The Price of Everything

It's important to be able to separate the documentary quality from the subject itself. Whilst most of us will be fascinated with the world these people live in, that should have no bearing on whether the documentary is good, bad or indifferent.

The film itself is high quality in terms of production, access to artists, retailers and buyers. It's interesting to see the varying viewpoints from each. But, for me, there needed to be some more critical questioning of each source. Without this there's a very fine line between deterimining whether you're watching a bonafide documentary or a subtle mocumentary. I would like to have seen interviewees being challenged more - from the over-zealous critics reading too much into the classic artists' works to the artists producing what many would consider to be the works of the untalented who have jumped on the bandwagon to con the gullible.

The film is a very easy watch and I think most of us will be left shaking our heads at the shallowness of the art world. The term "The emperor's new clothes" springs to mind and you're just wanting the producers to be that little boy at the side of the road who shouts out that the emperor is naked. I know I was shouting it lots!

These documentaries lamenting the hyper-ueber-capitalization of the art world are now coming out in a steady stream. The overarching theme is the effect that the commodification of art is having upon artists themselves. As portrayed here, artists are either adopted as protégés by powerful art brokers, or they are completely ignored and destined to live out their lives in a state of penury. Meanwhile, many ¨collectors¨ are really investors looking to flip artworks in the manner in which they flip real estate--purely for profit.

This particular version of the story offers especially derogatory portraits of corporate-artists (for lack of a better term) such as Jeff Koons, but also of the dealers who negotiate what are apparently trades in many cases (to avoid tax debt), and the collectors whom they woo. Once again, I come away with the impression that the collectors and dealers being interviewed have no idea how sad they come off to the people watching the film. They must think that they are going to be famous for these appearances. At most, the collectors featured may attain a modicum of infamy for their motley and sometimes aesthetically repugnant juxtaposition of large numbers of works whose only true connection is found in their insanely high ticket price. As for the dealers? Just ordinary opportunists who have seized upon a peculiarly lucrative development in the history of art.

It seems safe to say that this film will will not encourage people to become collectors and may in fact contribute to the prognosticated pop of the bubble. Fortunately there is no effort here (as in Blurred Lines) to lobby for regulation of the art market, which would be a complete and unmitigated disaster. Just look at the effect that government intervention had on art in the USSR...

I really enjoyed watching this, but I don't know why.

It didn't reveal anything new about the art world or the art market. It had some interesting art in it, but nothing earth shattering.

I think it was simply that many of the participants -- artists and collectors -- clearly cared so much about their artworks and, moreover, seemed to be good people. That, I think, is what made it so enjoyable.

The true nature of art has always been a contested question; just as history is apohorically written by the victors, then maybe art is defined by the collectors. Artists have always also depended on, and catered to, rich patrons; many have used studios of assistants to help scale up quantity. While humans inevitably seek status, and owning rare goods is one way of doing this; indeed, if there are not enough status symbols to go round, the rich will invent them, and, as they like to consider their wealth as a talent, they will take particular pleasure in owning symbols which self-justify their enormous price tags by increasing in value. These may all be eternal truths, but nowhere are they more apparent than in the hyper-inflated modern art market, which one can think of almost entirely as a product of the perverse imbalance of wealth in this world, regardless of whether you appreciate the work.

This documentary gives us an insight into some of the collectors, and some of the rather unappealing individuals who manage the sales (I guess the aristocrat always has more opportunity for style than the hustler or sycophant trying to live off them). What doesn't quite work is it's portrait of the artists, and it's attempt to divide them into "commercial" and "principled"; the divide might make sense, but the film doesn't really justify it's choices. Nor do we see any glimpse of the ordinary world of the thousands of artists who never become known names; or really understand how a handful manage to cross that line. If you've seen the documentary 'Sour Grapes', about a fine wine scam, you'll get some of the same vibes with a bit more story. Nonetheless, it's still an interesting glimpse into how the sausage of modern art gets made.

"The Price of Everything" (2018 release; 100 min.) is a documentary about the world of contemporary art. As the movie opens, we watch a Sotheby's auction unfolding. "It's important for good art to be expensive", observes an art dealer, as we see the prices at that auction reaching ludicrous highs. The documentary focuses on two artists with similar last names (Jeff Koons, and Larry Poons), and who couldn't me more different in their approach and creation of contemporary arts. Koons is like the CEO of a mega-company, with many underlings cranking out new works (and these works are snapped up by eager collectors), whereas Poons has left the "corporate track" decades ago and now works with his wife in a remote location and at his leisure (but no less passionate about art).... At this point we are 10 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest from documentarian Nathaniel Kahn, whose previous films include the excellent "My Architecture". Here he takes a look at the contemporary arts scene: what constitutes art, do art collector collect as an investment or for the love of art, why at times it feels more like a stock market than a museum, how new art is created, etc. Many 'talking heads' pass the review. I have to admit that I am not at all a connoisseur of contemporary art. Who am I to object against someone paying an outrageous amount of money for a piece of art? It reminds me of the seemingly limitless amount of money thrown at free agents in sports: are they worth it? Well, someone thinks so, so yes, they are. Kahn collects many great quotes from his talking heads: "Auction is a trading house for assets", and "To be a collector you have to be shallow", and "In the art world, there are many followers and few leaders", and "A lot of people know the price of everything and the value of nothing", and that's just a handful of them. In the end this is an enjoyable film, but there is nothing "revolutionary" in here as such.

This documentary premiered at this year's Sundance film festival to good acclaim. HBO snapped it up and I saw it recently on HBO On Demand. If you have an avid interest in art, and even more so if your interest is in contemporary art, I'd readily suggest you check it out and draw your own conclusion.