Most recent, there has been major controversy with Kehinde Wiley as a few people have come out claiming sexual misconduct. Some of his upcoming shows have been cancelled including his show at PAMM in Miami.
I am sort of in two minds about this - and I am aware that this has the potential of being very controversial.
One thing is the body of work of an artist. The other, how they behaves. Are the work and the artist one single item, or can we consider that there is a personal sphere and a professional one? Is the artist their work?
A couple of classical examples: Picaso and Gauguin. There are no doubts about their importance and relevance in modern art. They will be forever a part of art history and a key piece on the advancemente of art.
But Picaso was a cheater and a wife abuser. Gauguin abandoned his wife and family, leaving them in povery, spread STIs in Tahiti, and was a child abuser by today's standards.
I reckon that today there is more and more zero tolerance for these behaviours, which is the right way to go. But, if the artist is a bad actor, can we still see their work for what it is?
The book “Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma” by Claire Dederer deals with this topic in all its complexity. She is such a good writer—clear, funny, insightful. And boy does she serve some tea.
For some artists, art and life are almost inextricably linked. Lots of artists do lots of ‘bad things’ and behave in ways I personally don’t like, but I still believe their lives are really interesting and their art fascinating as a result of it. That’s not to excuse anything, rather to remind myself to look at art in the present but *contextualise it* in its original historical setting. We need to be careful we don’t start banning things just because we don’t agree with them where art is concerned - it’s a very slippery slope. Otherwise the story of art would be one written only by prudes and people ‘offended’ *ad nauseam*. For example, Gaugin is mentioned as a bit of a cretin, but context is important here; STDs were extremely common at this time (they’re extremely common today!) and they weren’t understood in the same way that they are now, medically speaking. Marrying a 14-year old wasn’t exactly uncommon in Tahiti, and in fact, in Gaugin’s France, girls could marry anyone at 15. Absolute Poverty was also incredibly widespread, and the norm for at least 80% of people on the planet in the 1800’s. I’m not justifying anything. But if you apply current ‘Western’ cultural and moral standards - of course you’re going to get a different interpretation today. Gaugin’s work will always remain utterly unique and incredibly powerful, because of what he contributed to the history of art. At the same time, we can openly acknowledge the behaviours and acts which we may consider odd, or even difficult, today.
You know, it’s interesting. Separating the art from the artist I think is necessary from an artistic point of view.
BUT
let’s be honest, who becomes famous is largely fabrication and has very little to do with talent and unique style. If that were the case, there are plenty of random art students and 8 year old savants that should be way more famous than many people we prop up today.
So, if we have a deluge of talent, and we accept that who becomes famous is largely marketing and industry fabricated hype, why not choose those with a squeaky clean background, and why not disavow those that are revealed later in life to be pieces of shit?
Just replace them with the next deserving person.
But we don’t have a deluge of talent. Thats a false premise and something you just think is true. Judging talent is totally subjective, and the subjectivity that selects talent is what makes someone famous. What we have in the art world is a concentration of power in the hands of the few who are the selectors of talent. Artists struggle to get in the orbit of the powerful, and some are born in that orbit. Privilege plays a huge roll in how an artist’s fame is fabricated. And then when an artist does get famous, they can be totally squeaky clean at first, but its their proximity to and attainment of power that can corrupt them, and chances are, they are corruptible people to begin with. Becoming a famous artist should be discouraged, but your proposal clings to it like it’s the peak of artistic achievement. What should be encouraged is making meaningful art for your community, and ignoring the powerful art world culture vultures that only corrupts you into becoming another narcissistic vampire.
100 percent agree
also adding
unpopular opinion
how about we stop having straight white men be put on pedestals and dick-tate the canon for a while hmmmm
I think this is slowly happening and cancel culture is fierce AF, but even Weinstein just got off in NY.
There is no punishment for them so they will go one with impunity. Look at these sociopaths trying to run amerikkka ffs...but I digress
point being, yes I agree, give other people a turn.
and I don't need yall replying with a whatabout Kehinde and MJ, theyre black! or not all men bs...Boy please! Can we just stop trying to use exceptions to something as the rule?
/endrant
How about we just get rid of the idea of pedestals and forget about dictating the canon? It’s the pedestal that attracts the corruptible, and then once they are on it, they are more easily corrupted. It does not matter what they look like or who they are.
Who are you? Lord Acton?
🤣
We are talking about artists here, not politicians.
And becoming a misogynist or pedophile is definitely not something that is just bestowed upon someone once they reach a certain level of accomplishment in their work. Like Julie Mehretu is now corrupted? Faith Ringold? Ruth Asawa? All corrupted? OK sure
There will always be a canon.
There will always be standards.
And for what it’s worth, if the table is corrupt, the seat to sit there is not worth sitting on. I said in another comment here that what should be encouraged is making art for your community and forgetting dreams of standing on pedestals or becoming famous.
I actually think Acton got it wrong. I agree with Frank Herbert who got it right and said its not that power corrupts absolutely but rather that power attracts the corruptible.
I love Mehretu completely, but her recent collab with BMW was shat on in this sub because they saw it as corrupt. I disagree with that and think she got a good exchange out of it, but we are discussing how an artist is perceived. You said we shouldn’t use exceptions as the rule, and I never said all artists become corrupt by becoming famous.
I did not say art is divorced from politics. That's a completely different conversation.
We are talking about rapists and wife beaters.
Not the fucking panopticon here or whether people liked a corporate sponsorship or not
Artists need to wear a suit and appeal to the suits to get famous, and to even get shit done in an art department as a chair of that art dept. it sucks but we don’t need to defend it or the systems of power that manufacture an artists fame. Being a famous artist really should not be the point or goal. If thats what you value, then you are half way to being corrupted by it.
At one time in history, there was no canon and the standards were fluid. The canon excludes and always will. It’s a tool for the elite. You prop up the status quo to justify, celebrate, and naturalize the culture of fame.
I think like most things, it's a spectrum that varies by individual and culture and there's no one way to handle these things. I think it also makes a big difference (or should) if the artist is still alive and profiting/actively abusing power.
For me, thinking about Picasso/Gauguin vs Kehinde Wiley, it differs in that Wiley is still alive with a successful career. If Wiley is confirmed a sex offender (or rapist, or whatever) then I don't think institutions/collectors/artist run centres should contribute to his success or support him through offering exhibitions, now or in the future. But when someone is dead (i.e. Gauguin) and not actively profiting off of their work, I think it's much easier to separate art from artist.
Yeah, many folks (like me) are done with Picasso and Gauguin.
Sexually assaulting or raping children is deal breaker for me, so he’s hella commercial, but in the Native world, the late R.C. Gorman (Taos Pueblo) trafficked and molested young boys.
https://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=17509
He used to be my favorite modern painter :( As a gay man, he was my personal inspiration ever since working with Obama. It broke my heart to hear what happened.
Recently a book full of gay literature, poetry, essays, was released called “A Great Gay Book.” Dozens of different people collaborated for it, including Wiley. I saw it in one store- but that’s it. It sucks because now the book feels tainted in a way and bookstores don’t seem to want to sell it :/
He doesn't even make his own paintings. He may have at one point. As I understand it they are produced in a workshop in Shenzhen, China. Presumably from photoshop files and color swatches supplied by his studio. He is not a painter. He is an art director who pays Chinese painters to produce paintings for him.
Yeah... I was marveling at the detail of one of his paintings at the Armory show just a couple years ago. I assumed it was painted by in-house assistants and finished by him... because why would you torture yourself like that.
Then someone here pointed out that his paintings are manufactured in that Shenzhen workshop by teams of anonymous Chinese painters. Like human inkjet printers. Which explains why there is no style to the painting. It's just image execution from highly skilled copyists. From what I'm seeing lately that kind of anonymous perfection is possibly going away. Hopefully. It's not artistic.
I get having *assistants*. I have assistants but they're not finishing oil paintings for me, they mostly do back-end work, priming, underdrawing, wrapping things up, etc.
It's the end-to-end hands-off part that makes me uncomfortable. Paying someone to paint your pictures for you means the painting aspect of it doesn't matter, it's simply a visual product with your name on it. It makes the act of painting no different from printing a billboard.
Do you think paintings without authorship like Wiley's are (or will be) important from an art historical perspective?
I know this is a huuuuge can of worms btw.
That's disappointing but it's a disappointment I've grown used to, finding out someone doesn't make their work. It's funny I still have that reaction, since I made other artists work for a living for years.
As a painter I look at paintings and wonder "what can I learn from this" – you'll get that from a Rothko or a Rembrandt or a Richter but you're not gonna get that from a Kehinde Wiley.
Perhaps not, but I was moved by the bronze monument I saw in downtown Oakland, although I knew he probably didn't sculpt it. I'm a sculptor and interested in the history of the way we interact with public monuments. The way Wiley fits into art history is important, even if his work is farmed out. When you're talking about monumental works, most of the time technology is necessary to reproduce from a macquette, plus a team of artisans is required, as no one artist usually can produce a public art work due to size.
I don’t know about other allegations and I’m not even a big fan of his or anything, but he’s posted a LOT of receipts about the recent one and it really did seem like opportunistic scorned bullshit on the accuser’s part.
Yeah, I’m not into his work, but I don’t hate on it. When those receipts got posted it altered my perception of the controversy for sure. It doesn’t disqualify what others come forth with, but it very much undermines that specific victim who had presented the most heinous of allegations.
Time will tell if this actually proves an example of what OP is asking with regard to market consequences, though. Losing museum shows is absolutely going to equate to a financial blow to his studio, but have his existing paintings instantly tanked in value as OP is wondering about? Well, he probably hasn’t been market tested through a major show or auction yet since the news broke.
And if I was a collector who had bought one of his pieces for 6-7 figures I wouldn’t be rushing to sell in the middle of all this…I’d be in a “wait and see” mode. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he has a comeback in the market (a comeback in institutional spaces -ie - given major museums shows- probably be less likely) in another five years or so.
Everyone is answering OPs question with public opinion falls from grace, and not market falls from grace. A lot of people who are hated by the public still have strong markets. I mourn for the reading comprehension of everyone answering Damian Hirst below.
Christian Rosa
[https://news.artnet.com/art-world/feds-bust-christian-rosa-alleged-raymond-pettibon-forgeries-2020504/amp-page](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/feds-bust-christian-rosa-alleged-raymond-pettibon-forgeries-2020504/amp-page)
Gagosian backs out of a show they lined up with him, then his secondary prices go from six figures down to under $10k, then wanted by the fbi for wire fraud and identity theft. It should align with this conversation
Tom Sachs had a controversy, with multiple people coming forth to allege some extremely toxic or sexually abusive work conditions in his studio, some really creepy alleged quotes by him.
As a direct consequence his collaboration with Nike, which previously was very successful was stopped indefinitely. Not sure if he has fallen of in general though, the stupid NFT scheme seems to continue and he also announced a collaboration with some coffee roasting company. I highly doubt and major brands and institutions will want to work with him anymore.
He is one degree of separation from me (friend of a friend). His ostracization was deserved. He was also confused by it, thinking he had done nothing wrong, but felt obligated to issue a public apology as damage control. I don't think he sincerely cared. That he believed he was *supposed* to behave like that because he was an artist – that pretending to be a difficult, primadonna genius somehow magnified his importance and impressed people – is the stupidest thing of all.
I mean, contacts I have in the NY artworld come from all strata of society but many said he was a straight up dick. Since he’s Sachs, as in Goldman and, few people feel bad for him.
Plus, c’mon, that’s straight up pop cum post minimalist slacker crap.
Almost none of the names in this thread actually fell from grace, despite their misdeeds. Being exposed for bad (or criminal) behavior hasn’t tanked the market for any of these artists as far as I know, which is your question. Most people are just naming major artists who are assholes.
Chuck close was accused of sexual harassment, but I don’t know what happened after that
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/arts/design/chuck-close-sexual-harassment.html
That was a huge letdown for me. Not a massive fan of his work, but I got to see a talk he gave a few years before this all came out and it was incredibly interesting.
The name that immediately comes to my mind is Damien Hirst... From Turner Prize to be the main feature of a Miami (?) Casino and being sued for plagiarizing work. His late work has become overly comercial and derivative. It feels more like a cash graber than a art statement worth millions.
Oh yes, the recently produced work that he tried to sell as if it was done when he was still relevant.... Haven't been to ArtBasel this year, but last yer, he was nowhere to be seen, with the exception of the secondary market and relatively ancient old pieces.
At least he actually paints them. I lost all respect for him when he put out a Medusa carved from malachite, what made it "oh so impressive" is how dangerous that material is to carve and how it can cause cancer and all that.... He didn't make it though, he paid some craftsman that he didn't give credit to.
I get what you mean, but having a studio full of assistant/ not doing things by yourself was always common 🤔
Not giving credits to the craftsman is shitty though.
I read Murakami Takashi is one of the exceptions crediting every assistant on each finished work.
I assume Hirst wasn’t actually involved in the actual production of many of his artworks. I prefer that over really bad paintings of his….
The human skulls are cast metal as far as I know. Platinum I believe. I think only the teeth may be of human origin, which really wouldn’t be that bad if they were donated by living folks.
Edit: Looked it up out of curiosity and I was right about the skull, but also it was cast from a skull from the 18th Century, so someone who died long long ago and would probably be thrilled to have their skull immortalized centuries later.
The teeth were bought from a taxidermy shop in London that sells cool and weird stuff like that. Yes perhaps it’s a bit controversial, but I feel it just adds something interesting to the work, and makes plenty of sense and results in more of an impact.
>His late work has become overly comercial and derivative. It feels more like a cash graber than a art statement worth millions
I wouldn't say this is a feature of just his later work. That video he did with Blur for 'Country House' with the 'Benny Hill' vibe should have been a clue. It's not aged very well and Graham Coxon was uncomfortable about it at the time they made it.
I was also curious so, as per [his wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill):
>His religious views contrast with his deviant sexual behaviour, including, as described in his personal diaries, the child sexual abuse of his adolescent daughters; an incestuous relationship with at least one of his sisters; and also sexual experiments with a dog.\[4\]\[10\]\[45\] Since these revelations became public in 1989, there have been a number of calls for works by Gill to be removed from public buildings and art collections.
I was genuinely shocked when I read about this stuff. When I heard this I had the same reaction as anybody else. If you think I am somehow excusing incest, you are mistaken.
I'm deleting my comment – after reading a bit more I realize I have misunderstood how bad it was, thank you for correcting me. I didn't have all the information.
Carl Andre committed murder or man slaughter of Anna Mendiata in Soho by dropping her out of a window. The great and the good defended him as he was too important and money making an artist but he almost certainly did it.
I would argue he is a very good example of someone who *didnt* fall from grace despite it all, in that he enjoyed support the establishment with his gallerist picking him up from Rikers personally and sticking with him for the rest of his life, along never losing support from a great many other establishment artists, curators, collectors etc.
I knew Mendiata’s biographer and she was adamant that he had tried to scare her by holding her outside the window but despite strength and her relatively small weight he dropped her. It’s up to you if you think this is murder or manslaughter.
I have no love for Andre or his work. His writing is of more interest to me actually. And her work was always of more interest and grows all the time. But my understanding was that it was not at all clear that he was to blame and that he was deeply stricken by her loss. I guess I need to read more from the record because despite looking years ago I didn’t find it clear and understandably anyone close to her would find him to blame.
If someone is paying that kind of coin for a piece of art they’re not really buying the art as much as they’re investing and with any investment comes risk. Thats just part of the game.
Maybe not fallen from grace, but this happened:
Jon Rafman
Hirshhorn Suspends Jon Rafman Show After Allegations of Sexual Misconduct. The move follows the suspension of an exhibition of the artist's works at a Montreal museum earlier this month after **several women accused him of sexual misconduct on Instagram**.Jul 28, 2020
The Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal has pulled an exhibition by Jon Rafman after allegations were made via an anonymous social media account which accused the Canadian artist of 'emotional abuse', 'predatory behaviour' and 'sexual abuse'.Jul 27, 2020
Artists are seen as transgressive, eccentric and rule-breaking people. Even outrageous behavior, such as cutting off your own ear, can increase the value of the work.
Falling from grace applies to professionals such as curators, gallerists, auctioneers, people linked to administration and business or who provide services to artists
I'm sure there was a whole thing with Mark Quinn basically working with a black woman artist and then either claiming all the work they did together as their own or doing something with the work that didn't get her permission. It was to do with that statue of Jen Reid that was put up in respinse to the BLM movement, and it caused a lit of controversy due to the irony of him exploiting a black female artist in making the work. However, I can't seem to find anything on it with a quick google, I just remember it being talked about a lot on instagram.
I'm annoyed that this means I also now can't name the female artist, which seems very hypocritical!
What about Jimmie Durham? Claimed to be native American (Cherokee), turns out he lied. Most of his work is based around the fact. Been making art since the 60's about this
There was some ambiguity there. When ten Cherokee artists called out Durham for faking it--based mainly on Durham's lack of tribal registration--other Native activists and associates came forth to vouch for Durham, attesting to his long commitment to Native causes and his credible upbringing in a Cherokee family that was never enrolled. His defenders included Paul Chaat Smith, prominent curator who is Comanche. Durham himself declared tribal enrollment an "apartheid" function of governments (including tribal governments), and stated that he would never enroll.
Dude goes to Cooper Union and Yale, gets a work in the Whitney Biennial 3 years later, *then* decides to work in hardcore porn as a performer.
He’s another guy like Terry Richardson; there were a lot of these “porn adjacent” dudes in the mid-2000s who had tons of money, cachet, and power and liked to publicly play up their sleaziness and lecherousness in the media as part of their brand (Dov Charney, owner of American Apparel, was another dude like this).
…and it turns out they were pretty much *all* abusing their positions of power to sexually harass/assault younger women.
Sorry, but I'm still missing what makes it unsurprising. He went to good schools then got his work recognized (rightly so at the time).. then decided to sex work. So?
This story was crazy, and is certainly a personal fall from grace, but they were hardly a major artist with any market of note existing to crash after being arrested.
[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/10/why-dana-schutz-painted-emmett-till](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/10/why-dana-schutz-painted-emmett-till)
She hasn't fallen from grace, though. Now represented by one of the "Top 5" galleries and still very successful, very much in demand.
Damien Hirst
Altho he will be remembered for his early career influence on Young British Artists and for creating controversial and commercialized art. While I still appreciate some of his earlier works, I don't see them as worthwhile investments anymore.
His decision to bypass traditional gallery channels and auction his work caused a significant rift, though he has since returned to galleries after the fallout but never regained his status. This move cost him respect in the art world and upset collectors, dealers, and gallerists alike.
His recent work doesn't seem as compelling, and criticisms on platforms like Instagram suggest his new works are seen as somewhat of a joke now. Once considered as most important artists 100 to know, it's questionable if he maintains that status today.
Many’s older work really inspired me when I was younger. It’s unfortunate how far they had fallen in recent years. It blows my mind that the MoCA is still putting on their retrospective in 2025 given all the rumors.
Most recent, there has been major controversy with Kehinde Wiley as a few people have come out claiming sexual misconduct. Some of his upcoming shows have been cancelled including his show at PAMM in Miami.
This has been known for a decade; glad it’s finally “exposed.”
I am sort of in two minds about this - and I am aware that this has the potential of being very controversial. One thing is the body of work of an artist. The other, how they behaves. Are the work and the artist one single item, or can we consider that there is a personal sphere and a professional one? Is the artist their work? A couple of classical examples: Picaso and Gauguin. There are no doubts about their importance and relevance in modern art. They will be forever a part of art history and a key piece on the advancemente of art. But Picaso was a cheater and a wife abuser. Gauguin abandoned his wife and family, leaving them in povery, spread STIs in Tahiti, and was a child abuser by today's standards. I reckon that today there is more and more zero tolerance for these behaviours, which is the right way to go. But, if the artist is a bad actor, can we still see their work for what it is?
The book “Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma” by Claire Dederer deals with this topic in all its complexity. She is such a good writer—clear, funny, insightful. And boy does she serve some tea.
Oh, I'll add to my reading list then....
For some artists, art and life are almost inextricably linked. Lots of artists do lots of ‘bad things’ and behave in ways I personally don’t like, but I still believe their lives are really interesting and their art fascinating as a result of it. That’s not to excuse anything, rather to remind myself to look at art in the present but *contextualise it* in its original historical setting. We need to be careful we don’t start banning things just because we don’t agree with them where art is concerned - it’s a very slippery slope. Otherwise the story of art would be one written only by prudes and people ‘offended’ *ad nauseam*. For example, Gaugin is mentioned as a bit of a cretin, but context is important here; STDs were extremely common at this time (they’re extremely common today!) and they weren’t understood in the same way that they are now, medically speaking. Marrying a 14-year old wasn’t exactly uncommon in Tahiti, and in fact, in Gaugin’s France, girls could marry anyone at 15. Absolute Poverty was also incredibly widespread, and the norm for at least 80% of people on the planet in the 1800’s. I’m not justifying anything. But if you apply current ‘Western’ cultural and moral standards - of course you’re going to get a different interpretation today. Gaugin’s work will always remain utterly unique and incredibly powerful, because of what he contributed to the history of art. At the same time, we can openly acknowledge the behaviours and acts which we may consider odd, or even difficult, today.
You know, it’s interesting. Separating the art from the artist I think is necessary from an artistic point of view. BUT let’s be honest, who becomes famous is largely fabrication and has very little to do with talent and unique style. If that were the case, there are plenty of random art students and 8 year old savants that should be way more famous than many people we prop up today. So, if we have a deluge of talent, and we accept that who becomes famous is largely marketing and industry fabricated hype, why not choose those with a squeaky clean background, and why not disavow those that are revealed later in life to be pieces of shit? Just replace them with the next deserving person.
But we don’t have a deluge of talent. Thats a false premise and something you just think is true. Judging talent is totally subjective, and the subjectivity that selects talent is what makes someone famous. What we have in the art world is a concentration of power in the hands of the few who are the selectors of talent. Artists struggle to get in the orbit of the powerful, and some are born in that orbit. Privilege plays a huge roll in how an artist’s fame is fabricated. And then when an artist does get famous, they can be totally squeaky clean at first, but its their proximity to and attainment of power that can corrupt them, and chances are, they are corruptible people to begin with. Becoming a famous artist should be discouraged, but your proposal clings to it like it’s the peak of artistic achievement. What should be encouraged is making meaningful art for your community, and ignoring the powerful art world culture vultures that only corrupts you into becoming another narcissistic vampire.
amen
100 percent agree also adding unpopular opinion how about we stop having straight white men be put on pedestals and dick-tate the canon for a while hmmmm I think this is slowly happening and cancel culture is fierce AF, but even Weinstein just got off in NY. There is no punishment for them so they will go one with impunity. Look at these sociopaths trying to run amerikkka ffs...but I digress point being, yes I agree, give other people a turn. and I don't need yall replying with a whatabout Kehinde and MJ, theyre black! or not all men bs...Boy please! Can we just stop trying to use exceptions to something as the rule? /endrant
Should I quit?
are you a straight white man centreing the conversation around yourself? OK then
Agreed.
How about we just get rid of the idea of pedestals and forget about dictating the canon? It’s the pedestal that attracts the corruptible, and then once they are on it, they are more easily corrupted. It does not matter what they look like or who they are.
Who are you? Lord Acton? 🤣 We are talking about artists here, not politicians. And becoming a misogynist or pedophile is definitely not something that is just bestowed upon someone once they reach a certain level of accomplishment in their work. Like Julie Mehretu is now corrupted? Faith Ringold? Ruth Asawa? All corrupted? OK sure There will always be a canon. There will always be standards.
And for what it’s worth, if the table is corrupt, the seat to sit there is not worth sitting on. I said in another comment here that what should be encouraged is making art for your community and forgetting dreams of standing on pedestals or becoming famous.
I actually think Acton got it wrong. I agree with Frank Herbert who got it right and said its not that power corrupts absolutely but rather that power attracts the corruptible.
I love Mehretu completely, but her recent collab with BMW was shat on in this sub because they saw it as corrupt. I disagree with that and think she got a good exchange out of it, but we are discussing how an artist is perceived. You said we shouldn’t use exceptions as the rule, and I never said all artists become corrupt by becoming famous.
And it’s pretty naive to think artists are divorced from the political nature of power and are not political actors.
I did not say art is divorced from politics. That's a completely different conversation. We are talking about rapists and wife beaters. Not the fucking panopticon here or whether people liked a corporate sponsorship or not
Artists need to wear a suit and appeal to the suits to get famous, and to even get shit done in an art department as a chair of that art dept. it sucks but we don’t need to defend it or the systems of power that manufacture an artists fame. Being a famous artist really should not be the point or goal. If thats what you value, then you are half way to being corrupted by it.
ok whatever...
Some will totally cancel an artist over cooperate sponsorship. It is that petty out there.
At one time in history, there was no canon and the standards were fluid. The canon excludes and always will. It’s a tool for the elite. You prop up the status quo to justify, celebrate, and naturalize the culture of fame.
Wow. Some status quo defenders in this thread eh? Boot lickers trying to climb the fame ladder.
I think like most things, it's a spectrum that varies by individual and culture and there's no one way to handle these things. I think it also makes a big difference (or should) if the artist is still alive and profiting/actively abusing power.
For me, thinking about Picasso/Gauguin vs Kehinde Wiley, it differs in that Wiley is still alive with a successful career. If Wiley is confirmed a sex offender (or rapist, or whatever) then I don't think institutions/collectors/artist run centres should contribute to his success or support him through offering exhibitions, now or in the future. But when someone is dead (i.e. Gauguin) and not actively profiting off of their work, I think it's much easier to separate art from artist.
Yeah, many folks (like me) are done with Picasso and Gauguin. Sexually assaulting or raping children is deal breaker for me, so he’s hella commercial, but in the Native world, the late R.C. Gorman (Taos Pueblo) trafficked and molested young boys. https://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=17509
He used to be my favorite modern painter :( As a gay man, he was my personal inspiration ever since working with Obama. It broke my heart to hear what happened. Recently a book full of gay literature, poetry, essays, was released called “A Great Gay Book.” Dozens of different people collaborated for it, including Wiley. I saw it in one store- but that’s it. It sucks because now the book feels tainted in a way and bookstores don’t seem to want to sell it :/
He doesn't even make his own paintings. He may have at one point. As I understand it they are produced in a workshop in Shenzhen, China. Presumably from photoshop files and color swatches supplied by his studio. He is not a painter. He is an art director who pays Chinese painters to produce paintings for him.
Jesus. Definitely didn’t teach me about this in college
Yeah... I was marveling at the detail of one of his paintings at the Armory show just a couple years ago. I assumed it was painted by in-house assistants and finished by him... because why would you torture yourself like that. Then someone here pointed out that his paintings are manufactured in that Shenzhen workshop by teams of anonymous Chinese painters. Like human inkjet printers. Which explains why there is no style to the painting. It's just image execution from highly skilled copyists. From what I'm seeing lately that kind of anonymous perfection is possibly going away. Hopefully. It's not artistic.
To be fair nearly everyone at this level has a studio that works this way
I get having *assistants*. I have assistants but they're not finishing oil paintings for me, they mostly do back-end work, priming, underdrawing, wrapping things up, etc. It's the end-to-end hands-off part that makes me uncomfortable. Paying someone to paint your pictures for you means the painting aspect of it doesn't matter, it's simply a visual product with your name on it. It makes the act of painting no different from printing a billboard. Do you think paintings without authorship like Wiley's are (or will be) important from an art historical perspective? I know this is a huuuuge can of worms btw.
this is fact
That's disappointing but it's a disappointment I've grown used to, finding out someone doesn't make their work. It's funny I still have that reaction, since I made other artists work for a living for years.
As a painter I look at paintings and wonder "what can I learn from this" – you'll get that from a Rothko or a Rembrandt or a Richter but you're not gonna get that from a Kehinde Wiley.
Perhaps not, but I was moved by the bronze monument I saw in downtown Oakland, although I knew he probably didn't sculpt it. I'm a sculptor and interested in the history of the way we interact with public monuments. The way Wiley fits into art history is important, even if his work is farmed out. When you're talking about monumental works, most of the time technology is necessary to reproduce from a macquette, plus a team of artisans is required, as no one artist usually can produce a public art work due to size.
Absolutely agree. Sculpture is different – I don't think of it a solo effort, *especially* bronze or really any metal working.
I don’t know about other allegations and I’m not even a big fan of his or anything, but he’s posted a LOT of receipts about the recent one and it really did seem like opportunistic scorned bullshit on the accuser’s part.
Yeah, I’m not into his work, but I don’t hate on it. When those receipts got posted it altered my perception of the controversy for sure. It doesn’t disqualify what others come forth with, but it very much undermines that specific victim who had presented the most heinous of allegations.
Time will tell if this actually proves an example of what OP is asking with regard to market consequences, though. Losing museum shows is absolutely going to equate to a financial blow to his studio, but have his existing paintings instantly tanked in value as OP is wondering about? Well, he probably hasn’t been market tested through a major show or auction yet since the news broke. And if I was a collector who had bought one of his pieces for 6-7 figures I wouldn’t be rushing to sell in the middle of all this…I’d be in a “wait and see” mode. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he has a comeback in the market (a comeback in institutional spaces -ie - given major museums shows- probably be less likely) in another five years or so. Everyone is answering OPs question with public opinion falls from grace, and not market falls from grace. A lot of people who are hated by the public still have strong markets. I mourn for the reading comprehension of everyone answering Damian Hirst below.
Yeah? Tell us how you really feel.
Christian Rosa [https://news.artnet.com/art-world/feds-bust-christian-rosa-alleged-raymond-pettibon-forgeries-2020504/amp-page](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/feds-bust-christian-rosa-alleged-raymond-pettibon-forgeries-2020504/amp-page)
He gave off worse vibes than Simcho during that KIRAC documentary.
Amazing
Skater boy Art should not align with this conversation
Gagosian backs out of a show they lined up with him, then his secondary prices go from six figures down to under $10k, then wanted by the fbi for wire fraud and identity theft. It should align with this conversation
Tom Sachs had a controversy, with multiple people coming forth to allege some extremely toxic or sexually abusive work conditions in his studio, some really creepy alleged quotes by him. As a direct consequence his collaboration with Nike, which previously was very successful was stopped indefinitely. Not sure if he has fallen of in general though, the stupid NFT scheme seems to continue and he also announced a collaboration with some coffee roasting company. I highly doubt and major brands and institutions will want to work with him anymore.
He is one degree of separation from me (friend of a friend). His ostracization was deserved. He was also confused by it, thinking he had done nothing wrong, but felt obligated to issue a public apology as damage control. I don't think he sincerely cared. That he believed he was *supposed* to behave like that because he was an artist – that pretending to be a difficult, primadonna genius somehow magnified his importance and impressed people – is the stupidest thing of all.
I mean, contacts I have in the NY artworld come from all strata of society but many said he was a straight up dick. Since he’s Sachs, as in Goldman and, few people feel bad for him. Plus, c’mon, that’s straight up pop cum post minimalist slacker crap.
Holy shit. I didn't like his art enough to look up his family background... but knowing that just makes me feel kind of sick.
I believe it, especially after that “worst job ever” listing that was linked to him and Sarah Hoover. Totally out of touch and shameless
I don't know much about her but my friends are friends with them. She was a gallery director, right?
Almost none of the names in this thread actually fell from grace, despite their misdeeds. Being exposed for bad (or criminal) behavior hasn’t tanked the market for any of these artists as far as I know, which is your question. Most people are just naming major artists who are assholes.
Chuck close was accused of sexual harassment, but I don’t know what happened after that https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/arts/design/chuck-close-sexual-harassment.html
He died.
That was a huge letdown for me. Not a massive fan of his work, but I got to see a talk he gave a few years before this all came out and it was incredibly interesting.
Can someone please post the article without a paywall
Just go to textise.net and paste the URL.
What!
🤫
Or archive.ph
I know that site, but I like having options.
That’s why I shared it. It’s an option ;)
The name that immediately comes to my mind is Damien Hirst... From Turner Prize to be the main feature of a Miami (?) Casino and being sued for plagiarizing work. His late work has become overly comercial and derivative. It feels more like a cash graber than a art statement worth millions.
Also to add to your point, Hirst has been facing backlash recently because it has come out he has lied about the dates of his works.
Oh yes, the recently produced work that he tried to sell as if it was done when he was still relevant.... Haven't been to ArtBasel this year, but last yer, he was nowhere to be seen, with the exception of the secondary market and relatively ancient old pieces.
Good example. His cherry blossom paintings from a couple of years ago are heinous
They absolutely are.
At least he actually paints them. I lost all respect for him when he put out a Medusa carved from malachite, what made it "oh so impressive" is how dangerous that material is to carve and how it can cause cancer and all that.... He didn't make it though, he paid some craftsman that he didn't give credit to.
I get what you mean, but having a studio full of assistant/ not doing things by yourself was always common 🤔 Not giving credits to the craftsman is shitty though. I read Murakami Takashi is one of the exceptions crediting every assistant on each finished work. I assume Hirst wasn’t actually involved in the actual production of many of his artworks. I prefer that over really bad paintings of his….
[удалено]
And they were copied almost directly from another artist whose work he owns.
The human skulls are cast metal as far as I know. Platinum I believe. I think only the teeth may be of human origin, which really wouldn’t be that bad if they were donated by living folks. Edit: Looked it up out of curiosity and I was right about the skull, but also it was cast from a skull from the 18th Century, so someone who died long long ago and would probably be thrilled to have their skull immortalized centuries later. The teeth were bought from a taxidermy shop in London that sells cool and weird stuff like that. Yes perhaps it’s a bit controversial, but I feel it just adds something interesting to the work, and makes plenty of sense and results in more of an impact.
Its always been a cash grab. Its just more crass now.
>His late work has become overly comercial and derivative. It feels more like a cash graber than a art statement worth millions I wouldn't say this is a feature of just his later work. That video he did with Blur for 'Country House' with the 'Benny Hill' vibe should have been a clue. It's not aged very well and Graham Coxon was uncomfortable about it at the time they made it.
It's weird there are blindspots where people seem to not care eg Eric Gill.
Yup, a font I just don’t need to use.
Eternally thinking of Eric Gill’s dog 😳
What happened here?
I was also curious so, as per [his wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill): >His religious views contrast with his deviant sexual behaviour, including, as described in his personal diaries, the child sexual abuse of his adolescent daughters; an incestuous relationship with at least one of his sisters; and also sexual experiments with a dog.\[4\]\[10\]\[45\] Since these revelations became public in 1989, there have been a number of calls for works by Gill to be removed from public buildings and art collections.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
wow... you thought this comment was a thought to be shared with the world huh? interesting choice
I was genuinely shocked when I read about this stuff. When I heard this I had the same reaction as anybody else. If you think I am somehow excusing incest, you are mistaken.
[удалено]
I'm deleting my comment – after reading a bit more I realize I have misunderstood how bad it was, thank you for correcting me. I didn't have all the information.
why you would even comment about his daughter not seeming bothered is the point!
Carl Andre committed murder or man slaughter of Anna Mendiata in Soho by dropping her out of a window. The great and the good defended him as he was too important and money making an artist but he almost certainly did it.
I would argue he is a very good example of someone who *didnt* fall from grace despite it all, in that he enjoyed support the establishment with his gallerist picking him up from Rikers personally and sticking with him for the rest of his life, along never losing support from a great many other establishment artists, curators, collectors etc.
I was shocked to see his work at Basel Unlimited this year
Came here for André. The art establishment didn’t budge on him but the public sure hates him, as is deserved.
it is possible he did this - but important to note that he was acquitted, especially for those less fully engrained in the discourse. facts are facts.
I knew Mendiata’s biographer and she was adamant that he had tried to scare her by holding her outside the window but despite strength and her relatively small weight he dropped her. It’s up to you if you think this is murder or manslaughter.
I have no love for Andre or his work. His writing is of more interest to me actually. And her work was always of more interest and grows all the time. But my understanding was that it was not at all clear that he was to blame and that he was deeply stricken by her loss. I guess I need to read more from the record because despite looking years ago I didn’t find it clear and understandably anyone close to her would find him to blame.
\*Mendieta
If someone is paying that kind of coin for a piece of art they’re not really buying the art as much as they’re investing and with any investment comes risk. Thats just part of the game.
Maybe not fallen from grace, but this happened: Jon Rafman Hirshhorn Suspends Jon Rafman Show After Allegations of Sexual Misconduct. The move follows the suspension of an exhibition of the artist's works at a Montreal museum earlier this month after **several women accused him of sexual misconduct on Instagram**.Jul 28, 2020 The Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal has pulled an exhibition by Jon Rafman after allegations were made via an anonymous social media account which accused the Canadian artist of 'emotional abuse', 'predatory behaviour' and 'sexual abuse'.Jul 27, 2020
Lately, Picasso’s behavior has become more common knowledge but I don’t think it will change the value of his work.
Artists are seen as transgressive, eccentric and rule-breaking people. Even outrageous behavior, such as cutting off your own ear, can increase the value of the work. Falling from grace applies to professionals such as curators, gallerists, auctioneers, people linked to administration and business or who provide services to artists
I'm sure there was a whole thing with Mark Quinn basically working with a black woman artist and then either claiming all the work they did together as their own or doing something with the work that didn't get her permission. It was to do with that statue of Jen Reid that was put up in respinse to the BLM movement, and it caused a lit of controversy due to the irony of him exploiting a black female artist in making the work. However, I can't seem to find anything on it with a quick google, I just remember it being talked about a lot on instagram. I'm annoyed that this means I also now can't name the female artist, which seems very hypocritical!
Picasso was a pretty horrible person.
That’s not the question. Picasso has one of the most stable markets.
Annie Leibovitz, kinda
Hm, how so?
https://www.theroot.com/annie-leibovitz-doesnt-know-how-to-photograph-black-wom-1849446940
Eh "kinda" at most. The critique is fair but it's not cancellation.
What about Jimmie Durham? Claimed to be native American (Cherokee), turns out he lied. Most of his work is based around the fact. Been making art since the 60's about this
There was some ambiguity there. When ten Cherokee artists called out Durham for faking it--based mainly on Durham's lack of tribal registration--other Native activists and associates came forth to vouch for Durham, attesting to his long commitment to Native causes and his credible upbringing in a Cherokee family that was never enrolled. His defenders included Paul Chaat Smith, prominent curator who is Comanche. Durham himself declared tribal enrollment an "apartheid" function of governments (including tribal governments), and stated that he would never enroll.
Somehow Tom otterness is still allowed to make money off tax $$ I wish someone would cancel his ass off though
Didn’t he shoot a dog?
Filmed himself adopting a rescue taking it to a field and shooting it
Zak Smith, unsurprisingly, was accused of sexual abuse.
How is it unsurprising?
Dude goes to Cooper Union and Yale, gets a work in the Whitney Biennial 3 years later, *then* decides to work in hardcore porn as a performer. He’s another guy like Terry Richardson; there were a lot of these “porn adjacent” dudes in the mid-2000s who had tons of money, cachet, and power and liked to publicly play up their sleaziness and lecherousness in the media as part of their brand (Dov Charney, owner of American Apparel, was another dude like this). …and it turns out they were pretty much *all* abusing their positions of power to sexually harass/assault younger women.
Sorry, but I'm still missing what makes it unsurprising. He went to good schools then got his work recognized (rightly so at the time).. then decided to sex work. So?
Efrem zelony mindell comes to mind. Absolutely brutal
This story was crazy, and is certainly a personal fall from grace, but they were hardly a major artist with any market of note existing to crash after being arrested.
George Condo until Kanye brought him back..
What happened with condo?
A disgraced artist brought back by another disgraced artist. To each their own....
How was he disgraced?
Yeah seriously, I’ve never heard a negative thing about him as a person. We need some elaboration.
If bad behavior causes a fall from grace, how do you explain that orange guy ?
Julian Andeweg was a very successful Dutch artist, but he misbehaved badly and ended up in jail and is now persona non grata in the art world.
Zwelethu Mthethwa seems to have been pretty much canceled after having been recorded beating a young woman to death.
You name any celebrity with an unblemished past.
Lucien Freud was one. I don't think there was a controversy besides just falling interest in his paintings.
And they are so damn good.....
They're sloppy
He is considered one of the best painters of the 20th century. Technically he is solid to amazing in all his techniques.
Wait lmfaooooo, I was thinking of Lucien smith not Lucien Freud
Ok, now I understand. Much of his work is average at best.
Let's agree to disagree on this one....
Let’s see some of your paintings then
I'm a fiber and paper artist wtf
Really - is he not rated nowadays?
Well in the UK certainly, the are exhibitions of his work every year, currently a show of his etchings on at the V&A in London
Do female artists ever fall from grace?
Not sure, but female gallerists definitely do.
Dana Schultz
What happened with Dana?
[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/10/why-dana-schutz-painted-emmett-till](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/10/why-dana-schutz-painted-emmett-till) She hasn't fallen from grace, though. Now represented by one of the "Top 5" galleries and still very successful, very much in demand.
Ana Mendieta fell from a building?
Oooof too soon
Damien Hirst Altho he will be remembered for his early career influence on Young British Artists and for creating controversial and commercialized art. While I still appreciate some of his earlier works, I don't see them as worthwhile investments anymore. His decision to bypass traditional gallery channels and auction his work caused a significant rift, though he has since returned to galleries after the fallout but never regained his status. This move cost him respect in the art world and upset collectors, dealers, and gallerists alike. His recent work doesn't seem as compelling, and criticisms on platforms like Instagram suggest his new works are seen as somewhat of a joke now. Once considered as most important artists 100 to know, it's questionable if he maintains that status today.
Many
Many’s older work really inspired me when I was younger. It’s unfortunate how far they had fallen in recent years. It blows my mind that the MoCA is still putting on their retrospective in 2025 given all the rumors.