Buy it because you love it!

I have a friend who owns a Chagall. When I first learned this I was blown away. To have an authentic piece of work by a master in your house seemed unreal to me. My envy is tempered by knowing he doesn’t really like the piece. He doesn’t hate it but he’s not drawn to it in any significant way. It holds no meaning for him. I’m not even sure he has it hung on the wall. Why did he buy it? “It’s a good investment,” was his answer.  I can’t really argue with him.  Hopefully it will continue to increase in value and he will make a return. If the end of the world doesn’t happen and/or we don’t land permanently in an economic slump, I’m guessing he makes about 20%- 30%, which, after having looked at my latest RRSP statement, is really not a bad return.  [I’m sure it’s obvious by now that I have absolutely no financial training whatsoever.]  But until he sells it, he has a piece of art he doesn’t like AND in order to make a return he has to find someone to buy it. 

Andy Warhol, 25 Cats Named Sam (Orange Cat), 1954, Off-set Litho, hand colored

I recently had the opportunity buy a Warhol and struggled with the question of whether it was a good investment, while being simultaneously seduced by the idea of owning a Warhol, and not only a Warhol but something that he actually did by hand! (Somehow this made a big difference to me.)  After some research it turns out that there are number of Warhols on the market right now, which I’m sure has everything to do with the current economic climate in the U.S.  Good news if you’re buying. Inventory is up, which means there is more selection and more room for negotiation. Bad news if you’re selling. Really bad news if that was your retirement money.

 I have a couple of pieces I call my “retirement pieces,” not actually because I think I will be able to retire off the proceeds (case in point: see above) but because I spent my money on them instead of investing them in my RRSP like I was supposed to. But I have an excellent excuse.  I  HAD to have them. And every time I sit and look at them I’m glad I bought them.

I didn’t end up buying the Warhol, because at the end of the day I didn’t really love the piece. When you rubbed off the glow of celebrity, the piece didn’t hold up for me.  And I felt that tying up that much money in a piece you don’t really, really like is a gamble I’m not ready to take.  There are too many pieces I would rather invest in.  I would rather roll the dice on lesser known artists whose work I love.   That way, in the end, even if they never increase in value, I’ve had the pleasure of looking at them over my life time.  You’ll know me when you see me.  I’ll be the one with the 10 cats and the shopping cart full of really awesome art.

Textbook Love Affair: Girl meets Horse

In the interest of full disclosure I will begin by telling you that I'm a pretty easy sell for anything with a horse on it. I keep my [ehm] problem it a bay (Ha, sorry that was totally  unintentional (p.s. I just realized that's only funny if your a horse person)) most of the time and limit myself to only the occasional indulgence- a dress here, a pair of socks there (no sweatshirts though. I draw the line at sweatshirts).

Danielle Hession, Cotton Candy Cloud,  Mix Media, 30x 30

I've discovered that my particular predilection is especially dangerous when it comes to art. I'm not sure if it's because there are just so many damn pieces with horses or if I just happen to notice them more. Either way it makes certain artists petty dangerous for me. Danielle Hession's work is rich with horses and pretty colours. I've had to pinkie swear not to buy any more of her pieces (i had my fingers crossed behind my back though).

Last year, on a trip to Montreal, I discovered  Andre Petterson at Galerie Le Royer. Petterson is from Vancouver (via Saskatoon and Rotterdam) and has been rep'ed by Baux Xi (Vancouver) since the 70s.  His work is primarily photographs overlaid with paint and scratches. According to his bio, Petterson uses photography to capture a single moment in time and then overlays the paint and other elements to communicate movement.

Andre Petterson, Macula Spill, Mix media

So point number 1 - there are horses so i was completely captivated from the moment i saw these pieces. In fact a year later and I still find myself thinking about them.  I wonder if Petterson's "moment in time" is made exceptionally impactful given the subject. Horses are about movement and grace. They are not a subject i would associate will stillness. Yet if you have ever spend time with horses you will have probably experienced a moment where you are both still and looking at each other. just for a moment the sound a soft breath is all you hear. And then the moment is broken. But there is a beauty to it. It's like watching an amazing film that suddenly stops on just one captivating frame.  Knowing that there was movement before, and that there will be movement again,  makes the stillness of the moment all the more wonderful.
Petterson's work is excellent, across the board. Check out his Flemenco series

Andre Petterson, Trickle, Mix Media, 36x36

Creepy but awesome

Pursuit, 2010 chromogenic print, Adam Markarenko

I have a thing for Michael Sowa whose whimsical and wonderful art you may remember from the movie Amelie. If you don't know who he is,  it is worth a look. There is very little on the internet about him, but you can see examples of his work on many sites selling his work as posters. He is a German born painter that is often classified as a modern Surrealist. And behind the surface of well executed paintings of bears and rabbits is something dark and subversive.

When I recently saw the work of Adam Makarenko, it instantly brought Sowa to mind but there is a depth to these images captured on film that doesn't happen with in Sowa's paintings. Makarenko constructs each scene as a diorama by hand (BY HAND!!! yes i'm shouting. I dread the plasticine round in Scattegories) and then photographs the scene. On top of capturing an incredible level of detail, Makarenko manages to also captures something moody and haunting.

Wolf on the Road, 2010, chromogenic print, Adam Makarenko

 Digression (but very interesting) regarding Michael Sowa being a Surrealist. I'm sure you're thinking the same thing i did (okay, probably not, but play along) and saying to yourself, "How can this guy be a surrealist? his stuff doesn't look like Dali or Ernst, or anyone else that i associate with the Surrealist moment." Good question.  But think about the tenants of Surrealist - to show unexpected dichotomies and challenge perceptions of reality - and the label begins to make more sense. Also remember, Breton said that Surrealism was "first and foremost a revolutionary movement" and painting animals in the style of Classic painters qualifies as being a shit disturber in my book.

Fowl with Pearls, Michael Sowa

it's like having two birthdays!

You remember how you felt about your birthday when you were a kid? do you remember that palatable excitement? The nervous anticipation in the the weeks and days before, wondering what awesome presents you were going to get. Wondering what surprises awaited you. Remember that?
That's pretty much how i feel about the Festival of Smalls at Art Interiors.Once a year the gallery asks all the artists they rep to produce small scale work that would sell for no more than $250. I've found it a great way to get some piece by artists that you otherwise would be able to own, and it's a great way to indulge yourself is whimsical pieces that you otherwise wouldn't buy. The lower price tag is a great chance to buy some fun stuff.

Last year i bought two Richard Herman  pieces. These are tiny (4 x 10 each) but they are lovely and moody. Herman is primarily a landscape painter (quite a good one) and while his pieces are not unreasonably priced,  I'm not quite ready to invest in one.  And I definitely wouldn't be able to buy two, and i do love the balance of the blue versus sepia in these two similar but distinct pieces.

That's not to say mistakes can't be and haven't been made. Even the strongest among us can get caught up in a the excitement and start to make...questionable choices. Luckly the price you pay for lapse in judgment is low and who knows you may one day really start to like that mix media piece of Mary Magdelene with the word Doubt bedazzled on it.

This year I'm looking to see what Amy Friend has put into the festival . I saw one of her pieces that other day and I'm hoping she has done some smalls in a similar vein.

 I wonder if it's weird if I lineup outside before they open?

City girl at heart

The week's obsession: Saw an image from Sze Tsung Leong's Cities serices in NewYorkMag and now i can't stop thinking about how perfect it would look hanging over my couch.

I love the feeling I get from this photo that I'm looking out a window as if you can almost hear the noise of the street. When I was a kid my grandparents lived in the Manulife Centre in Toronto. I used to sit in the window at night with my face pressed against the cold glass, watching the of dramas of daily life unfold in apartments across the road- eating dinner, watching tv, brushing teeth- all of this set to the sound track of cars and cab horns and footsteps.  It was peaceful. And beautiful.

lost in the forest

this weeks obsession...Peter Andrew photograph entitled Phone Booth. I saw this printed 8 feet by 3 feet. It is magnificent and surreal and captivating. The gallery staff was discussing the newly hung piece and hypothesizing if it was "real" or not - real in that the scene was not manufactured either digitally or posed for the purpose of the shot. I was caught up in the conversation, staring intently at the image, nose to the glass in an effort to discern any incongruities in the image that would give it away. (i didn't/couldn't find any but it was a big picture and i am lazy)


I think it's funny that what captured our attention was the fear that maybe, just maybe we were being tricked. Because really, does it make it any less spectacular a piece? Are the woods any less haunting if they were created by the artist imagination then if they were created by nature? Or is that what we expect from photography - that it captures what is "real" or what already exists? Is the beauty and the craft of photography that one finds and captures a moment that exists already?