For the 2010 edition, the Art Amsterdam (→ link) has come up with an interesting set of themes for their discussion panels: “The Age of the Collector”. They all deal with collecting and relation between collectors and the other partakers in the art market. The panel I was asked to attend was about the “pro-active” collector.

In the prep-talk with Renée Steenbergen, I arrived at a statement I completely failed to mention in the discussion:

“Collectors are by definition pro-active. They’re just making use of other tools now.”

From my point of view, collecting is an activity. Being a passive collector would be like being a passive football player. What would you do? Stand on the field until the ball ends up before you and then not kick it? Give your money to someone who buys art for you and you never take any interest in it? There may be such people but I really don’t want to talk about them right now.

So collectors are already active. But are they pro-active? If active means looking for art, discussing it, observing the whole scene, developing a taste or even a collecting strategy, then “pro-active” may mean all activities beyond exchanging money for objects.

I find it difficult to imagine a collector who does not, given the opportunity, like to talk about his collection, about certain pieces and artists or about art in general. I also find it impossible to imagine a collector who doesn’t enjoy seeing passion arise in the eyes of other people he talks to about his collection, if they are collectors or not. I believe that for most collectors, this is part of the experience.

Collectors are also scouts. They like to discover new artists and to suggest them to galleries and other collectors. Very often they suggest an artist they personally wouldn’t buy to other collectors who might. Collectors have always traded works among themselves. If another collector has what they want, they go after it. Going after something: highly pro-active. Also, collectors have always been making suggestions or extending commissions to artists. Very pro-active. And, last but not least: Collectors are donating their collections to specific institutions (which might not be pro-active) or they build their own museum (highly pro-active).

Collectors have been doing this before ebay and facebook. But as they became more comfortable with the new tools and as it became increasingly simpler to make use of the internet, the use of these tools also increases. There is no real difference between sending pictures by post or by email (apart from cost and speed) or between publishing a printed catalog or putting it online (apart from cost, speed and reach), between meeting like-minded people at a fair or an opening or in an online community (apart from reach, and speed).

A social community like Independent Collectors (→ link) is just another tool to meet and stay in touch with like-minded people. In terms of collectors, it is a place to share a passion, to present and talk about ones collection, to support or discover new artists, to “restructure” ones collection from collector to collector.

Who could be afraid of a pro-active collector making use of that? Galleries, because collectors are suddenly discussing, discovering, promoting, buying and selling works among themselves? Hardly. Collectors have always been doing that. Only the frequency, reach and speed may have increased. I believe that gallery owners who are voicing such concerns only do so because they now have to do their job properly. Educated customers are not harder to please, they are only harder to fool. My theory is that, in the end, it’s a lot easier to close a sale with them, though. And some gallery owners may be critical just because they are expected to.



So what is the point in discussing the topic at all?

Right now, many of the big, influential gallery owners and collectors have many many years of experience. Meaning: They are old. They witnessed the rise of the fax-machine. And it’s death. Of course they might discuss the arrival of a new tool and its possibly negative short term effects … instead of asking: What’s next? Can the increased pro-activity be used to enhance the quality of collecting and the collections? Can it be used to enhance the quality of art? Can it be used to spread the passion?

The latter seems to be a common core to many activities taking place right now. Galleries have big shop windows and advertise their shows outside the art world: They want to art to be seen. Collectors are lending works to exhibitions: They want the art to be seen. Collectors donate works or whole collections to institutions, open their own showrooms or build their own museums. They want the art to be seen.

And this is an interesting starting point: Twenty years ago, privately owned art was gone and invisible for the public. Now (2010), more and more initiatives are being started to keep it visible.



Imagine all the art ever sold could be explored, either in the flesh or virtually, like a huge interactive reference book, a catalog of art. Utopia? Maybe, but what an awesome resource to have!

These are the questions we should try to answer. In the end, we’re interested in art, aren’t we?

PS: Thank you Art Amsterdam (namely Edo and Renée) for having me, and thank you Jeroen Wassink and especially Reyn van der Lugt for not only letting me share the panel with them, but for being so open and for sharing your insights.

Above: An untitled work by → Han Schuil that I found to be funny. It actually does look like someone just whacked the artwork over the head. Some art could use a little whacking, I suppose …

Below: “The Rediscovery of Monopolychrome” by V&B (Alex Jacobs en Ellemieke Schoenmaker ), which could actually be the title and cover of a Greatful Dead album. Also check out their work “The Depot” → here.

Above: Just something I came upon.

Below: “Schattenfischer” for 2.000 EUR. I wonder whether the price in pencil on that table is part of the artwork.

Above: With the world championship coming up, this is a bit too much. Otherwise I like the look.

Below: Words on string. “… heaven …” by Boukjie Hansen. I like the simplicity of this work. And there is more where that comes from. I will have to check some of it out.

I saw this also at C-Space, the place I bought something from. Stay tuned …

Taking a night train from Ulm, Germany to Amsterdam is actually a pretty good choice. If you have earplugs and can sleep in the adult equivalent of a baby-safe, that is. I also admit that a flask of Green Label and the entire Doors catalog on the MP3 player of your choice are a great help.

After nine hours of pretty sound sleep, I arrive on the construction site, pardon me, Amsterdam Centraal. Crossing the street to get a completely useless 48hrs pass for the local transport (useless thanks to the VIP shuttle service I can use with my badge) and then into the first available tourist joint for a pancake and some coffee. The weather is sweet.

On the tram to RAI, the fair location, I see not a single poster advertising the fair. Reaching the construction site, pardon me, the fair areal, I see the first big poster. Fortunately I don’t head for it, but follow a dude with a beard and an “Art-Amsterdam-coloured” badge, because the actual fair is quite a walking distance from the location of the poster.

The VIP desk is subtly placed, or hard to find, which ever you prefer, the staff is busy but friendly. “Here is your badge. It’s a bit flimsy, so be careful.” It is, so I am.

Leaving the VIP package and my bag, I enter the fair proper, taking a first quick stroll around the outer perimeter before I have to attend the first meeting. What I see is visually pleasing and caters to my tastes. Dutch fairs seem to have that ability, Rotterdam felt similar.

I end up talking to Petra Nostheide Eycke (of the same → gallery) about the work of Mark Kramer (→ link) that I find mesmerizing:

See larger versions at my flickr account (→ link)

I will end up not buying it because it’s what I call “dead end art”. It doesn’t mean I think it’s bad, it just doesn’t leave me with any questions. It doesn’t inspire me. I dig the look. But I’m not looking for decoration.

Leaving my meeting and the discussions during the Collectors’ Program to another entry in this journal, I progress …

Continuing my stroll through the fair, I see more stuff that I like. And also a lot of things that make me check if I have my glasses on. I do. Then I check if it’s a Gerhard Richter. Turns out: The art is blurred on purpose. I make a note to come back the next day and take pictures of all the motion blur, gaussian blur and what have you. Here is a selection:

See more evidence at my flickr account (→ link)

Continuing I can’t miss the ghost in the carpet. Nice floor work throughout the fair, by the way. Keep your head down:

Larger version is available. (→ link)

Visual highlights include this artwork which is completely devoid of axes:

(“Personality Disorder”, Arik Levy)

And across the aisle, there is an untitled sculpture by Super A (clocking in at roughly 28.000 EUR) that could either be an Isaac Asimov memorial or be called “The Dude”. If neither rings a bell with you, I hope you have other stuff to make you smile.

The “train lag” starts to hit me shortly after 6pm and I head out towards the shuttle service. No Citroen in sight. I consult with the VIP desk. The friendly girl tries to tell me where the taxis are. I know where the taxis are, I want to use the VIP shuttle. “Are you VIP?” she asks. My cheap H&M hat, t-shirt, washed out jeans and scruffy beard don’t seem to convince her. Flashing the VIP badge does. “Oh, you are VIP.” Yes, sorry.

I wait for the car. The driver is a young guy, studies marketing. That late in the afternoon, I’m the fourth person he drives. The hotel is cute. My room a tight fit. I decide against going online and head out for some beer and some döner. It was not very good. But you can’t have everything …

Just before I embark on a small trip to Amsterdam, to get absolutely doped up on contemporary art, here is something I have posted over at the Independent Collectors discussion forum and have meant to share over here for ages. So here goes:

“The Great Contemporary Art Bubble” by Ben Lewis, created in 2008 and 2009 is subtitled “The Film The Art World Doesn’t Want You To See”. Let me answer three questions swiftly, to give you an overview:

Is the film worth watching? Yes, I think so. At least I enjoyed it.

What’s good about it? Is is humourous, investigative and demystifying.

What’s bad about it? If you have been in the art business for some time, you may not be surprised. And the movie could do with about 30 minutes less.

Having said that, I will try and keep this concise.

Ben Lewis Trailer on Youtube.

The idea is an interesting one. Ben Lewis set out to investigate what actually is (or was) behind the contemporary art boom that catapulted it into the realms of tabloid interest. Naturally, his investigation has to concentrate on the peak of an iceberg most collectors will not even feel part of.

Lewis collects statements from art professionals and billionaire collectors, who saw a bright future for the art market despite the economy’s downturn. It is actually quite amusing to see how their tone gets more subdued and how they try to avoid the filmmaker altogether as soon as the disaster really strikes. I say amusing because A) they probably haven’t lost that much money in their art speculation and B) because it clearly shows what they are after. How could they be so devastated, just because an artwork they claim to have bought for the love of it, fails to sell at a good price?

The downside of the film is that is seems to be based on the assumption that the art business would function differently than any other billion dollar business. It’s almost as if Ben expected it to less riddled with manipulation and greed. Somehow I fail to see the reason why that should be the case.

Many facts that Lewis and his interview partners reveal could be dismissed with a shrug: “Sure that’s the way it goes. What’s the news?” Of course one expects gallery owners and dealers, and especially the owners of the art works to try and protect and develop the price. Everything else would be foolish, surely. And it is commonly known that many billionaires buy works and sell them again shortly thereafter without even having unpacked the item once. It is also obvious that some people who happen to have a lot of money buy art not because they’re passionate about it, but because it’s a status symbol. Who would have thought?

What is interesting, however, is why the protagonists of this circus chose to express such a dislike in Lewis capturing the fact on film that the financial development of the art market was helped along quite deliberately, if it is a commonly known fact, at least among most participants. Maybe that is also just part of their PR strategy.

After showing that contemporary art can be a lot of fun (even in the realm of million dollar works) in his “Art Safari” episodes, Ben Lewis dismantles the contemporary art bubble and shows how the that burst had worked. And it is fun to watch. (Go to Ben Lewis, if you like: → link)

I’m just glad that the part of the circus I thrive in remains extraordinarily unaffected by this.

One visitor commented on Contemporary Istanbul: Concentrated Mediocricy. I can see their point. These two examples I just couldn’t resist posting, to illustrate the situation:

The picture below is not from a local art market, but from Contemporary Istanbul. Ramex Gallery from Kassel in Germany was exhibiting works by Mehmet Güler, an artist who is at the time of writing not even featured on their website, but listed on artfacts, if you want to have a look. Their booth had the feel of an art market in the village next to where I live, with stacks and stacks of paintings that all look alike.

I’m not saying this makes it low quality contemporary art (in fact, I think it is, anyway), but if you then have a whole table of prints made up like greeting cards (the only thing missing was a “Get well soon!” headline) it’s a downer … if that would be part of the concept … but look as I might, I couldn’t detect even a trace of a concept.

And then, around the corner, and forgive me if I don’t even want to make the effort finding out which gallery it was, they printed out the artist’s name in Comic Sans typefont on hand cut sheets of paper. I think it even was the only artist they featured …

Please forgive the low quality pictures but I didn’t dare enter the booths out of fear of being talked to …

Without wanting to sound cynical I still firmly believe that there is a BIG difference between contemporay art and works by artists who happen to be alive.

Some other thinghs a lot of the galleries could have done better in my humble opinion is the number of works on display. Some booths were so crowded with sculptures and other stuff I didn’t date enter, again, because I was afraid I’d knock the stuff over.

Let’s be positive: Contemporary Istanbul has a lot of potential. Just don’t mention taxes.

My first day in Istanbul led me through a customs-couple searching what little luggage I had at Stuttgart airport, an almost empty (40 passengers) Airbus of Turkish Airlines whose inside panelling was making squeekie noises and a limousine ride through maniac traffic to what must be one of the poshest hotels I have ever been to.

I expected Istanbul to be different than most places I have visited in recent years, but when I looked out my window and saw this dude standing at the edge of the roof with his shopping bag, I had proof of my theory.

Off to the artfair (-> link) where I was greeted by a busy but nevertheless charming Jasmine who gave me my luxurious VIP package. I met one of the IC members who was attending, spoke to Fiza Akram from Canvas (-> link) and naturally I had a look at the art.

I could jump to a preliminary, not too charming conclusion, but I will have look again today and report back with pictures. I have seen at least 4 or five things that made me go back and in the special “Berlin section” of the Fair, I overheard the guys from “Zone B” (-> link) talk about their “Kunst-Tüte”.

I went back later and talked to them about it. It’s a series of surprise bags, each featuring one item of a 15 strong multiple by an artist from their gallery. The only thing you know, when you buy it, is the artist and the price: EUR 80.-

I bought one with a work by Oliver Scharfbier (-> link), whose name sounds like a drink I would like to try, and whose black/white/red “paintings” on display at their booth had caught my eye earlier (images will follow).

So here is the “Kunst-Tüte” in the hotel armchair. I will open it tonight …

I haven’t heard about their gallery or the artist before but I like the idea of buying something, not exactly knowing what it might be. True, it might not be the most original idea on the planet, but in the environment of Contemporary Istanbul last night it was the one thing that grabbed my attention in it’s lightness.