http://www.friezeartfair.com/press/release/strong_sales_reported_by_frieze_art_fair_2007/
Well we all went, didn't we? It was a crush, it was not the best place to see good art, but it was fun. Unfortunately I did not get to ogle any celebrities.
London hasn't changed, has it? The fairs and pleasure gardens of 18th century London must have been a bit like the Frieze. People watching, buying big, putting on the ritz.
Overpriced entrance tickets (a rip-off if you booked in advance on the internet) and the food/drink facilities were slow, slow, slow and also overpriced. Nowhere to sit down.
Next time I go, I will have to make time to see the sculpture outside, but on the whole I do not think I missed much by not looking carefully at everything. There was a lot of tatty stuff. Some lovely photographs. A nice Sam Francis for mega-bucks.
Of course it is not an exhibition, it is not a curated show.
Possibly I was expecting too much, having seen three great exhibitions beforehand, the Paula Rego, the Georg Baselitz and the Louise Bourgeois.
Art Fairs are a mishmash of things that the galleries are hoping to sell just to collectors who want to find a home for their wealth, which might - they fondly expect - increase in value. And I include the Tate in this heading.
The gallery owners are not interested in art for arts sake. I get the impression that anything can be sold, as long as enough people subscribe to its value. You start looking at alarm bells and fire extinguishers, or baby buggies, and half-expecting that they are part of the display.
Obviously I am not the person who is a valued attendee at Art Fairs, I am not going to buy anything. I presume that if you really are one of the big spenders, you get the full treatment, VIP lounges, courtesy cars and a big massage for the ego.
It must be exhausting for the stall-holders at this, one of London's biggest street-markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment