Hooligan Archives

January 17, 2008:
Robbie Burns Night

January 10, 2008:
Brain Gain

January 03, 2008:
'Imagination gone wild'

December 27, 2007:
'Smile When You're Lying'

December 20, 2007:
Juneau's holiday wish list

December 13, 2007:
Reindeer mind games

December 06, 2007:
The Final Countdown

November 29, 2007:
Evolving culture

November 22, 2007:
Songs for the Deaf

November 15, 2007:
Hold the juice

November 08, 2007:
The birth of karaoke

November 01, 2007:
Where the going gets tough

October 25, 2007:
Halloween Do's and Don'ts

October 18, 2007:
Light up your life

October 11, 2007:
Mixed signals

October 04, 2007:
The rise of the yeast

September 27, 2007:
Captivated by 'Guitar Hero 2'

September 20, 2007:
To Post, or Not to Post?

September 13, 2007:
Riding the concrete Wave

September 06, 2007:
Ready to be a Legend?

August 30, 2007:
From the Bay to the Channel

August 23, 2007:
Organic apprehension

August 16, 2007:
Buskers: Modern minstrels

August 09, 2007:
Slow Ride, take it easy

August 02, 2007:
All's Fair

July 26, 2007:
Letting it all Hang out

July 19, 2007:
Kiss your quarters goodbye

July 12, 2007:
Taking the Plunge

July 05, 2007:
Nowhere to go but up

June 28, 2007:
To Boldly Go

June 21, 2007:
Riding the White Limousine

June 14, 2007:
From China, with love

June 07, 2007:
Our own slice of the World Wide Web

Complete Hooligan archives

 
Web posted January 3, 2008

Buying art online: Is it smart?

Alan G. Artner
Chicago Tribune

So you've heard that shoppers spent $733 million online in a single day in November, and you're tempted to buy art that way. Some old-fashioned advice: For people who go to galleries and museums, the Web is a good complement, but rarely should it be used as a primary source.

I say "old-fashioned" because, in our post-everything world, collectors at the highest financial reaches of contemporary art are alleged to buy from digital images sent them, without seeing the actual artworks. This indifference based on name recognition of the artists follows upon a notion that gained force in the last 20 years: that the most important contemporary art is interesting less for how it appears than for ideas behind it that don't have to be visible. How art appears can only be because of craft, which, so the thinking goes, anyone can learn. But a work's conceptual base, that's what's singular, giving the object its significance. And if it often is invisible, how much do you really need to look?

Of course, the dealers who service such collectors look a lot. They scrutinize repeatedly works at auction in which they're interested, sometimes asking to view them in private, in darkened rooms under infra-red light, the better to determine condition. There's a lesson in that, no matter your price range: Just as you shouldn't buy a sound system you don't first hear, you shouldn't buy art you (or a trained, designated agent) don't first see - unmediated, in-person, one-to-one.

It has to be seen

Visual art has to be seen. And true collectors, as opposed to acquisitors and traders, derive pleasure from it because, beyond the social and financial promise of collecting, the firsthand experience of art gives something we cannot get any other way. Works of art are not only ideas. They're objects with nuances that can be perceived solely through direct encounter. Just as recordings do not capture the experience of live music, so do art objects' reproductions, electronic or otherwise, fail to convey the nuances in visual art that in most periods throughout history have determined desirability and real value.

Until buying art online becomes entirely buying art on approval - meaning the work itself, not a reproduction, is sent, viewed, purchased or sent back - I cannot recommend it for much beyond the most inexpensive decorative objects. Even then, however, you'll pay insurance, postage and handling to see what an art gallery displays for free, stands behind and frequently educates you about. That, I would think, outweighs shopping convenience.

So you're going to do it anyway? OK. I am here to suggest how the Internet can help beginners. First, grasp that digital reproductions merely have taken the place of unreliable slides and catalog illustrations. Drastically reduced in size and minimizing qualities of surface, they give a highly imperfect idea of a work's impact, conveying little detail and less about physical condition.

In my experience, discrepancies between artworks and their reproductions occasionally have been so great as to convince me I saw entirely different pieces.

That hurts least at the lowest end of the spectrum. Should you only want something for over the couch, you can get it, without the mildest pang of conscience, from eBay, where seller-provided images generally are adequate for calendar art and other items of home decor. You may be unpleasantly surprised by the condition of older pieces, such as plates from books suitable for framing; I have yet to see the condition of any volume described there with the accuracy of the dealers at, say, abebooks.com. But countless agreeable decorations do turn up, and nice enough ones can be had cheaply.