MONEY TALKS  by Christopher Allen

Unlike most other Aboriginal Art exhibitions that are offered overseas, this exhibition is not a survey show, but rather a focus on individual artists with a high degree of success.

SELECTED ARTISTS:

Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri (Including later works from the 1990s created at `Artspeak Studio Gallery`, Warrandyte) , Tim Leura Tjapaltjarri, Turkey Tolson Tjungurrayi, Ronnie Tjampitjinpa, Rover Thomas, Paddy Bedford, Queenie McKenzie, Emily Kngwarreye, Dorothy Napangardi

VIEW VIDEO:  Vernissage tv

How can a monumental Clifford Possum painting similar in size and quality, as this featured work, be estimated at $50,000-$70,000 at an elite auction house? What does this say about the mind set of the Aboriginal Art specialist involved?

The  Law paints Indigenous Art into a corner , is an entertaining read, but the real problem for the Aboriginal Art Market started when certain dealers and so-called Aboriginal Art specialists acted in ways that could turn Aboriginal Art`s original greats into has-beens and create new stars with little to no real artistic merit. But little did the players recognize the idea that by annihilating the `foundation stones` on which Contemporary Aboriginal Art was resting upon would eventually harm the entire `industry`.

What are Aboriginal Art collectors to think when they visit the National Gallery of Victoria and see that this state institution does not own a painting by Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri in his own right, (but it does have a pretend, or did have, titled `Five Stories`) or see a remarkable monumental 1993-94 ` Love Story` by this Master tucked in the back of a 2005  Sotheby`s Australia catalogue accompanied by an estimate of $50,000-$70,000?  Even so, this work sold for $411,000.00, though had the former Sotheby`s `specialist`, or `specialists`, shown greater appreciation for this remarkable work, a better result might well have eventuated for such a prize painting.

Given the countless examples of this kind associated to this Master and his peers, collectors would and could seemingly only imagine that acquiring the Art of `the greats` might be a waste of money, so best turn their attention towards acquiring works by Aboriginal artists, who seem to be better favoured in the public domain by the `inner circle`. Bingo!

The rise of new stars, such as Ginger Riley Munduwalawala, as one example, was set in motion, as was the decline in status of `the greats` to the point where even their early works dropped in value, but for a few exceptions. For collectors who had the wit to acquire Masters` works before `social engineering` in the Aboriginal Art arena took hold, the decline in the value of their collections was hardly an incentive to remain in this market, while for new collectors the door was open to grab the `first off the rack` by new stars, which they did.

With more and more new collectors finding an interest in Aboriginal Art and with more and more new stars being promoted in one way or another, the Aboriginal Art Market came to be an enormous success, while Australian Art of the non-Aboriginal kind seemed to almost vanish from the public focus into the never never. Be it in publications, or advertising, in galleries, or on the streets of Alice Springs and similar tourists hubs, Aboriginal Art came to be everywhere and so too more and more new dealers all wanting a piece of the successful Aboriginal Art pie.

The swag of Aboriginal artists too was increasing by the day, which was partially due to  the expansion of new Aboriginal community art centers, or centres, in remote Australia and choices being made by Urban Aboriginal people to engage in creativity. So being, it seemed that the Aboriginal Art Market was invincible until cracks started appearing in the form of unscrupulous dealers and an over-supply of Indigenous Art on the market.

But the chief crack came when new collectors started experiencing a fall in the initial value of their Aboriginal Art at a time well before the `global financial crises` kicked in in 2008. And before the intrusion of government into the Aboriginal Art sector, which was originally called for by the `inner circle` to better control unscrupulous dealers, or was it to protect the interest of Aboriginal art centres in a highly competitive market and control Aboriginal artists in remote Australia in the process?

Not to mention controlling, or destroying, private dealers by denying them art centre works if they also traded in non-art centre paintings. That any art centre manager feels licensed to withhold art works from private gallery owners in this country for daring to run their own businesses as they see fit seems almost illegal and perhaps this is an issue for the ACCC to look into and a subject that Ashleigh Wilson`s article Law Paints indigenous art into a corner did well in revealing.

But whatever one`s thinking, the fact remains that neither government attempts to regulate the market, or the `global financial crises`, or the abundance of Aboriginal Art can be held accountable for the decline in profits in the Aboriginal Art market, as put forth by those interviewed by Wilson for her article`Law Paints indigenous art into a corner`. Although it must be recognized that the above mentioned has played a negative role in the Aboriginal Art market to some degree, but blaming the `bossa nova` for the actions of the real source of power within the Aboriginal Art arena is a distortion.

Collector money has not disappeared from the art market, but shifted away from Aboriginal Art to Non-Aboriginal Art where confidence in investing in works by renowned artists has not been undermined `for the good` of an art industry, or an attempt to steer collectors towards new stars through stealth. To be sure, the games in the Aboriginal Art arena have been a negative for trusting collectors, because just as a new star is made another needs to take his or her place to keep the wheels of selling in motion for art centres and their partner dealers, with curators of Aboriginal Art in our state galleries accommodating.

Which means to say that almost no Aboriginal artist can be assured of long term `stardom` and collectors have come to know this. A point easily recognized in former Sotheby`s Australia catalogues from the past decade or so, and by the Aboriginal Art acquisitions made by state galleries that embrace works, which have largely been promoted by `inner circle` dealers, whose taste in art never seem to fail to attract their state gallery and auction house counterparts. So before too long, or is it the case already, will works by Sally Gabori, as one example, reach the National Gallery of Victoria and the like?

Never heard of Sally Gabori? Neither did I until she was promoted as `hot property` and then an `Internationally acclaimed Indigenous artist` by an `inner circle` dealer . Here I am tempted to say to collectors to quickly go out and buy a work by this `new star` before her prices are out of reach, but the last time I looked this seems to be the case already.  Given Gabori`s work, this current status quo for this artist seems to have more to do with good marketing, than good art. The question is, however, how long will Gabori`s work hold its value?

There has been no shortage of overnight successes in the Aboriginal Art market and we will be sure to see a lot more, which is in the nature of the Aboriginal Art industry, as is the decline in the value of work. Because Art of real importance in the Fine Art arena only generally increases in value over time, while that which has little to offer, but promoted well, returns to its real worth, which collectors of Aboriginal Art have been experiencing; hence this article: Law Paints indigenous art into a corner, which makes excuses for the inevitable, and, of course, avoids what has really been shaping the decline in collector confidence.

It is also inevitable that Aboriginal Art market will remain as is, which we will no doubt see in further play in up coming  Aboriginal Art auctions in which `specialists` will pay more attention to `unknowns` and their favourite artists, while dismissing important art through low estimates. ” The market decides the results at auctions” is the catch cry of these `specialists`, who must know that their positions under `brand name` umbrellas influence collectors,  just as the positioning of art works in catalogues have an influence on outcomes.

But today, these `specialists` have one thing not going for them: trust in investing in Aboriginal Art. For if the Art of Australia`s most important Aboriginal artists can and has been dismissed, the monetary value of no Aboriginal Art can be regarded as set in concrete.  This is the outcome of outside interference by people who miss the point about the value of originality, or the last great Art Movement of the 20th Century, but nothing will change as long as a distinction is not made between that which is truly valuable and that which is not.

Such distinctions will ultimately come from collectors themselves, who after they discover that all the in fighting and blah blah blah  touched upon in  Law Paints indigenous art into a corner and in the media overall for some time in different articles by different writers is simply entertainment, rather than explorations of the Aboriginal Art market and what and who really held it up and who and what is failing it.

I cannot seem to add the link here, so simply visit Greenpeace International where you will find the New Rainbow Warrior banner and link `GET ONBOARD‘ . Alternatively see the tweet to your right concerning the Rainbow Warrior and click the link, which should take you to the right place: to an introduction video ever so worthy of seeing and sharing with your friends.

BRAVO to all who participate, but if you cannot, though want to, BRAVO to you too. Though do remember that being a member of Greenpeace is free and that you are needed.