OCA preloader logo
What value art? What value Lucian Freud? - The Open College of the Arts

To find out more details about the transfer to The Open University see A New Chapter for OCA.

What value art?  What value Lucian Freud? thumb

What value art? What value Lucian Freud?

Lucian Freud drawing - The Painter's Mother
Lucian Freud drawing – The Painter’s Mother

Lucian Freud died in July 2011, aged 88, (see BBC news report which contains an interview with Sue Tilly, one of his best know sitters.) His death prompted renewed discussion about the price raised on one of his most famous paintings: Tilly the benefits supervisor, which broke the record for the highest price paid for an art work at the time (£33.6 million). Bought by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, we may never see the painting in the flesh again, and a lot of flesh in the painting there is. Freud’s brutally hard look at his sitters, and penetrating observation of their characters, the painstaking application of paint, detailing every lump and bump on the sitter’s body, are the hallmark characteristics of his work. He worked on the painting of Sue Tilly for nine months, for three days per week.
 
Lucian Freud painting - Benefits Supervisor Sleeping
Lucian Freud painting – Benefits Supervisor Sleeping

“…art is seen not as something to move or fascinate many buyers, but simply an investment.”

 

Lucian Freud’s work was out of fashion for a long time, but he remained true to his vision and prices for his work are now set to rise well beyond what was achieved in his life time. Indeed, a drawing on paper by Freud, called ‘Boy on a Sofa‘ reached a record sum for a work on paper at £1.49 million at the time in 2010.
A recent documentary about art prices on TV declared that art is seen not as something to move or fascinate many buyers, but simply an investment. Indeed many highly valued works, once bought, are squirreled away in vaults, unseen and certainly not shared with others. This is not true of all, since art is also valued for status as well as simply a financial investment. Van Gogh originals hanging on the wall of a prestigious restaurant in Las Vegas? Works of art also go up in value because of who has owned the work. A painting that had previously been owned by Rockefeller, added substantially to the value of a work of art. This commoditization of art makes me uneasy since the result of all this is that increasing numbers of great paintings are disappearing into the homes and bank vaults of the wealthiest individuals, and only the enlightened ones will loan them out for the public to view. Many great paintings are being bought up and will never be seen again, indeed have disappeared off the radar since the buyers remain anonymous.
We are indeed lucky to still have so many great works of art in our museums and galleries that are available for the public to enjoy. Let’s hope the majority of wonderful Lucian Freud paintings in our publicly accessible galleries remain there.


Posted by author: Jane Parry

12 thoughts on “What value art? What value Lucian Freud?

  • “This commoditization of art makes me uneasy since the result of all this is that increasing numbers of great paintings are disappearing into the homes and bank vaults of the wealthiest individuals” I would entirely agree with you Jane; however, in order for a capitalist, market economy, to be able to accommodate anything, it has to see it as a commodity, whether it is gold, food, art or even people. So I fear that unless our public galleries are given adequate funds (unlikely in the foreseeable future) owners are compelled to occasionally loan their artworks (equally unlikely) or the system is changes (a consummation devoutly to be wished but not yet a while I suspect) more and more cultural artefacts will find themselves in private hands out of the public view. This is, of course, one of the reasons behind conceptual art, arte povera, self destructive art and so on, that there would be no saleable artefact…doesn’t work though does it?

    • Hm, not sure I entirely agree that this is an issue of the capitalist economy Peter – certainly not the types of capitalist economies we have in the UK and the US. Works of art have always ended up in the homes of the wealthy for a period of time to reappear in public galleries when the tax bill arrives. We may never see Sue Tilly again in the flesh, but not because Russia has a modern capitalist economy, but because it has an wild west robber baron economy.

  • The art works are cyphers, given a monetary value for their scarcity. They might just as well be Dutch tulip bulbs. ‘ }

  • I think you are both right and it is not exclusive, It is the market element in Market Capitalism or even in Robber Baronism that places price in place of value whether one measures value on aesthetic/cultural terms or in Marx’s Labour Theory terms.
    I can never understand why my second-hand goods go down in value but second-hand shares and ‘collectables’ rise, it isn’t rarity value as I have a pair of shoes only worn by Peter Haveland that I couldn’t get a bean for even though they are one of a kind. If it is potential re-sale value then that has to be based on the “every one will want it” principle, but who is to decide and on what criteria? Most people in the art world (not the art market note)wouldn’t pay the postage on a Vetriano but look at the print sales of these and few people outside the art world would put a Freud on their living room wall.
    Presumable there are those who are simply paying as much as they can simply to show how rich they are (plus ca change? 18thC arrivistes and Russian oligarchs)and those who are willing to take their money to attempt to get in their place but whatever the motives, the mechanism remains the same, price replaces value to let the market operate.

  • ‘I have a pair of shoes only worn by Peter Haveland that I couldn’t get a bean for even though they are one of a kind.’
    Two reasons; nobody has promoted them as desirable and they’re not unique enough in their genesis or interesting in their provenance, I bet Elvis’ old shoes are collectable. ‘ }
    Make that three reasons… the Spanish Inquisition anybody? Hahahaha

  • ” few people outside the art world would put a Freud on their living room wall”
    I’ve just said pretty much the same thing about the Bechers in an e-mail to a fellow student. Doesn’t mean to say it’s not interesting, just that it’s not “nice”. But then, personally, I’m not trying to create nice pictures, rather interesting ones.
    Whether that means I’ll make lots of money is another matter – need to find myself a pretty young woman in tennis gear and no underwear… Then again, I bet the photographer made peanuts and the poster manufacturer got a villa in the Caribbean.
    Oh, and one last thing. Last time I heard, one of Gursky’s uber-expensive prints was fading in the sunlight because it was on display in some swanky office block somewhere. Best keep them out of sight, eh?

  • The question we are all asking in different ways I suppose is “To whom does Art belong?” I am sure that the gut reaction of most of us would be “All of us.” However we all also know that unless (until?) we reach Proudhoun’s William Morris’ or John Ball’s Utopia where “all things be held in common”, most art will be in private hands as has been the case since time immemorial. How then do we ensure that as much as possible is available to the public eye? Do we rely on private philanthropy as in the USA or in Victorian Britain? Do we rely on publicly funded and freely accessible gallery and museum space? Do we work on the principle that those who want it should pay for it (entrance fees and high ticket prices to offset or replace public funding)? Should public funding only support the popular or should it only support the minority interest? This is only really dealing with the questions surrounding ‘historic’ art; what about contemporary art (here I use the term to cover music and literature as well as the visual arts)? All the same questions apply plus the question of whether is public funds are to be used in any measure to support contemporary work do we, as a past director of the Welsh Arts Council put it, pay artists for what they are or for what they do? One of the many problems with the art market is that the high resale prices for works have minimal benefit for the maker or their families compared to the previous owner and the sale houses see (Artist’s resale right regulations 2006 here and that only to living artists since 2006 and it won’t apply to the estate of dead artists till next year.
    Then there is the question of where the work should be held. We all get outraged when a work by Leonardo is sold by one of out great families down to their last Rolls to some American, Russian or, now, Chinese billionaire and it goes abroad even if to public view but why should it be in Britain in the first place? What about the The Parthenon Marbles? And so it goes on. I have no answers except perhaps to work for the Morris/Ball millennium and to urge everyone to think about the issues and use their voices to urge the powers that be to implement what ever policies seem to work towards the end you desire. The important thing is not to be passive in these issues; perhaps our slogan should be “People of the world unite, you have nothing to loose but your art”

  • In the interview on the BBC with Sue Tilley on the thursday after Freud’s death she mentioned that Benefits Supervisor Resting would possibly be on display in the National Portrait Gallery (or one of the other major museums) some time next year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to blog listings