Powhide is a smart, ambitious and cynical artist. His "Institutional Critique" is corrupt if he is accepting money from the very collectors he is supposedly critiquing. His strategy is one of market adaptation and is a well worn path to a career in the service of the 1% where the artist plays court jester by "mocking" the collector/institution while both side laugh and cynically wink at one another as deals are made through intermediaries. Success at the uppermost levels of the art world requires a bit of naughty but harmless controversy. Powhida is too eager to oblige his target market with his "outrage."

Paul H-O in da house! Right on!

Really great subject, and it's rare to have this subject on a larger public forum.

I believe the top levels of the art world, and that would include the auction houses Sotheby's, Christies, and Phillips de Prury have colluded with dealers and buyers beyond any question of conflict of interest. It's very common to rig prices for art and no one from either the houses or any authority does anything except pop the champagne cork. Unregulated commodities gone wild.

... that jaggerbutz - an incredible art historian!

Fascinating.

Well that was dumb. Just got out of the shower to here the segment end having missed the whole thing. So I still have no idea what this segment was about. lol.

One of the most succinct statements about the double bind well-intentioned artists and art dealers find themselves in with regard to Wall Street appears in the teaser for Jim Kempner's (art dealer) Madness of Art webisode. Kempner stands in Zuccotti Park with a sign that reads: Art Dealers Against Corporate Greed.

http://themadnessofart.com/2011/10/the-boondoggle/

My only patron is god

Before the advent of photography, most artists livelihoods were dependent on painting portraits for upper middle class clients. With the development of photography, which made most portrait painters redundant, "modern art" was born wherein art suddenly became a medium of expression, and a new class of art collectors was born. They were not interested in portraits, but rather in art as a medium of expression as well as another venue of speculation and investment.

ha ha, i cant believe you are running this segment --- i make art normally purchased only by the wealthy -- i JUST (while listening to last segment!!!!) unfriended OWS in order to not alienate clients during the xmas buying season!!!!

Has anyone noticed that the art bubble has created a demand for really gimmicky work? I have been feeling for years that many of the real artists have gone underground.

If you only mean fine artists, who cares! The ones with patrons are making good money! How about the rest of us? Like the illustrators and cartoonists, who have much less work since the downturn in the publishing industry? WIth less pages paid for by advertising, there are also less pages for cartoons and illustratinos. People are paying less. People are using stock photos instead of drawings that they'd have to pay more for. Most artists I know have to have other ways to pay the rent than selling their artwork. So you're doing the 1% of artists in this segment, as far as I can tell!

Who can afford Art? Original works, especially by "name" artists. An answer for Robert's question.
The name 'Derivatives' suggests that the 1% who invest in art are the most hated of the Wall Street 1% - the vaporware traders.

I have no idea what this segment is about! Can someone explain.