solicited, artistic patrons and critics will be given the option of

having their names disclosed in the course of the presentation of this data. As has been

indicated, the three artists whose input was solicited for the purposes of this study –

David King Reuben, Harif Guzman, and Anthony Lister – agreed to have their names

publicized for this consideration, but the nine high-value art buyers who agreed to

participate in this study, did not agree to such publication.

Limitations and Delimitations

30
 This thesis will be limited not in scope of research but by the success in collecting

data from SoHo Arts Club artists about their perspectives on their success as artists, as

well as by the successful solicitation of third-party buyers and critics to help establish this

body of data. Independent of the perspectives of artists, this thesis will seek evidence of

artists’ success from independent sources such as gallery sales, reviews of artists’ works

from art critics, recognition of artists by art historians, and other indicators of

advancement in the art world.

Some significant body of data was anticipated to result from such solicitation,

particularly from in and among the SoHo Arts Club. A further limiting factor pertained to

the ability of this researcher to obtain the third-party voices and views solicited from

outside the SoHo arts club, especially with respect to soliciting insight as to these crucial

stakeholders’ specific financial perspectives, motivations, and actions.

It is to this end that this work would be deemed sufficient in the event that it was

able to uncover a positive or negative correlation between the amount of money which

members of this organization spend in dues and the value they receive from the works

they sell at SoHo Arts Club. Even if no additional financial information is provided, a

significant body of evidence to indicate these artists’ positive view of their membership

may be sufficient to indicate that this organization’s mission, namely of collectivizing

marketing and forming a uniform posture designed to increase sales, has been successful.

It was anticipated the body of data produced would include the primary quantitative

elements that have been sought, but in the event that none are forthcoming (that is, if

none of the subjects acquiesce to this request), qualitative findings, primarily by

interview, were deemed be sufficient grounds for results generation.

31
 Further limiting factors present in the form of the reliability of the responses to

the survey and interview-based data-collection instruments that have been considered.

While it is not likely that members of the SoHo Arts Club will present answers or views

which run counter to their beliefs and perspectives, this is a very real possibility with

respect to the views that may be solicited from external stakeholders. In particular, there

is the possibility that these respondents may fabricate their perspectives or give false

answers, or those that they believe that this data collector ‘wants to hear,’ especially in

the course of describing their proclivity toward purchasing art from a humanitarian

posture. To this end, it is crucial to solicit (and obtain) backing quantitative data that may

serve to support these findings, so that any perspectives or opinions they reveal can be

corroborated in the data. That said, even if no quantitative data can be collected from

these secondary stakeholders, it is anticipated that their views (even if they are not

supported by rigorous data) will be sufficient grounds upon which to collect data. If these

sources are not forthcoming with quantitative data, but the members of SoHo Arts Club

are, then sufficient grounds can be established upon which to derive robust findings.

32
 Chapter III

Results

Two bodies of data informed the results to follow; A straightforward survey

instrument was presented to both the artists of the SoHo Arts Club recruited for this

survey, as well as to a group of buyers who agreed to participate. In addition to the

survey instrument, a series of standardized follow-up interview questions were used to

further assess the results which were produced in the course of this data-collection

process. The following sections will present the results which were generated from each

question posed in the course of the administered surveys (as given to nine buyers and

four artists), as well as the themes and findings which issued from the follow-up

interviews, for which all three artists and four buyers agreed to participate.

Survey Results: Buyers

This section will present findings from survey questions presented to nine

anonymous buyers solicited and agreed to participate in this data-collection process.

Three ‘demographic’ questions – pertaining to income, net worth, and yearly art purchase

outlays – were presented, as well as seven questions pertaining to artistic valuation and

33
perception of factors germane to the art market, as well as elements which would cause

these buyers to be likelier (or less likely) to ‘participate’ – by their patronage – in

organizations like the SoHo Arts Club.

Demographic Questions. (1) The first question asked these buyers to estimate their net

worth. Out of these nine buyers, three responded that their net worth was less than

$200,000 per year (subjects 2, 6, and 9). Three responded that their net worth was

between $200,000 per year and $500,000 per year (subjects 1, 3, and 5). Two respondents

reported that their net worth was between $500,000 and $1 million per year (respondents

4 and 7), and one respondent (subject 8) responded that their net worth was in excess of

$1 million per year.

(2) The second question asked these buyers to estimate their yearly income. These

results generally tracked with the responses presented for the first body of demographic

data; Subjects 2, 6, and 9 each reported that their yearly income was less than $200,000

per year, and subjects 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 each reported yearly incomes of between $200,000

and $500,000 per year. Finally, buyer 8 – whose net worth was the highest of the subjects

assessed in this manner – reported that their yearly income was between $500,000 and $1

million per year.

(3) The third question asked buyers solicited for this study to estimate the amount

of money that they (or their households) spent on works of contemporary art each year.

As with the other bodies of demographic data collected, this information also tracked

with the net worth and annual income prompts. Three respondents (subjects 1,2, and 6)

reported spending less than $5,000 on art each year (reflecting their lower average annual

income and net worth), where four respondents (subjects 3, 4, 5, and 7) responded that

34
their annual spending on art was between $5,000 and $10,000 each year. As with the

other bodies of demographic financial data, the wealthiest buyer (subject 8) reported

spending between $50,000 and $100,000 on art each year.

Survey Prompts to Buyers. The second part of the survey asked the buyers to present

their feelings and points of view on a range of issues of critical importance to this larger

study, by choosing from a range of responses on a Likert scale. (1) The first prompt asked

the buyers to present (on a ‘scale of five’) how important art ownership was to them. Out

of these subjects, there was no true correlation found between their responses and their

income; None of the subjects reported that art ownership had no meaning, but two

respondents (subjects 6 and 9) replied that they generally ‘disagreed’ that art ownership

was a valuable pursuit, in findings which reflected their likelihood to view such

purchases as investments, much like any other commodity. No respondents were ‘neutral’

in this manner. The majority of buyer-respondents (subjects 2, 3, 5, and 7) responded that

they ‘agreed’ that artistic purchases – and the ownership conferred by such purchases –

was important to them, and two respondents (subjects 4 and 8, whose net worth, annual

income, and annual art purchases were high) replied that they ‘strongly agreed’ that

artistic purchases were a valuable use of their time and resources.

(2) The second prompt asked buyers to describe the degree to which they

appreciated aesthetic appeal in works of art. This prompt may have been too broad in its

line of reasoning, as it resulted in a fairly uniform set of responses which did not directly

correlate with any of the demographic information. Six of the respondents (subjects 1, 2,

3, 5, 6, and 9) responded that they ‘agreed’ with the prompt which asked them to assess

the degree to which they valued aesthetic appeal in works of art, and three respondents

35
(subjects 4, 7, and the very wealthy subject 8) responded that they ‘highly agreed’ with

this prompt.

(3) The third prompt asked these buyers to present the degree to which aesthetic

appeal – as a factor of the personal satisfaction, absent technical or commodity qualities –

factored into their choices to purchase a given work of art, or to patronize a given artistic

organization. These results tended to track with the responses presented for the second

prompt; Though none of the participants marked ‘highly disagree,’ ‘disagree,’ or

‘neutral,’ their responses were generally the same as those for the second prompt,

meaning that on the whole, these art buyers tended to correlate valuation which they

placed on artworks with the degree to which they felt the pieces they purchased reflected

some innate degree of aesthetic value. The only deviations in these findings were found

in subject 3 (who replied ‘agree’ to describe their appreciation of aesthetic value in art,

but ‘strongly agree’ to describe the relationship between their perception of aesthetic

appeal and their choice to purchase a given work). This same slight change was also

observed in subjects 5, 6, and 9. Results generated by subject 7 provided the opposite

view, with findings showing they assigned less priority to works which they believed

held greater aesthetic appeal.

(4) The fourth prompt asked buyers to describe the degree to which their choice of

artistic works for purchase was informed simply by the degree to which such works

appealed to them, independent of any specific technical or aesthetic qualities perceived to

be presented by the works. This prompt divided the subjects into two camps; The first

consisted of subjects 5, 6, and the wealthiest subject (subject 8), all of whom ‘disagreed’

with the prompt. The remaining respondents – whose interest in works of art might have

36
resulted from such rote measures of direct appeal – were subjects 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, all

of whom responded ‘highly agree.’

(5) The fifth prompt asked buyers to describe the degree to which they valued

humanitarian patronage, defined as the process by which works of art are purchased in

order to effectuate some social change element, especially with regard to the contrast of

such purchases with ‘non-humanitarian’ focused purchases, as under the auction house

model. The second-wealthiest respondent (subject 3, whose net worth was between

$200,000 and $500,000, as was their yearly income, and who spent between $5,000 and

$10,000 each year on works of art) was the only respondent to reply that they had no

feelings on this manner, by their ‘neutral’ response. Out of the remaining respondents,

three replied ‘disagree’ (subjects 3, 6, and 7), and the remaining respondents (subjects 1,

2, 5, and 9) ‘highly agreed’ with the value of humanitarian patronage, especially with

respect to the importance of supporting contemporary artists.

(6) The sixth prompt asked the buyers whose feedback was solicited to describe

the degree to which humanitarian patronage elements in general factored into their

choices to purchase works of contemporary art. Interestingly, the findings provided by

the art buyer respondents for this section did not universally track directly with their

responses to the fifth prompt. In particular, where subjects 1 and 2 each ‘highly agreed’

with the general value of humanitarian patronage, both of these subjects replied only that

they ‘agreed’ that such elements played a role in their choice to purchase a given work of

art. Where subject 2 ‘disagreed’ with the importance of humanitarian patronage, they

‘strongly disagreed’ that such elements played a role in a given purchase decision. Each

of the other respondents (subjects 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) each carried their responses over

37
from the previous prompt, and placed the same degree of weight on their valuation of

humanitarian patronage with the degree to which they took humanitarian patronage

factors into account in their final decision to purchase a given artwork.

(7) The final prompt asked these buyers to describe the degree to which their

choice of the SoHo Arts Club was informed by political or humanitarian motives. Though

it might be anticipated that these qualities, too, would extend from the values presented in

the fifth and sixth prompts, there were some critical deviations from this expectation

observed in the survey results.

Subject 1 (who ‘strongly agreed’ with humanitarian patronage in general, and

‘agreed’ that such qualities would factor into their purchase decisions) ‘disagreed’ with

this final prompt, indicating that there were other factors at work in their choice to

purchase a given work from the SoHo Arts Club than the organization’s adherence to

humanitarian principles. Similar results – replying ‘highly agree,’ then ‘agree,’ then

‘disagree’ to the fifth, sixth, and seventh prompts – also resulted from subject 2. Subject 3

‘disagreed’ with the importance of humanitarian patronage, but then replied ‘strongly

disagree’ to both the importance which such factors played in their art purchase

decisions, as well as how such humanitarian and commercially-‘insulating’ factors

influenced their likelihood to purchase SoHo Arts Club works.

Subject 4 – interestingly – replied with ‘neutral’ to prompts five, six, and seven,

and subject 6 (one of the lowest value respondents, and whose yearly art spending was

also very low) replied ‘disagree’ to all three of these final prompts. Critically, subject 8

(one of the wealthiest respondents) also replied ‘disagree’ to each of these three final

prompts. Finally, subject 9, whose net worth, annual income, and annual art spending

38
were just as low as subject 6, replied ‘strongly agree’ to the value they placed on

humanitarian patronage, the degree to which such value informed their art purchase

decisions, and how likely they were to patronize SoHo Arts Club as a function of the

value they assigned to humanitarian artistic patronage.

Interview Findings: Buyers

Respondents who agreed to be interviewed were subjects 2, 4, 8 and 9. These

interviews took no longer than 10 minutes to complete, and followed the framing

questions, as follows:

(1) The first interview prompt asked these subjects to assess the qualities and

factors which motivated them, as a purchaser of contemporary art. Subject 2 replied that

art was highly important to them, on an aesthetic level, and as a means of filling their

lives and home with “beautiful things.” That said, this respondent also presented

themselves as a “charitable person,” and argued that if it was possible to use their

purchases of art as a means of effectuating social change, especially one which deviated

from the ‘auction house’ model, which they described as “greedy,” they would choose to

do so. However, this respondent (subject 2) admitted that they’d sought out the SoHo

Arts Club not for completely ‘humanitarian’ reasons, but because the works they’d

purchased from this organization had “appreciated strongly” in the past. Subject 4 largely

saw eye-to-eye with subject 2, particularly their appreciation for the aesthetic value of art,

and the ways in which art, in their words, exists “to make life worth living.” When

39
pressed with respect to the degree to which they sought works based on the

‘humanitarian’ nature of such purchases, they admitted not caring how the work was

formed – or under which organizational imperatives – but instead claimed that they

purchased works which they found pleasing.

Subject 8 mirrored many of the views presented by other respondents, especially

with respect to the importance played by aesthetic appeal when assessing which works to

purchase, but admitted that most of their purchases carried no greater political meaning;

Either they purchased works which appealed to them aesthetically, or works were likely

to appreciate in value. Subject 9 was the only art buyer who appeared to have a strong

understanding and appreciation for the mission of the SoHo Arts Club, and argued for the

importance of the club’s political and economic mission in their response to this first

question, without active prompting. This subject admitted that art ownership wasn’t that

important to them, and that it was a “way of decorating my apartment,” but argued that it

was critical to seek out organizations – such as SoHo Arts Club – which deviated from

the “ugly norm” in the world of art sales.

(2) The second interview prompt asked them to assess the degree to which social

factors informed their choice of a given venue, organization, or individual artist for the

purchase of works. Subject 2 replied that they purchased works based on the likelihood of

the works themselves appreciating in value – or demonstrating strong aesthetic appeal –

but would be willing to overlook both of those elements if a given work of art “told a

good story.” Subject 4 argued that because they purchased “many” works of art in a given

year, the chief element of value which they ascribed to these works was mostly the

degree to which such works would be “impressive” when displayed to their friends and

40
family. Subject 8 also admitted to purchasing many works of art in a given year, but

presented the most important quality of a work of art as their “ability to appreciate over

time,” and argued that art, in general, was “mostly the same, aside from its value as an

investment.” Subject 9 echoed the views of subject 4, albeit on a smaller scale – informed

by the lesser amount of money they spent on art each year – by arguing that the key

social factor which informed their purchase of an artwork was the degree to which they

might present that purchase to their friends and family as one which “fought the good

fight” against the “ridiculous” contemporary art market, and as a purchase which would

help artists to “find their way in this world which is overly concerned about money.”

(3) The third question was broader than the first two; This question sought to

determine the degree to which these artists took into account the perceived

‘commodification’ of high-value art, and to assess whether (or how much) such

‘commodification’ contributed to their artistic purchase decisions. Subject 2 argued that

commodification was a problem in contemporary art, as it tended to place too great a

value on whichever works of art “have the best marketing,” and cited Damien Hurst, in

particular, as an example of artistic commodification “run amok.” To this end, this buyer

viewed ‘humanitarian patronage’ – though not by name – as a strong means by which

such forces might be countered.

Subject 4 argued that commodification – as they perceived it – was a “necessary

evil” in the modern capitalist system, under which art buyers would be “fools” to not take

into account the capacity of a given work to appreciate in value as a strict financial

investment. Subject 8 echoed the views of subject 4, arguing that art was a commodity,

and that the role that they played, as a high-value individual, was to “buy low and sell

41
high,” as with any other investment. Subject 9 responded similarly to subject 2, and

argued that the role of the wealthy patron was not to simply follow the “demands of the

market,” but instead to “follow their heart,” especially by pursuing routes to artistic

purchases by which they could actively reject the “blatant disregard for quality” shown

through the “outrageous” valuation on artworks they considered to have little intrinsic

value, and which served only to reduce the ability of less-exposed artists to make sales.

(4) The fourth question sought to determine whether these respondents took into

account perceived political or economic factors (as which present in the larger art market)

into their choice of artworks to purchase. The answers to this question largely mirrored

the buyers’ responses to the fourth question; Subject 2 argued that their choice of

artworks for purchase largely depended on the degree to which the artwork appealed to

them, on an aesthetic or technical level, but also just if they “liked” the artwork in

question, independent of larger social and economic factors; That said, they agreed with

the idea that SoHo Arts Club provides a much-needed service to the artistic community,

by its offering artists a way to “escape” the economic and political factors which often

“reduce” the ability of artists to gain exposure for their works.

Subject 4 mirrored many of the views presented by subject 2, especially with

respect to their lack of rationale for art purchases by factors aside from whether the work

appealed to them on an aesthetic level. Subject 8 – whose yearly spending on

contemporary art was highest of the respondents – revealed that economic factors

(especially the likelihood of a work to appreciate in value) was among their highest

concerns, second only to how such works appealed to them aesthetically. Finally, subject

9 argued that political and economic factors, particularly those which reflected the

42
deleterious ‘commodification’ of art tending to place higher value on works which “did

not deserve it,” factored into their purchase decisions; Their choice to patronize SoHo

Arts Club, then, reflected the high level of importance which they placed on political

ends, such as a reduction in such commodification, served by their purchases.

Survey Results: Artists

As with the buyers, the artists solicited for initial survey were provided with a

series of demographic questions which pertained to their economic status. These prompts

were somewhat ‘scaled down’ from the financial factors presented for the buyer surveys,

as a factor of their likelihood to have less income and net worth than those individuals

anticipated to be sufficiently wealthy to have discretionary income to spend on

contemporary art. As presented to the three artists, David King Reuben (DKR), Harif

Guzman (HG), and Anthony Lister (AL), none of these subjects declined to respond to

any of the financial demographic questions.

Demographic Questions. (1) The first prompt asked these artists to estimate their net

worth. Each of these artists presented that they had a net worth of between $100,000 and

$250,000. (2) The second prompt asked these artists to estimate their yearly income.

DKR and AL each replied that their yearly income was between $50,000 and $100,000,

and HG replied that his net worth was between $100,000 and $250,000 per year. (3) The

third prompt asked these artists to estimate how much of their yearly income came from

the sales of artworks, both through the SoHo Arts Club and through other independent

43
sales. DKR and AL each replied that their income from art sales constituted between 25%

and 50% of their total income, where HG replied that greater than half of his total income

came from sales of his artworks.

Survey Prompts to Artists. The questions posed to the artists tracked somewhat with the

questions which were presented to the artists, but maintained a stronger focus on

elements more germane to these artists’ understanding of their role in the artistic market,

as well as with respect to the value they took from their participation in the SoHo Arts

Club. The need for insulation from the larger exigencies of the artistic market also

informed the survey prompts presented to these three artists, and the value they took from

SoHo Arts Club’s collaborative mission.

(1) The first prompt – for which artists responded from a 5-item Likert scale –

asked the artists to assess the degree to which artistic independence was important to

them, both separate from the constraints imposed by the SoHo Arts Club, as well as those

imposed by the larger art market. Both DKR and AL replied that they believed that they

‘agreed’ with the prompt that such independence was important, where HG replied that

he ‘strongly agreed’ that such independence was important.

(2) The second prompt asked the artists to assess the degree to which they agreed

that larger artistic market trends, as based upon the ‘auction house’ model, provided an

accurate reflection of the value which artworks held. None of the artists who were

surveyed for this study replied that the widespread method which informs the valuation

of art – as has been considered in this work, especially in the form of such valuation

tending to favor ‘superstar’ artists – provided an accurate reflection of the inherent value

held by the works in question. Critically, where DKR and AL’s responses were both to

44
‘strongly disagree’ with the idea that the ‘auction house’ model provides an accurate

means of assessing the value of a given work of art, HG replied with a slightly more

moderate view, and only ‘disagreed’ with the prompt.

(3) The third prompt asked these artists to assess the degree to which they felt

beholden to match the tastes of the wealthy individuals who – as a function of their

financial means – were likeliest to be able to afford their works, both through direct sale

and at auction. This was the first finding in which there was serious deviation between

the artists who were surveyed for this consideration. Both DKR and AL replied that they

‘strongly agreed’ with the finding (and indicated that they felt significant pressures and

constraints on their own artistic goals as a function of their patrons’ tastes), HG

‘disagreed’ with the prompt, thereby indicating that his perception of the negative quality

imposed by such pressures was far lower than his colleagues.

(4) The fourth prompt asked the artists to present the degree to which they

believed that market elements tended to reduce artistic independence, as a factor of the

preferences of wealthy individuals likeliest to engage in art purchases. These findings

were coincident with those for the third prompt, with both DKR and AL ‘strongly

agreeing’ with the idea that the market tended to reduce the level of independence felt by

artists. As with the third prompt, HG also ‘disagreed’ – though not ‘strongly’ – with the

idea that artistic independence is inhibited by market forces.

(5) The fifth prompt asked these artists to assess the degree to which there was a

need to insulate artists from the market forces which were tacitly implied in the third and

fourth prompts, perhaps as a means of ensuring the maintenance of their artistic

independence. This prompt maintained the themes found in the views of DKR and AL, as

45
both of these artists replied that they ‘strongly agreed’ with the idea that it was necessary

to insulate artists from the exigencies of the market as a whole, thereby providing their

endorsement to the mission of the SoHo Arts Club and other such organizations, if only

implicitly. HG continued to deviate from the views of his colleagues, through his

providing an answer of ‘neutral,’ which was the only such (unsubstantial) response

delivered in the body of questions which comprised this survey mechanism.

(6) The sixth prompt asked the respondents to determine the degree to which they

appreciated the collaborative mission of the SoHo Arts Club, as well as the collaborative

approach which this organization brings to the marketing of contemporary artworks.

Responses to this question were critical for the ways in which they patently deviated from

the trends observed in the preceding three prompts; Where the trend observed – that of

HG tending to view the mission of SoHo Arts Club as less of a market necessity than the

other artists surveyed – might indicate that HG would view the SoHo Arts Club mission

with some skepticism, the findings did not continue to bear out this trend. Instead, all

three artists surveyed ‘agreed’ with the sixth prompt, and thus showed some (though not

‘strong’) appreciation for the collaborative marketing mission of this artistic

collaborative.

(7) The seventh prompt asked these respondents to assess the degree to which

they believed that the value which they took from their participation in SoHo Arts Club

was worth their investment, in the form of dues paid to the organization. Though the sixth

prompt did not maintain the trends observed in prompts 3-5, the responses offered to this

prompt appeared to maintain the earlier trend; Both DKR and AL ‘strongly agreed’ that

46
their investment in the SoHo Arts Club was worth their investment, both with respect to

money and in direct collaboration, but HG ‘disagreed’ with this prompt.

(8) The eighth and final prompt asked these artists to assess whether they

believed that they would have just as much artistic success as they had at present, if they

were to pursue art sales outside of the SoHo Arts Club. This final prompt maintained

many of the critical trends observed in the majority of the preceding items; DKR and AL

replied ‘highly disagree’ and ‘disagree,’ respectively, where HG replied ‘agree,’ in

findings which reflect the difference in the level of confidence which these artists hold

with regard to their likelihood of being able to succeed – especially under the ‘auction

house’ model of valuation and other factors – in art production independent of the

benefits they received under the unique SoHo Arts Club model.

Interview Findings: Artists

All three artists solicited and obtained for survey consideration agreed to be

interviewed. These interviews took no longer than 15 minutes each, and followed the

generalized terms of the open-ended questions which accompanied the survey prompts.

(1) The first question asked the artists to describe the elements which motivated

them as producers of contemporary art. DKR, the London-born and New York-based

multimedia artist, replied that the chief source of his motivation in his artistic creation

was to use art as a means of engaging socially with the world around him. In particular,

his works have sought to explore the vast range of human foibles, particular among them

47
people’s need to satisfy their ambitions, in a manner which often defies survival

imperatives or common sense. He describes his motivation in crafting his graphic works

– often of cubist or post-expressionistic style – as a means of engaging with wider

society, and in exposing human frailty in the twenty-first century. To this end, he

described his choice of venue – and collaborators – as a means of aiding in this larger

mission, as it is only through the “crucible” of artistic expression that the larger truths of

the human experience can be “exposed,” and such exposure is “immeasurably aided” by

collaboration.

AL, the Australian-born and New York-based graffiti and ‘street’ artist engages in

‘adventure’ painting, through the practice of ‘guerilla’ and graffiti artistic engagement

with cities around the world. He describes his chief motivation in the course of producing

his art as a means of “solving problems,” through the aesthetic – artistic – engagement

with a range of communities, largely by ‘street’ art and illegal graffiti, but he presented

this route to success as a means of building a brand upon which he has been able to sell

more legitimate (and transportable) works. That said, his true mission and motivation in

the construction of artistic works does not appear to be motivated by the pursuit of

financial gain outright.

HG is an artist and fashion designer who has sought to shirk common definitions

of what it means to be an ‘artist.’ His works began – similarly to AL – as ‘street art,’ but

quickly began to co-opt various corporate modes of artistic production, particularly

through his collaboration with the fashion line Diesel, and through the production of his

own fashion lines, Haculla and Delanci. HG’s motivation – from his paucity of direct

responses – appears to be less closely-adherent to the social mission or legitimacy shown

48
by DKR and AL, and of these artists, HG seemed most concerned with his ability to

leverage his artistic success (and the validity of spirit conferred upon him by participation

in SoHo Arts Club) into future independent financial gain.

(2) The second question in the interview process asked these artists to describe

whether – or which – social or environmental factors had most-strongly factored into

their choice to engage with the SoHo Arts Club. DKR argued that it was critical for

contemporary artists to do their best to separate themselves from the major market factors

which have the greatest degree of “negative” impact on the ability of artists to “speak the

truth.” AL certainly mirrored this view, arguing that both by his own collaboration at

SoHo Arts Club, and through his mission as an ‘adventure’ artist, has maintained a strong

sense of legitimacy both to his “roots” and to the larger “reality of the world” around

him, both of which would be “ruined” if he sought to meet the needs of the contemporary

art market. HG deviated from these views, and responded to this question by describing

the quality of materials and the “modern style” of his clothing line, both of which would

allow his “customers” to best achieve the “street” style embodied by his designs. In this

way, HG is shown as far more aware of the apparent necessity of meeting the needs of

the contemporary art market, especially by adhering to its definition of ‘fashionable’

clothing.

(3) The third question asked these artists to comment upon the whether they had

strong feelings about the ‘commodification’ of contemporary art, as well as to assess

whether these feelings contributed to their choice to collaborate at the SoHo Arts Club.

DKR and AL’s answers were largely the same; Both artists argued that it was critical for

artists to enter into “safe” spaces where they could be “freed” from the needs of the larger

49
art market, and from the often ‘negative’ influence of both individual patrons and the

whims of the artistic ‘moment.’ As both of these artists engage in patently critical

endeavors by their art, their rejection of the commodification of art in favor of pursuits

which place a premium on “speaking truth” came as little surprise, on the heels of their

survey and initial interview responses. HG again deflected by his response to this

question, and argued that it was necessary to produce “high-quality” products which

could differentiate themselves in the highly-competitive marketplace, but appeared to be

wholly ‘invested’ in the primacy of that marketplace in forming his sense of artistic

‘mission.’

(4) The fourth question asked whether political or economic considerations

factored into their choice to engage with the SoHo Arts Club. As with their initial survey

responses, both DKR and AL replied that it was critical for artists to insulate themselves

from factors within the larger art market which would serve to “inhibit” (DKR) the ability

of artists to tell “necessary truths” about the world. AL argued that he would have been

“lost” without the collaboration and shared approach to marketing which SoHo Arts Club

provided, and the unique political mission of this organization played a key role in his

choice to engage with this organization. As with the prior responses, HG replied that he’d

joined SoHo Arts Club as a means of engaging with his fellow artists and staying “true to

[his] roots,” but explained that he’d seen such success outside of the organization that his

maintaining his membership was less a means of keeping his artistic freedom as it was a

path to ensuring his cultural legitimacy as a ‘street’ artist was maintained.

(5) The fifth and final question posed to the artists solicited for interview asked

these respondents whether the collaborative venture of the SoHo Arts Club was worth

50
their time and money. Both DKR and AL replied that the membership dues were well

worth the price, especially with respect to the level of independence and market

‘insulation’ it afforded them. AL argued that – for the moment – the price was “sort of”

worth it, in terms of the increased sense of “street” legitimacy it provided, but implied

that he wouldn’t ‘need’ the organization much longer, if his fashion line became as

successful as he anticipated it would be.

51
 Chapter IV

Discussion and Recommendations

A range of findings are provided by the preceding consideration. In particular, as

reflective of the survey and interview results, there are three clear needs being espoused

by the artistic buyer community; Though this sample size was relatively low, and

confined to individuals whose purchases (and artistic interests) came solely from the

SoHo Arts Club, two clear groups are presented: The first group of buyers are those who

view artistic purchases as a mere means to an end; Respondents in this group tended to

view artistic purchases as a means of satisfying their need for aesthetic gratification, and

as a path to decorating their homes and lives with works which they found personally

satisfying.

The second group – including many of the highest-value respondents, and those

who spent the most money on contemporary art – tended to view artistic purchases as an

investment, the same as any other commodity, and especially as a means by which they

could purchase these works for the primary end of the works’ later sale. Critically, the

third group were those who most-strongly rejected the hyper-commodification typified by

the contemporary art market, and viewed their participation (through engagement and

purchases) with the SoHo Arts Club as a means of not simply investing in artworks, but

52
as an endorsement of its idea of an artistic space insulated from the wider (and apparently

deleterious) demands of the wider art market.

Interestingly, each of these factors was also mirrored in the artists who acceded to

be surveyed and interviewed, though the quality of ‘aesthetic’ or ‘technical’ acumen in

the works they presented was often replaced – in their summation – by valuation placed

on either artistic legitimacy or the capacity to imbue their works with such legitimacy

through producing works which spoke the necessary truths about the world which would

not necessarily be reflected in works which sought to adhere to market demand.

In this way, the contrast between DKR and AL’s views, and the views presented

by HG, can best be presented. Where DKR and AL viewed their artistic pursuits as a

means of rebellion or political action, commentary, or criticism, HG’s works (while they

maintain a sense of ‘street’ legitimacy) focus upon this artist’s personal financial

edification through the satisfaction of the market need for fashionable clothing which

maintains a commodified sense of legitimacy. To this end, the SoHo Arts Club satisfies

two key demands, both from the artists it retains, as well as from the patrons it attracts.

On one hand, the experience of artists such as DKR and AL reflect the core benefit to be

gained through engagement with this organization, and from larger modes of artistic

collaboration in general. For their ‘price of admission,’ and submission to the

collaborative mode espoused by this organization, they have been able to retain – perhaps

paradoxically – the artistic independence which appears to be their highest priority.

Artistic creation is often a fundamentally rebellious process, by which ‘necessary’

truths are spoken and criticism levied against entrenched power structures and political

modes; By their engagement with SoHo Arts Club, DKR and AL have been able to

53
continue to produce works which they feel are necessary to be made, to present messages

which must be conveyed. If they were not so ‘insulated’ against larger market forces by

the creative model and collaborative marketing of this space, they might have faced

considerable difficulty in spreading the message and ideas that their works espouse, as a

factor of a lack of financial or creative support. As has been shown in this work, the

current art market – typified, again, in the expensive but message-bereft works of Damien

Hurst – tends to not reward works (or producers of works) which run counter to the

prevailing expectations of wealthy buyers, many of whom tend to view art itself as a

simple commodity. Through DKR and AL’s participation in this organization, they are

able to adhere to their artistic ‘mission’ in a manner which might have been far more

difficult if they were to seek to publicize and sell their works in a truly independent

manner.

However, HG’s works – many of which have been produced and sold

independently of the SoHo Arts Club – also benefit from his continued participation in

this organization, but not for reasons of this artist’s independence being maintained by

this space. As HG’s survey and interview findings have shown, HG holds far fewer

reservations about the capacity of market forces to reduce the vitality of his work, as his

primary goals appear to be ‘folded in’ to meeting market demand and financial gain. To

this end, the political and economic message espoused by SoHo Arts Club appears to be

of greatest benefit to HG through the appearance of rebellious legitimacy such

collaboration confers on this HG’s artistic message, and on his works. However, it is

apparent that once HG becomes sufficiently successful to longer need SoHo Arts Club to

maintain this mission, he may likely disengage with the organization as a whole.

54
 These results reflect the need for major reconsideration of the mission of SoHo

Arts Club in general. As this organization – at its core – represents a repudiation of the

excessive commodification of contemporary art, it may prove necessary to reconsider

which artists are ‘permitted’ to engage with the organization, even if they have the

financial means to do so. At the core of the value which this organization provides is the

concept of artistic legitimacy and its insulating effect on the artists it retains. At present,

it appears that while artists such as DKR and AL are ‘using’ SoHo Arts Club in the

manner for which it was established, HG seems to have ‘missed the point,’ and has

engaged with this organization solely to lend commodified legitimacy to his commercial

objectives. If this organization is to continue to succeed in the future, it must seek to

deviate from this model, perhaps by discriminating against potential members who do not

require the commercial insulation it provides.

As has been shown, maintaining the legitimacy of political and economic mission

is the primary mission being served by SoHo Arts Club, and the strongest benefit it

provides its members. If artists such as HG are permitted to continue to ‘exploit’ this

organization (one whose ‘protection’ against the adverse effects of the market they do not

require), the mission of this organization risks being diluted in the process. Indeed, as has

been shown, the ‘requirements’ of art buyers are so diverse; Their reasons for making a

given artistic purchase is not necessarily wedded to the political ideology of the SoHo

Arts Club, but in many cases, the mission of this organization is the key factor which has

informed a host of purchases, especially by lower-value buyers who liken their purchases,

and by extension their support of a patently anti-commercial artistic organization, to an

act of rebellion. Though many buyers purchase works from SoHo Arts Club for aesthetic

55
or technical reasons, or as investments, this political element is the sole element which

separates SoHo Arts Club – and its contemporaries – from less supportive collaboratives,

and from the wider breadth of commercialized contemporary artists.

To this end, this work has provided evidence to indicate the critical mission which

SoHo Arts Club faces in the years ahead: It must seek to reform itself in order to ensure

that it continues to adhere to its political and ideological purpose as much as it can,

perhaps through the exclusion of artists such as HG, whose only ‘need’ for this

organization appears to be derived from this organization imbuing his works with ‘grass

roots’ legitimacy. The insulating quality of SoHo Arts Club is its most important

contribution to the artistic community, especially to artists such as DKR and AL, so this

quality must be defended ardently in the future.

56
 Bibliography

Adam, Georgina. 2013. Why Is Art So Expensive? BBC Culture. 2 May 2013.
Web. Accessed November 18, 2015.

Alpers, Svetlana. Rembrandt’s Enterprise: The Studio and the Market. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Abingdon,

UK: Routledge, 1979. Print.

---. The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Print.

Carlebach, Julius. Second Chance: Two Centuries of German-speaking Jews in the

United Kingdom. Mohr Siebeck, 1991.

Chandler, Andrew, Stoklosa, Katarzyna, and Jutta Vincent. Exile and Patronage: Cross-
cultural Negotiations Beyond the Third Reich. LIT Verlag Munster, 2006. Print.

Costache, Irina. The Art of Understanding Art: A behind the Scenes Story. Malden, MA:
John Wiley and Sons, 2012. Print.

Danto, Arthur. The Aesthetic Terrorism of Jeff Koons. The Nation. 2 September 2014.
Web. Accessed November 18, 2015.

Day, Elizabeth. Can you make any kind of living as an artist? The Guardian. 29 July
2012. Web. Accessed March 17, 2016.

Ehrmann, Thierry. Contemporary Art Market: Art Price Annual Report. Artprice.com.
2007. Web. Accessed December 26, 2015.

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Economics Have Long Driven Shifts in Art
World. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 3 August 2015. Web. Accessed
November 18, 2015.

Finch, Charlie. The Soul of the Koons Machine. Art Net. 14 April 2004. Web. Accessed
November 18, 2015.

Galenson, David. The Not-So-Curious Economics of Art. The Huffington Post. 1 March
2013. Web. Accessed November 18, 2015.

57
Gaugy, Michelle. 2015. Why Is Art So Expensive? Slate Magazine. 2 February 2015.
Web. Accessed November 18, 2015.

Giuffre, Katherine. Collective Creativity: Art and Society in the South Pacific.
Routledge, 2016. Print.

Harris, Jonathan. Globalization and Contemporary Art. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and
Sons, 2011. Print.

Hughes, Robert. American Visions: The Epic History of Art in America. New York:
Knopf, 1997. Print.

Irwin, Neil. The $179 Million Picasso That Explains Global Inequality. New York
Times. 13 May 2015. Web. Accessed November 18, 2015.

Jones, Candace. The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries. Oxford University Press,
2015. Print.

Martin, Mike W. Virtuous Giving: Philanthropy, Voluntary Service, and Caring. Indiana
University Press, 1994. Print.

Micchelli, Thomas. Have a Nice Day: Jeff Koons and the End of Art. Hypoallergenic. 28
June 2014. Web. Accessed November 18, 2015.

Morrison, William. Economics and Economic Perceptions of the Art Market. Harvard
Law. 2015. Web. Accessed November 18, 2015.

Ruccio, David. Economics and the value of art. WordPress. 5 May 2015. Web.
Accessed November 18, 2015.

Shoemaker, Peter William. Powerful Connections: The Poetics of Patronage in the Age
of Louis XIII. University of Delaware Press, 2007. Print.

Thompson, Don. The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of
Contemporary Art. New York: Macmillan, 2012. Print.

White, Brian. 2005. Breaking into the Art World: How to Start Making a Living as an
Artist. College Station, TX: Bloomsbury Publishing. Print.

Winch, Christopher. The Philosophy of Human Learning. Routledge, 2005. Print.

Yanai, Robert J. Institutions of Art: Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy.

Penn State Press, 2010. Print.

Zorloni, Alessia. The Economics of Contemporary Art: Markets, Strategies and

Stardom. New York: Springer, 2013. Print.

58
 Appendix I
Survey for Art Buyers

1. Please estimate your net worth.

(1) <$200,000
(2) $200,000 - $500,000
(3) $500,000 - $1 Million
(4) $1 Million - $5 Million
(5) >$5 Million

2. Please estimate your yearly income.

(1) <$200,000
(2) $200,000 - $500,000
(3) $500,000 - $1 Million
(4) $1 Million - $5 Million
(5) >$5 Million

3. Please estimate the amount of money you (or your household) spends on art each year.

(1) <5,000
(2) $5,000 - $10,000
(3) $10,000 - $50,000
(4) $50,000 - $100,000
(5) >$100,000

Please Respond to the following prompts.

1. Art ownership is important to me.

59
(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

2. I would say I appreciate aesthetic appeal in works of art.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

3. Aesthetic appeal factors into my artistic purchasing decisions.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

4. I purchase works of art which appeal to me, independent of technical/aesthetic

qualities.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

5. I value ‘humanitarian patronage,’ or the purchase of works of art in order to effectuate

some element of social change, especially reflective of the larger art market.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

6. Humanitarian patronage, or ‘political’ elements, factor into my artistic purchases.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

7. I seek out works produced by the Soho Arts Club for political or humanitarian reasons.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

I would consent to a follow-up interview to follow this survey.

60
(1) Agree (2) Disagree

Appendix II
Interview Prompts for Art Buyers

1. What would you say motivates you as a purchaser of contemporary art?

2. Are there social or environmental factors which factor into your choice of venue or
artist?

3. Do you have any feelings about the ‘commodification’ of high-value art?

3a. Do these contribute to your purchase decisions?

4. Are there political or economic (market) factors which factor into your art purchase
decisions?

Appendix III
Survey for SoHo Arts Club Artists

1. Please estimate your net worth.

(1) <$30,000
(2) $30,000 - $50,000
(3) $50,000 - $100,000
(4) $100,000 - $250,000
(5) >$250,000

61
2. Please estimate your yearly income.

(1) <$30,000
(2) $30,000 - $50,000
(3) $50,000 - $100,000
(4) $100,000 - $250,000
(5) >$250,000

3. How much of your income comes from art sales?

(1) <25%
(2) 25-50%
(3) 50-75%
(4) All of my income comes from art sales

Please Respond to the following prompts.

1. Artistic independence is important to me.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

2. Artistic market trends – under the ‘auction house’ model, are an accurate means of
determining artworks’ value.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

3. I feel beholden to the wealthy individuals likeliest to be able to afford my works.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

62
4. Market elements reduce artistic independence, as a factor of patrons’ preferences.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

5. There is a need to ‘insulate’ artists from larger market forces.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

6. I appreciate the collaborative marketing ‘mission’ of SoHo Arts Club.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

7. The value I take from this organization is worth my investment.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

8. I would be just as successful, independent of the SoHo Arts Club community.

(1) Strongly Disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly Agree

Appendix IV: Interview Prompts for Artists

1. What would you say motivates you as a producer of contemporary art?

2. Are there social or environmental factors which factored into your choice to
collaborate with the SoHo Arts Club?

3. Do you have any feelings about the ‘commodification’ of high-value art? Have these
feelings contributed to your choice of venue to market and sell your works?

63
4. Have larger political or economic (market) factors contributed to your choice to engage
with SoHo Arts Club’s unique collaborative model?

5. Is this collaborative venture worth your time and money as an independent artist?

Appendix V
Survey Results
Buyers Net Yearly Art Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7
Worth Income Spending
1 $200k- $200k- <$5,000 5 4 4 5 5 4 2
500k 500k
2 <$200k <$200k <$5,000 4 4 4 5 5 4 2
3 $200k- $200k- $5k-10k 4 4 5 5 2 1 1
500k 500k
4 $500k- $200k- $5k-10k 5 5 5 5 3 3 3
1M 500k
5 $200k- $200k- $5k-10k 4 4 5 2 5 5 3
500k $500k
6 <$200k <$200k <$5,000 2 4 5 2 2 2 2
7 $500k- $200k- $5k-10k 4 5 4 5 2 2 2
1M 500k
8 >$5M $500k- $50k- 5 5 5 2 2 2 2
1M 100k
9 <$200k <$200k <$5,000 2 4 5 5 5 5 5

Artists Net Yearly Art Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8

Worth Income Income
DKR $100k- $50k- 25-50% 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 1
250k 100k
AL $100k- $50k- 25-50% 5 2 2 2 3 4 2 4
250k 100k
HG $100k- $100k- 50-75% 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 2
250k 250k

Note: Likert Scale.

(1) “Strongly Disagree,” (2) “Disagree, (3) “Neutral,” (4) “Agree,” (5) “Strongly Agree.”

64