When I was up at the Fred Diesing School Student Art Exhibition a couple of weeks ago, one of the main attractions was the paintings of Sean Aster. I bought one myself, and joked that I had traveled north just to see how he was coming on the commission we’d arranged a couple of months ago. However, the way that the reactions to his work changed over the afternoon taught me something about the way that people view and buy art.
Before the graduation ceremony, when people were gathering in the studio, very few of us gave Aster’s work any particular attention. However, during the ceremony, Aster won two scholarships, including one that master carver and senior advisor to the school Dempsey Bob gave out himself. Twenty minutes later, staff could barely put up the little red stickers indicating a sale fast enough. Suddenly, everybody wanted one of his works.
This change had nothing to do with the quality of the works. Aster is a promising artist, especially for someone still in his twenties, and his work deserved the awards and the attention he got. But his work was no finer after the ceremony than before. Nor were people necessarily buying the biggest or most original pieces.
All that had changed was that the school instructors had got up and said very publicly, in several different ways, that he was a young artist with a future. Apparently, most of the guests had missed the fact before, until recognized authorities had emphasized it to them. Those of us who had recognized his skill by ourselves were morbidly amused (to say nothing of pleased with ourselves that we had arrived at our conclusion unaided).
A week later, I repeated the story to a Vancouver director of a Northwest Coast Art gallery. He didn’t get what I was saying. How else, he asked me, would people have known what to buy?
Listening to his question, I realized, more strongly than ever before, that there were two reasons for buying art.
The first, and perhaps the most common, is based on reputation, and, much of the time, on the hopes of a profitable investment. Beyond a very limited extent, it has nothing to do with an artist’s ability. For example, it is no reflection on the ability of either artist than an original canvas by Robert Davidson can sell for seventeen times the price of one by his current apprentice David Robert Boxley; Davidson sells for so much more because of his reputation, not because he is seventeen times the artist that Boxley is (although, quite obviously, he is his elder in their craft). This was the sort of collector I saw buying Aster in Terrace – for the afternoon, at least, Aster was the one with the reputation.
The second reason to buy art is because it moves you, or because it is well-composed. This reason owes nothing to reputation; those who buy for this reason will buy a $100 sketch from an unknown as happily as a $10,000 one from a master artist if it has the right qualities, and let the potential investment take care of itself.
These two types of buyers can talk amiably, and may even wish to buy the same piece. However, the motives for buying are really quite different, and quite irreconcilable. Secretly, an enthusiast like me can’t help thinking that those whose buying decisions are based on reputation are unimaginative, even a little crass, and buying for entirely the wrong reasons. In turn, though, I don’t doubt that the reputation-buyers dismiss us enthusiasts as arrogant in our naivety.
Off the Wall 
Bruce, I didn’t know that David Robert Boxley is now apprenticing under Robert Davidson. Isn’t David already considered a master carver in his own right? It gives me pause for thought. I recently came across a carving of David’s at Douglas Reynolds Gallery … with the commanding price of $15,000. Last week I actually purchased a piece by David’s accomplished father for a fraction of this sum. Is David the next “scholarship” recipient???
Well, if David isn’t generally considered a master carver, it’s only a matter of time. But he’s still fairly young, and who wouldn’t jump at the chance to work with Robert Davidson?
BTW, I know the carving you mean, and it’s magnificient. I was there when it arrived at Douglas Reynolds, and, if I had had the money, I would have bought it on the spot.
I approached one of the graduates of the Freda Diesing Program, Alrene Ness, with a commission request. She wanted close to the same amount as what her former instructor Stan Bevan commands. Arlene does show much promise, but serious concern must be afforded to senior artists that have spent a lifetime cultivating their craft and contributing to their culture. As far as Robert Davidson is concerned, I would offer that his lifetime of contribution to the Art World, First Nations Culture, and Canadian Culture raise the stature of his work far beyond any possible apprentice. More than seventeen times, lol. Robert continues to be that important and vital.
Yes, there is an understanding that better established artists command higher prices, although prices can also be affected by the size of the piece and other factors. For example, the Edzerza Gallery recently received a mask of Hatsheput by Beau Dick, which he priced lower than his usual work on the grounds that it was a bit of an oddity. Sometimes, though, young artists ignore the pricing conventions. It’s a gamble that might pay off, but I suspect that, most times, they simply end by getting fewer sales.
As for Robert Davidson, nothing I said is meant to show any disrespect for his accompllishments or his cultural contributions. Or about him personally, really. I take for granted that Davidson is a great artist, and that his prices will and should be be higher than anybody else’s. But, at some point, you stop paying for skill alone and start paying for reputation — and I think that much of his work has long since passed that point (although he still does do some very affordable prints and other work). I suppose you could think of those prices as a just return for years of work, often at much lower prices, but that doesn’t really change the point.
I wonder what will happen to the Freda Diesing School after the end of the next school year, when the contacts expire for the services of Dempsey Bob, Stan Bevan, and Ken Mcneil. Do you think it will survive?
I think at least some of the three will renew their contracts. I’ve heard talk that the school’s program will be extended to four years, and that the last two years will consist largely of work with Dempsey Bob.
A third reason for buying art that I’ve noticed is to encourage an artist. Sometimes a piece might be purchased that you might have passed on, but you’d like to encourage a young artist, or struggling artist, or maybe an artist is exploring a new direction or medium.
I’ve bought for all the reasons you said, but never without being genuinely interested in what the artist was doing. Unfortunately, my parents didn’t see fit to let me born independently wealthy, so, as much as I would like to play patron of the arts, I can’t afford to unless I’m genuinely interested in the piece.
It’s a little off-topic, but your post got me thinking (again) about why people buy artwork. (Not just from native artists, but in the more general sense.)
People also buy for sentimental reasons: it can be as simple as a souvenir, but also because the subject evokes a memory or they have a strong association with a time or place. Scenics of places visited or of former home regions are an obvious one, but my wife and mother-in-law both strongly identify with wolves as a subject.
I’ll always identify artist Meghan Hildebrand to our recent trip to Powell River not because of her subject matter, but because it was where I first got a good chance to look at her work.
I’m actually surprised that reputation – commitment and consistancy over numerous years – doesn’t equate to higher stature (and pricing) for many artists – the serigraphy of deceased masters like Freda Diesing and Art Thompson come to mind. Bruce, would you promote the notion that a work of art should be considered just on its own intrinsic merits – completely separate from the artist that created it? If so, how would that look like / play out?
Buying art should be a kind of … love affair: If it brings a smile to your face, morning after morning, it was worth it! Cheers.
Theoretically? Yes, I believe that a work of art should be considered on its own merits. When I say I want a work by Norman Tait or Robert Davidson, what I mean is that I admire their skill, and I expect that it’s only a matter of time before I see something by them that I really want to buy. I’m not saying that I want a piece of work by them because they are well-known artists. I have turned down buying works by well-known artists because I didn’t care for the works.
The alternative seems to me to suspend your personal judgment, and let someone else dictate your tastes, and that’s not something I’m prepared to do. I don’t buy art to name-drop, or as an investment. I buy what I like, and what I appreciate.
In practice, of course, other considerations do come into my buying decisions.But I can say that I never make any buying decision without its intrinsic merits playing the major role in the decision.
Hi Bruce, Peter here,
Just want to say, I appreciate the discussion you create, as well as your thoughts & those of your visitors.
Only question that has been in my mind for the last 20 years, is who is ultimately the Authourity on specifically Traditional Tsimshian Art, which is directly connected to the Hereditary System, Hereditary Chiefs, & Elders. These people are here & are directly connected to the last 20,000 years, which is of course, where the Art originated.
If a person is to call themselves Traditional, they must be able to clearly & publicly state how they are connected to the Hereditary System & not just the “commercial culture” of 1st Nation Art, which I do not disrespect, it is here, but I wish to know who is who.
I know for a fact the term “Master Carver” is thrown around like a frisbee. One of my good friends is a Traditional Artist & a Master Carver, legitimately, he can be confirmed by Hereditary Chiefs.
One day we were approached by a “Master Carver” from another Nation, who of course respected my friend, but it was obvious that this person, who was older than us, was lost & nothing but commercial. He also spoke our language, pity. The level of disfunction, can not be defined, it is more than fractured.
I would rather have the work of a Traditional Artist, who truly believes they are an Ambassador of the Hereditary System, which Hereditary People follow & support.
For me there is substance in some Art & in other Art, a nice photocopy.
I am Gitxsan, I practiced drawing for a few years, apparrently, I have some ability there, but I think it is purely genetic.
I believe that you not only foster your craft as a Traditional Artist, but all of that stems from educating yourself on the Hereditary System, maybe now the Art might have substance. At this point, I do not have a place to go, to get this Education.
With any luck, in the future, there will be a Guild created, by Honourable Traditional Artists, who have proven Professional, possbly Global reputations, that will work side by side with Hereditary Chiefs, to call themselves the Authority on the Art.
Quite simply in the last 20 years, this society,the Media & Politics have created their own direction for “!st Nation Art” & confused every body.
I believe that there are Hereditary Artists that are looking for direction, that is not there, but they must plow forward.
Interesting note, if the Gov’t of Canada publicly recognized Hereditary Chiefs & the Hereditary System, at the turn of the century, why was there no Administration built for them?
All of Canada knows that Band Council was introduced to deal with Social issues on Reserves in approx. 1950 (this can be confirmed on the Gov’t of Canada website)
Here lies the birth of the confusion, simple enough to re-visit.
I must say, I to attended the Grad at the Diesing School & I had this discussion with Dempsey Bob & Ken McNeil.
Thanks for letting me speak Bruce, no time to proof read it, but I feel comfortable leaving it with you.
Talk soon & Thanks for putting this topic out there.
respectfully,
Peter Jackson
Peter:
Thanks for adding a dimension that I’m not properly-equipped to address. I think it no accident that most of the most-renowned carvers have a deep sense of their history and culture.The best of the Freda Diesing students are starting to realize that they need that sense, and that, without it, all that is left is a set of superficial mannerisms.
One of the most interesting artists in regard to this issue is the Kwakwaka’wakw carver Simon Dick. Even from the little I know, I can see a difference between his traditional pieces and those designed for the art market. And, if I remember correctly, Robert Davidson makes a similar division of his work.