Shady? It's in the public corporate tax law, that's not hidden. If you don't like it, you could lobby your government to change the law; but be prepared for some pretty annoyed artists, since removing that deduction might mean a smaller pool of buyers, thus lowering the prices they can get for their work. Also, I'd think that having $1000 in profit and paying taxes on it still leaves you with more money than buying a $1000 artwork with it and paying no taxes on that purchase. Yes, they pay less taxes, but they still have less money.
@@MahlenMorris You're forgetting that if they buy the art, they have transformed that money into a new asset that might appreciate into even more value in the future.
@@deadmanwillyimbothdeadandalive they don't. This is a way of marketing. A lot of people will check out the page when it has a checkmark next to their name
@@handlotion8244 You don't always have to a cynic. John and Hank have talked a lot about sharing a RUclips account on Dear Hank and John and Vlogbothers. For example: In a video titled "Trolling though John's RUclips History---Guess what I found!?" (November 8th 2019) Hank talks about what John and he have been watching.
Corporations owned by people, employee people, sell to people (all of whom are profiting from the corporation; except owners as they don't always profit and sometimes lose money).
One irony is that by avoiding controversial subjects corporations end up assembling "safe" collections, at times as bland and unrevealing as hotel room art. Maybe a nude or a violent scene would send the wrong message, but often "safe" art sends no message at all.
Whenever you see something in a corporation, realize that someone has thought, "how could an opposing lawyer make use of this against us?" I'd wonder if a nude or violent work could be used against a company in, say, a gender bias suit.
It would at the most be a superficial self effacement. It could also be read as an exertion of power and wealth, like you bought and contained the artist's act of "violence."
As has been said it really would be superficial but I imagine it would probably be a massive fucking PR win, plus by pretending to be self critical like that you can divert attention away from the actual problems.
In Sweden, any public building project has to budget a small percentage of the total construction cost for art. This is pretty cool, but city council don't always have the best taste. At least it feels like an attempt was made. This becomes a little bit odd when, apparently, the nuclear power plants have really cool and really expensive art. Unfortunately it's only accessible to the power plant employees for Chernobyl reasons.
You don't overthink much about what kind of art is ok when you use other people money to buy it, in Italy public art is a monstruosity, but when a huge name like kentridge wanted to donate an historical piece of art he had to face 4 years of bureaucracy, because how you dare not bending the knee and maybe bribe the mandarins.
@@Halesnaxlors there are a lot of Pomodoro sculptures here and there so I guess it was better once. Museums are in better shape, but again, the problem is that politics use them for their turf, if you have political connection you have the road paved if you don't you have to work it out in the private sector. I don't understand how corporation going to spend ridiculous amount of money for things like Rothko but at least is their money. In my city we are lucky tho, we have a fountain and a sculpture by Ivan theimer that I really enjoy
The issue is that they end up being bound by so many restrictions, like imagine the moral outrage if a public institution displayed a painting of a nude person or god forbid someone who wasn't Christian or straight. So they end up with a lot of stuff that doesn't really look like anything. I have seen some cool stuff though, the local hospital here has videos of MRI scans of various things displaying on their screens when they're not showing an announcement, which I think is pretty fitting for a hospital and they're really interesting to watch.
I loved the little "and maybe lessen the chances of a proletarian revolution " ('v') Love from germany to your precious channel! Truly one of my faves! ♡
Funny story: My brother was the CFO for a well-known company that was bought by a private equity firm. Before the purchase, it had a small gallery. As part of his "golden handshake" he was allowed to buy some of the paintings owned by not displayed in the gallery which was, in any case, being closed. By "buy" I mean for a song. When he took them to someone who knew about art, they turned out to be the work of lesser-known but still well-regarded Hudson River School artists (don't ask me whom) and worth a lot more than he paid for them. Now, he's figuring out what to do with them. Hanging them in his nice but not that nice upstate New York home doesn't seem quite right.
I had never thought about the tax evasion thing in that way, thanks for breaking it down. Makes me feel saddened and conflicted to see good work by good artists leveraged against the public good.
The good (and bad) thing is that it is not only companies that will avoid tax if they can. Also, if the governments really cared, they would have put a stop to it. They are at least partially responsible for that outcome.
@@guywiththebottle oh they definitely are. capitalism is as ruthless a system it is and corporations get away with as much shit as they do because our governments are complicit
One thing I saw when I first started applying to jobs after university was this: corporate offices are some of the best galleries for abstract art I have ever walked into. I was consistently surprised at how interesting so much of the abstract art I saw during interviews was, and even m ore so surprised to find just how much of it was by local artists or artists somehow connected (usually family) to someone important at the company.
The Standard Bank Gallery brought an entire Henri Matisse exhibition to Johannesburg a few years ago and I was completely enthralled. Most of us walking around in that space would likely never had seen his work up-close if it weren't for the corporate. My current employer is running a William Kentridge retrospective in the lobby and it is just magical. Yes, corporates might have nefarious intents for acquiring art but the access it has given to someone like me is difficult to quantity.
Where I work, the company has full time local artists on pay roll to make artworks. (It's of course safe art) However, their jobs & work have to be seen in a context of "we really care for our employees & we have a lot of benefits to help with that"
@@theartassignment I think its approved by most employees. (I haven't heard of a distenting view from those who work in HQ) The artists also runs art programs for team building & the like. It should be noted that this is a business software company. Given that the art is mostly from local & low-med profile artists that the collection is less about investment & more about promoting employee curiosity & the like (although there's some higher profile sculptures which were commissioned & one high profile local painter where there's a significant body of work in the collection).
This is the (not so) secret best corner of youtube, honestly. Great video as always, you always teach me interesting stuff. On another note, I dig this new backgroung
I was wondered if anyone would notice! It's the new old background, really. Same bookshelf as our early vids, just in a new spot and restyled. We'll be playing around with it. Doesn't feel quite right yet. Suggestions welcome!
@@theartassignment It'd be a bit of work, but having some of the cubes function as "galleries" that change from time to time could be fun, and a nice little easter egg for the subscribers to excitedly pause the video and see what's newly being shown in the gallery space. :) But the Campbell soup cans book spine needs to stay, that's just hilariously cool :D
I don't understand...is it immoral/unethical to sell your artwork to a corporation? If I sell to a company and they put it in a lobby or in a hallway, more people will likely see it than if I sell it to some random person. Is that bad?
@@MahlenMorris It kinda is, because you can't sell them art wich sends a message of morals, values and ethics. And if you only make that kind of art, it's like you don't have it. You can do both, I guess. To pay the bills. But you can be risking selling moredepending of the circumstances, so that's that.
@@MahlenMorris , if you have to ask , you don't have a clue ! - but usually the money of those that ' have money ' is tainted and it's ugly to think about the dark side of the rich ! Ayn Rand sort of searched for an out when she wrote ' the fountainhead ' , and it is true that we are not supposed to judge , but could anyone with principles sell their work to Nestle's , or Bayer , or Monsanto , or so many other corporations who have done innumerable harms to this planet and those which try to live here ! - at the same time ' art ' is not craft , and great art projects have to be supported or civilization will dwindle to nothing , but where do you draw the line ! I'm sure that this has bothered artists since the day of the pyramids and before !
"Maybe lessen the chances of a proletarian revolution..." Yes, many museums and other institutions open to the public began with the idea of edifying the masses and steering them away from class resentment and revolutionary thoughts/activities. It sure worked on me.
this is my favorite channel on youtube. also - a company you didn't mention, but I think makes an interesting case in this situation - Epic Systems in Madison, WI. They have an incredible art collection almost completely from local artists (one thing you can do as an employee is get the owner's checkbook to go to the biggest art fair in Madison and pick out a few pieces). They also currently have an artist-in-residence (Ikeda Manibu) who you can watch working once a week. The campus is also buck wild - themed buildings after children's authors, harry potter, farm-life, &c. I walked through the campus recently with a contractor, and not only are the buildings whimsical as heck, they're also immaculately constructed. It's truly one of the strangest places I've been. full disclosure, I work there, which is why I know all of this.
7:54 - 8:01 seems to have extra dialogue when put through captions. " Abraaj Capital, based in United Arab Emirates, collects and directly funds emerging artists, many of whom live and work in the Middle East and have been historically overlooked. Abraaj sponsors and runs an annual art prize and purchases works by the finalists to build their collection. The artists win-- they get funding and recognition -- and Abraaj wins because they've not only cultivated good will, but also given their collection artists an accolade that can boost their market value.
This is an incredible video. I appreciate your deep analysis and candid references. It is refreshing to hear someone talk about the subject with deep awareness and interest. Your wrap-up was really profound and thoughtful. Thank you for this.
Except the church probably has a more challenging and controversial collection. The martyrs! The nudes! The artistic representations of divine ecstasy!
Stuart P that is a very cynical and I would say inaccurate view of religious art. I don’t blame you though, it does appear that way from the outside. Religions are based on narratives and they use stories not only to unify a group but as a way of seeing the world. Sacred and symbolic images are used as a language to tell these stories and stabilize them over generations. I think corporations are thinking about what the art says about them (and how people react), while the church is doing the opposite and asking what the art says about the world.
A great and thought-provoking episode! And the delivery - especially with all those deadpan and humorous asides :D - was exquisite. I’d never considered this particular angle of art collecting as well as corporate behaviour and how much it can go beyond just ‘stuff on walls’ into influencing the market, locking away art from the public, and the commoditization (not not thinking about value :P). Good, bad, both columns? Going to take a while to consider it all... Whenever our clients speak about art and include art in the project I’m going to have a new lens through which to think about it now. Thank you for another great episode!
Art evoking emotions should be encouraged but that doesnt mean it has to be envouraged by the people of your choice. U cant make a corporation buy art that would make people feel uneasy. Itd be ludicrous. Just because they buy art to make their offices look nicer doesnt mean thats shady. Like thats dumb as hell. Its not like a person will see a painting and decide everythong about a corporation based on that. Its just a first impression and i think they should be allowed to make a good first impression
The part about subversive or controversial art missing from corporate walls is so true. And scary. I can imagine a dystopian future where all art is pleasant and happy and we've forgotten the other fundamental purpose of art - to awaken and force us to confront the ugliness in the world.
So, I love this video. But honestly I love all the videos on this channel. What makes these special I think is the way Urist Green looks at art concepts as systems and then explains how these systems operate, emphasizing the simultaneous truths that happen within those systems. That kind of stepping outside the system, where the good stuff is placed right next to the bad stuff and looked at as an often messy whole, is in short supply right now. And very cleverly it also happens to mirror the way artists actually work. So, in short, thank you Sarah.
I worked at a local bank and we had old land plot maps from our town on the walls. I definitely spent a lot of time looking at them and reading the names on the plots. It was fun to see all the familiar family names from a hundred years ago.
Go Sarah! Don't hold back! - - Being in NYC as someone trying to find an entry-level museum position, these corporate and gallery/corporate pleasers gigs are everywhere and hard to resist when the market is otherwise so barren. The non-profit and for-profit art worlds feel verrry different.
So glad that Ruben Nieto's work was given a mini shout out here! I had him as a mentor during my time in a program at the modern! Always really enjoyed his work
"[...] a way to interact with the wider comunity, spread the proceeds around, and mybe lessen the chance of proletariat revolution" damn she really went there
I love this video so much! i am so glad you are investigating this so thoughtfully, Not enough people talk about the money in the art world! I so love how you make us question what role do corporates play in museums too. I really would love love love for you to also do something on the lines of art criticism and journalism.. and why it plays such a role(good and bad) in curating what art is perceived as important and what is not... in a whole eco system around arts and how they all function individually, but also as a part of the bigger universe.
Nice to see at least a small nod to Des Moines. I wish more people would appreciate the art resources of this city. We have a small but excellent art museum, a great sculpture park, some thriving living/working artists’ spaces, and tons of public art scattered throughout the town. Stop by sometime!
In Germany there is “Kunst am Bau” so every new public buildings or renovation of them have to spent at least 1% of the building costs in art. 1% doesn’t sound much but most public buildings are very big and expensive, a building costing 10 million € has to spent 1000€ for art.
Congrats, Sarah! Lovely spoken and explained. The topic is very interesting. I would love to see a video about times where corporations made bad or good investments in art. Also, this reminded me about the time Rothko decided he wouldn’t sell to the Rockefeller’s because they would only show his art to the masses, who would never understand the deep significance of his art; therefore he created his own museum/sanctuary where he showed his art (most of it, completely black paining). I love the channel.
To your last comment - there's a great book by David A. Smith called _Money for Art_ that discusses the struggles the US has had since its inception in funding arts. I'd also be curious to see an episode about places in the US that have successfully created government funding for the arts, such as Minnesota, which established by referendum a fund that draws from a sales tax specifically designated to the arts. That's one reason Minnesota Opera has such interesting new works all the time-they don't have to depend so much on donors who want the same old productions over and over again.
This is such a great video. And reminds me of that scene in 'An absolutely remarkable thing' where April sees the Cindy Sherman work in that PR firm. I'm so conflicted about the whole idea - I love it that art is valued, but when a corporation buys it for 'not not investment' and 'not not tax evasion' purposes, is the art really the thing that is valued here or is it only the physical manifestation of a system used by the powerful? I know there's a middle, and both can be true at the same time, but when you start seeing art in such a way it takes away so much, and I don't know if it's worth it.
I especially love the conclusion! Awesome video again! Thanks! ⭐️⭐️❤️ (Of course being the brother, brother-in-law, son and grandson of artists, I do have a particularly interested view...)
I don’t really know how to think about this. Like, as an art student that’s going to have to sell in the art market, I’m happy that companies are willing to purchase and display works for others to see. But also, I’m not the type of artist that makes “aesthetically pleasing” art. My art, and most of my peers art, is very emotionally driven.
Great video! But, ah, am I the only one who noticed the stack of tomato soup cans on the shelves, just to Sarah's right? She spoke about Campbell's, mentioned that they bought a Warhol...and then my eyes latched onto that stack of cans and WOULD NOT let them recede into the background again for the rest of the video...! Have they always been there, and I've just been oblivious? Or were they added on purpose as a sly reinforcement of the idea that art is "on purpose" but you gotta think about WHAT purpose sometimes... Heck, either way, I still really enjoyed the video. It's amazing how much I have learned about HOW to think about art from this channel. A couple of years ago, I wouldn't have been able to notice the cans unless they were directly pointed out, and I likely would not have thought of Warhol either. I'm so glad I found Art Assignment
Not really honest about calling that 'murky'? I mean many collectors have collections for more reasons than just because they love art. And why should buying art be virtuous? (OK I know it wasn't all that serious posing it like that but still) Here is my point: A business is a business so you need a business pretext.... like 'business class' on planes is a pretext. You need a business excuse to spend that money. investing in art makes business sense. Sure all your explanation and insight is spot on... but calling it murky? No, not all about 'just art' but also not not about 'just art'. Do make sense?
You should also understand how this keeps the rich getting richer. It breaks the economy. Keeps the money from circulating back into the economy. It's more than just this that helps the rich, they have too many tax evasion loopholes.
"they want to be good community partners, and seem like good community partners, but NEVER at the expense of their profits" (emphasis added by me) This is exactly why you can't trust corporations, they will always choose their own profits over human life.
Some people really can’t grasp the societal benefits of corporate self interest huh Great point at the end. The corporate art world is populated almost entirely by art that is “safe” and inoffensive. There will always be challenges for artists dealing in controversial ideas and topics, but the actual domination of corporate art is up for debate.
Yep... I recently interviewed a corporate art consultant. Companies either buy or lease artworks. The leasing leaves the artwork with a nominal value close to the end of the lease term, and the CEO can buy the artwork at an incredible discount for himself. Oh and the phenomenon of private collection being bigger than public collection is not a new thing. The public collections we see these days almost all derive from old royal collections and other private collections.
"For himself," ha! And it is indeed nothing new, as we can pretty much call MoMA "The Rockefeller Museum." That is an area a wanted to cover but didn't feel like I had the time to get into it deeply, but does it all even out if/when corporations create foundations that house and care for and make the art public? Are they absolved of the original sins of collecting, if and when a foundation is created that has a public-focused mission?
Is there any chance sources and references can be included in the description? I find all of the information so interesting and would love to read deeper into a couple of themes!
9:24 On July 30, 2011, Alex Schaefer set up an easel across the road from a Chase bank and began painting the building in flames. However, before he had finished the police arrived, asked him for his information and if he was planning on actually carrying out an arson attack on the building. Ridiculous. Later they turned up on his doorstep asking about his artwork and looking for any signs that he was going to carry through an anarcho - terrorist plot based on his paintings. If this wasn’t bad enough a year later he was arrested for drawing the word ‘crime’ with a Chase logo in front of an LA bank.
2:02 I've been tangling with the concept of integrity, and I keep tripping over the threshholds of front doors. (*cussword of choice*, yes, it has two h's). That front, that projected image, is a statement of intent. The incongruity we love to spot and magnify is failure to attain that set of aspirations. "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." - No one knows Your work is your work. You work there. Erhem.
What artwork are they hanging on drilling platforms? I've worked in environments like that any 'artwork' is going to be oily and grease stained VERY quickly on an drilling platform.
*WE MAKE SOUP*
You beet me to it.
Praise the soup
The council of soup has been born
long live the soup
4chan pol supports this message.
It's not about corporations using shady money practices, but it's also not about corporations not using shady money practices.
Is this not the greatest joke construction ever? (Or is it not not the greatest joke construction ever.)
@@theartassignment It's not a non-answer, but it's also not a non-answer.
Shady? It's in the public corporate tax law, that's not hidden. If you don't like it, you could lobby your government to change the law; but be prepared for some pretty annoyed artists, since removing that deduction might mean a smaller pool of buyers, thus lowering the prices they can get for their work.
Also, I'd think that having $1000 in profit and paying taxes on it still leaves you with more money than buying a $1000 artwork with it and paying no taxes on that purchase. Yes, they pay less taxes, but they still have less money.
Isn't it derived from Magritte....? 🤔
😉🤣✌️
@@MahlenMorris You're forgetting that if they buy the art, they have transformed that money into a new asset that might appreciate into even more value in the future.
That Deutsche Bank quote is just amazing on every level. Great video! -John
You're amazing John
JAYSON you are too, Jayson.
I’m surprised you use your shared RUclips account to watch RUclips and not a personal one
@@deadmanwillyimbothdeadandalive they don't. This is a way of marketing. A lot of people will check out the page when it has a checkmark next to their name
@@handlotion8244 You don't always have to a cynic.
John and Hank have talked a lot about sharing a RUclips account on Dear Hank and John and Vlogbothers.
For example: In a video titled "Trolling though John's RUclips History---Guess what I found!?" (November 8th 2019) Hank talks about what John and he have been watching.
"Art is a risky investment. But there are worse ones.....Boats." hahaha
"a boat is a hole in the water you throw your money in"
Not really comparable but a funny point nonetheless :)
fishing boat proceeds
That delivery reminded me so much of her husband.
I don’t get the sense of humor here
"We're not buying for investment, but we're not _not_ buying for investment."
It's "not buying for not investment"
We wouldn't not buying for not investment, not!
a ∧ ¬a
→ Stonks
Why do corporations (insert literally anything)?
Money.
ImaginaryMdA Mouth Breathing Intensifies, yeah so what’s wrong with zat?
Surprise surprise.
It's funny 'cause it's true
The sky is blue and 2 + 2 = 4
Corporations owned by people, employee people, sell to people (all of whom are profiting from the corporation; except owners as they don't always profit and sometimes lose money).
One irony is that by avoiding controversial subjects corporations end up assembling "safe" collections, at times as bland and unrevealing as hotel room art. Maybe a nude or a violent scene would send the wrong message, but often "safe" art sends no message at all.
"Bland and unrevealing as hotel room art" is my new favorite insult.
Whenever you see something in a corporation, realize that someone has thought, "how could an opposing lawyer make use of this against us?" I'd wonder if a nude or violent work could be used against a company in, say, a gender bias suit.
Stephen Persing I work for an accounting firm. We have alot of sexually oriented pieces of art. Than more neutral pieces by Picasso and Warhol.
Silence is golden?
Depends on how you identify “safe” art
If I was the buyer for Chase, I'd buy that piece with a Chase bank on fire in a heartbeat. Corporations being self effacing is all the rage.
E.g. moon pie
It would at the most be a superficial self effacement. It could also be read as an exertion of power and wealth, like you bought and contained the artist's act of "violence."
And having emotions and a sense of humour, check - like corporations tweeting they are sad and so on, trying to make us think they are human.
As has been said it really would be superficial but I imagine it would probably be a massive fucking PR win, plus by pretending to be self critical like that you can divert attention away from the actual problems.
Maybe Chase would buy it, but if I was running BofA or Citi's art collection I'd definitely get it. Think of the publicity!
In Sweden, any public building project has to budget a small percentage of the total construction cost for art. This is pretty cool, but city council don't always have the best taste. At least it feels like an attempt was made.
This becomes a little bit odd when, apparently, the nuclear power plants have really cool and really expensive art. Unfortunately it's only accessible to the power plant employees for Chernobyl reasons.
It's the same in Québec (I am not sure for the rest of Canada).
You don't overthink much about what kind of art is ok when you use other people money to buy it, in Italy public art is a monstruosity, but when a huge name like kentridge wanted to donate an historical piece of art he had to face 4 years of bureaucracy, because how you dare not bending the knee and maybe bribe the mandarins.
@@astrol4b Damn, that sucks. Has it always been like that?
@@Halesnaxlors there are a lot of Pomodoro sculptures here and there so I guess it was better once. Museums are in better shape, but again, the problem is that politics use them for their turf, if you have political connection you have the road paved if you don't you have to work it out in the private sector. I don't understand how corporation going to spend ridiculous amount of money for things like Rothko but at least is their money. In my city we are lucky tho, we have a fountain and a sculpture by Ivan theimer that I really enjoy
The issue is that they end up being bound by so many restrictions, like imagine the moral outrage if a public institution displayed a painting of a nude person or god forbid someone who wasn't Christian or straight. So they end up with a lot of stuff that doesn't really look like anything. I have seen some cool stuff though, the local hospital here has videos of MRI scans of various things displaying on their screens when they're not showing an announcement, which I think is pretty fitting for a hospital and they're really interesting to watch.
Other companies:”long thought out reasoning”
Campbell’s: well. soup. we like soup. we got soup art. s o u p
I loved the little "and maybe lessen the chances of a proletarian revolution " ('v')
Love from germany to your precious channel! Truly one of my faves! ♡
Your videos are always so thought-provoking! I'd never noticed for instance how art owned by private corporations is never controversial. Thanks!
Yep, its part of the interior design theme
Hah! Take that, "Boats"!
Boats can make you lots of money
@@vanniyo8988 So can prostitutes, but depreciation catches up.
Funny story: My brother was the CFO for a well-known company that was bought by a private equity firm. Before the purchase, it had a small gallery. As part of his "golden handshake" he was allowed to buy some of the paintings owned by not displayed in the gallery which was, in any case, being closed. By "buy" I mean for a song. When he took them to someone who knew about art, they turned out to be the work of lesser-known but still well-regarded Hudson River School artists (don't ask me whom) and worth a lot more than he paid for them. Now, he's figuring out what to do with them. Hanging them in his nice but not that nice upstate New York home doesn't seem quite right.
Ebay
I had never thought about the tax evasion thing in that way, thanks for breaking it down. Makes me feel saddened and conflicted to see good work by good artists leveraged against the public good.
The good (and bad) thing is that it is not only companies that will avoid tax if they can. Also, if the governments really cared, they would have put a stop to it. They are at least partially responsible for that outcome.
@@guywiththebottle oh they definitely are. capitalism is as ruthless a system it is and corporations get away with as much shit as they do because our governments are complicit
I wonder if an artist could copyright restrict the sale of their art to corporate interests or private collections above a certain value.
the artist who gets the money will pay taxes, don't worry.
Campbell’s soup anyone? 😂🤣
One thing I saw when I first started applying to jobs after university was this: corporate offices are some of the best galleries for abstract art I have ever walked into. I was consistently surprised at how interesting so much of the abstract art I saw during interviews was, and even m ore so surprised to find just how much of it was by local artists or artists somehow connected (usually family) to someone important at the company.
The Standard Bank Gallery brought an entire Henri Matisse exhibition to Johannesburg a few years ago and I was completely enthralled. Most of us walking around in that space would likely never had seen his work up-close if it weren't for the corporate. My current employer is running a William Kentridge retrospective in the lobby and it is just magical. Yes, corporates might have nefarious intents for acquiring art but the access it has given to someone like me is difficult to quantity.
Sarah says Proletariat Revolution 💞💓💖⚒✊
🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀
🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞🍞
✊✊
Is Sarah a comrade?
+
Where I work, the company has full time local artists on pay roll to make artworks. (It's of course safe art)
However, their jobs & work have to be seen in a context of "we really care for our employees & we have a lot of benefits to help with that"
That's good! Does everyone like/approve of this practice?
@@theartassignment I think its approved by most employees. (I haven't heard of a distenting view from those who work in HQ) The artists also runs art programs for team building & the like. It should be noted that this is a business software company.
Given that the art is mostly from local & low-med profile artists that the collection is less about investment & more about promoting employee curiosity & the like (although there's some higher profile sculptures which were commissioned & one high profile local painter where there's a significant body of work in the collection).
To show off their wealth to all of us poor people
Wow, you were first!
Well, I think we can agree it's not *not* about that ;)
Janitors must hate cleaning those hallways
Or you get paid for looking at art
It's not even that, it's actually more like *wealthy folks showing off to one another as both potential clients or partners!*
Yes indeed, but would someone with money invest with a bank that did not appear wealthy?
I think we all should celebrate the expression "Something merky is at foot"
This is one of my favorite channels♥
This is the (not so) secret best corner of youtube, honestly. Great video as always, you always teach me interesting stuff.
On another note, I dig this new backgroung
I was wondered if anyone would notice! It's the new old background, really. Same bookshelf as our early vids, just in a new spot and restyled. We'll be playing around with it. Doesn't feel quite right yet. Suggestions welcome!
@@theartassignment perhaps small framed paintings adorning one or two of the shelves?
@@theartassignment It'd be a bit of work, but having some of the cubes function as "galleries" that change from time to time could be fun, and a nice little easter egg for the subscribers to excitedly pause the video and see what's newly being shown in the gallery space. :) But the Campbell soup cans book spine needs to stay, that's just hilariously cool :D
it's so difficult for artists that have morals , values and ethics !
impossible, even
@@theartassignment , that's more true than almost anything , AND ABSOLUTELY HEARTBREAKING !
I don't understand...is it immoral/unethical to sell your artwork to a corporation? If I sell to a company and they put it in a lobby or in a hallway, more people will likely see it than if I sell it to some random person. Is that bad?
@@MahlenMorris It kinda is, because you can't sell them art wich sends a message of morals, values and ethics. And if you only make that kind of art, it's like you don't have it. You can do both, I guess. To pay the bills. But you can be risking selling moredepending of the circumstances, so that's that.
@@MahlenMorris , if you have to ask , you don't have a clue ! - but usually the money of those that ' have money ' is tainted and it's ugly to think about the dark side of the rich ! Ayn Rand sort of searched for an out when she wrote ' the fountainhead ' , and it is true that we are not supposed to judge , but could anyone with principles sell their work to Nestle's , or Bayer , or Monsanto , or so many other corporations who have done innumerable harms to this planet and those which try to live here ! - at the same time ' art ' is not craft , and great art projects have to be supported or civilization will dwindle to nothing , but where do you draw the line ! I'm sure that this has bothered artists since the day of the pyramids and before !
"Maybe lessen the chances of a proletarian revolution..."
Yes, many museums and other institutions open to the public began with the idea of edifying the masses and steering them away from class resentment and revolutionary thoughts/activities.
It sure worked on me.
oh my god where can I purchase the green dog vase in the background
It’s by the ceramic artist Katie Kimmel
I love the green puppy milk bottle on the bookshelf
this is my favorite channel on youtube.
also - a company you didn't mention, but I think makes an interesting case in this situation - Epic Systems in Madison, WI. They have an incredible art collection almost completely from local artists (one thing you can do as an employee is get the owner's checkbook to go to the biggest art fair in Madison and pick out a few pieces). They also currently have an artist-in-residence (Ikeda Manibu) who you can watch working once a week. The campus is also buck wild - themed buildings after children's authors, harry potter, farm-life, &c. I walked through the campus recently with a contractor, and not only are the buildings whimsical as heck, they're also immaculately constructed. It's truly one of the strangest places I've been.
full disclosure, I work there, which is why I know all of this.
That "do it" book in the background felt like it's directed to me & my pending Commissioned work
One of the best videos I’ve seen all year. You can tell that she is very informed about this topic
I fell in love when she said "proletarian revolution".
7:54 - 8:01 seems to have extra dialogue when put through captions.
" Abraaj Capital, based in United Arab Emirates, collects and directly funds emerging artists, many of whom live and work in the Middle East and have been historically overlooked. Abraaj sponsors and runs an annual art prize and purchases works by the finalists to build their collection. The artists win-- they get funding and recognition -- and Abraaj wins because they've not only cultivated good will, but also given their collection artists an accolade that can boost their market value.
How about a “the case for Miró”? Would love to hear your thoughts Sarah!
Great video!
loved the straight up anti-capitalist sentiment in this video
big up sarah
This is an incredible video. I appreciate your deep analysis and candid references. It is refreshing to hear someone talk about the subject with deep awareness and interest. Your wrap-up was really profound and thoughtful. Thank you for this.
"And maybe lessen the chances of a proletariat revolution"
I like you.
Well, when you said “proletarian revolution” I hit that subscribe button super fast
There might be some tax avoidance reasons why corporations buy art.
It's not that different from the catholic churches interest in art.
Except the church probably has a more challenging and controversial collection. The martyrs! The nudes! The artistic representations of divine ecstasy!
That would have been a good side note for this video. Thanks for mentioning it.
It’s absolutely completely and utterly different.
@@soulfuzz368 not really, they both use it to project an image of power and to communicate how they want to be perceived.
Stuart P that is a very cynical and I would say inaccurate view of religious art. I don’t blame you though, it does appear that way from the outside.
Religions are based on narratives and they use stories not only to unify a group but as a way of seeing the world. Sacred and symbolic images are used as a language to tell these stories and stabilize them over generations. I think corporations are thinking about what the art says about them (and how people react), while the church is doing the opposite and asking what the art says about the world.
at 2:25 the painting is unstoppable by ricardo cavolo
@@farmerboi5760 th thing that caught me off guard the other day was seeing his art on chiquita banana stickers
Very informative. Thanks. I always leave these videos feeling edified
A great and thought-provoking episode! And the delivery - especially with all those deadpan and humorous asides :D - was exquisite. I’d never considered this particular angle of art collecting as well as corporate behaviour and how much it can go beyond just ‘stuff on walls’ into influencing the market, locking away art from the public, and the commoditization (not not thinking about value :P). Good, bad, both columns? Going to take a while to consider it all... Whenever our clients speak about art and include art in the project I’m going to have a new lens through which to think about it now. Thank you for another great episode!
Art evoking emotions should be encouraged but that doesnt mean it has to be envouraged by the people of your choice. U cant make a corporation buy art that would make people feel uneasy. Itd be ludicrous. Just because they buy art to make their offices look nicer doesnt mean thats shady. Like thats dumb as hell. Its not like a person will see a painting and decide everythong about a corporation based on that. Its just a first impression and i think they should be allowed to make a good first impression
The part about subversive or controversial art missing from corporate walls is so true. And scary. I can imagine a dystopian future where all art is pleasant and happy and we've forgotten the other fundamental purpose of art - to awaken and force us to confront the ugliness in the world.
So, I love this video. But honestly I love all the videos on this channel. What makes these special I think is the way Urist Green looks at art concepts as systems and then explains how these systems operate, emphasizing the simultaneous truths that happen within those systems. That kind of stepping outside the system, where the good stuff is placed right next to the bad stuff and looked at as an often messy whole, is in short supply right now. And very cleverly it also happens to mirror the way artists actually work.
So, in short, thank you Sarah.
Great show. I want this to continue for a thousand years or at least until it’s no longer needed. Thanks for doing such great work!
The corporate world is a different planet.
Oh, I'm sure it's not that bad.
I'm just kidding, I hate them.
WE MAKE SOUP.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU MAKE SOUP????
I worked at a local bank and we had old land plot maps from our town on the walls. I definitely spent a lot of time looking at them and reading the names on the plots. It was fun to see all the familiar family names from a hundred years ago.
Go Sarah! Don't hold back! - - Being in NYC as someone trying to find an entry-level museum position, these corporate and gallery/corporate pleasers gigs are everywhere and hard to resist when the market is otherwise so barren. The non-profit and for-profit art worlds feel verrry different.
There are tons of talented and good people working in and around corporate art! Can be a good situation to learn in.
And Dear, your style of narration too is a piece of art in itself. Love you.
So glad that Ruben Nieto's work was given a mini shout out here! I had him as a mentor during my time in a program at the modern! Always really enjoyed his work
"[...] a way to interact with the wider comunity, spread the proceeds around, and mybe lessen the chance of proletariat revolution" damn she really went there
Sarah, I love watching this channel. The topics are diverse and always engaging. Please never stop!!
I love this video so much! i am so glad you are investigating this so thoughtfully, Not enough people talk about the money in the art world! I so love how you make us question what role do corporates play in museums too. I really would love love love for you to also do something on the lines of art criticism and journalism.. and why it plays such a role(good and bad) in curating what art is perceived as important and what is not... in a whole eco system around arts and how they all function individually, but also as a part of the bigger universe.
"We make soup."
I spat out some of my miso soup laughing at that. Sarah, you're a delight
You've got a new sub. Thank You for the upload! I now have a much better understanding of the utility/function of art in commercial spaces.
Nice to see at least a small nod to Des Moines. I wish more people would appreciate the art resources of this city. We have a small but excellent art museum, a great sculpture park, some thriving living/working artists’ spaces, and tons of public art scattered throughout the town. Stop by sometime!
Mark Rothko painting purchased in Mad Men
lol that drop in pitch when she says "branding" at the beginning. Relatable
In Germany there is “Kunst am Bau” so every new public buildings or renovation of them have to spent at least 1% of the building costs in art. 1% doesn’t sound much but most public buildings are very big and expensive, a building costing 10 million € has to spent 1000€ for art.
Fun fact: Equinor was called Statoil (which means state oil) before. They changed it recently to make it sound more environment friendly.
Congrats, Sarah! Lovely spoken and explained. The topic is very interesting. I would love to see a video about times where corporations made bad or good investments in art. Also, this reminded me about the time Rothko decided he wouldn’t sell to the Rockefeller’s because they would only show his art to the masses, who would never understand the deep significance of his art; therefore he created his own museum/sanctuary where he showed his art (most of it, completely black paining).
I love the channel.
Gah, I love that story about Rothko and the Seagrams building. Really wanted to shoehorn it in, but yes perhaps another on this subject!
Buy me, I will stand there.
It says "look what we could buy because we didn't pay you a living wage!"
I always have to pause your videos multiple times to write down the names of various artists to look up. Missing The Art Assignment!
This helped made me re-see the art around me as I sit on my lunch break
Our local McDonald’s has super antique photos of historic buildings in our town. That’s definitely a good look for a huge corporation to have.
To your last comment - there's a great book by David A. Smith called _Money for Art_ that discusses the struggles the US has had since its inception in funding arts. I'd also be curious to see an episode about places in the US that have successfully created government funding for the arts, such as Minnesota, which established by referendum a fund that draws from a sales tax specifically designated to the arts. That's one reason Minnesota Opera has such interesting new works all the time-they don't have to depend so much on donors who want the same old productions over and over again.
This is my favorite video from you
I love this channel so much I feel so smart and fancy after watching any of your videos UGGHH PLEASE NEVER STOP
>preventing a proletarian revolution by buying expensive art
that's where you're wrong, kiddo
Fluff Dawg I think that was about buying art from local artists. Revolt anyway I guess
This is such a great video. And reminds me of that scene in 'An absolutely remarkable thing' where April sees the Cindy Sherman work in that PR firm.
I'm so conflicted about the whole idea - I love it that art is valued, but when a corporation buys it for 'not not investment' and 'not not tax evasion' purposes, is the art really the thing that is valued here or is it only the physical manifestation of a system used by the powerful? I know there's a middle, and both can be true at the same time, but when you start seeing art in such a way it takes away so much, and I don't know if it's worth it.
I especially love the conclusion! Awesome video again! Thanks! ⭐️⭐️❤️
(Of course being the brother, brother-in-law, son and grandson of artists, I do have a particularly interested view...)
I don’t really know how to think about this. Like, as an art student that’s going to have to sell in the art market, I’m happy that companies are willing to purchase and display works for others to see. But also, I’m not the type of artist that makes “aesthetically pleasing” art. My art, and most of my peers art, is very emotionally driven.
Yesss for the covering of this topic and delving into how art is being used for the corporation's interests and message they're trying to convey.
This is really my fav channel
9:20 Hey you are great! Thanks for the encouragement! I love it :)
Great video! But, ah, am I the only one who noticed the stack of tomato soup cans on the shelves, just to Sarah's right? She spoke about Campbell's, mentioned that they bought a Warhol...and then my eyes latched onto that stack of cans and WOULD NOT let them recede into the background again for the rest of the video...!
Have they always been there, and I've just been oblivious? Or were they added on purpose as a sly reinforcement of the idea that art is "on purpose" but you gotta think about WHAT purpose sometimes...
Heck, either way, I still really enjoyed the video. It's amazing how much I have learned about HOW to think about art from this channel. A couple of years ago, I wouldn't have been able to notice the cans unless they were directly pointed out, and I likely would not have thought of Warhol either. I'm so glad I found Art Assignment
The New School in nyc has a kara walker shadow cutout piece you mentioned.
I like this level of sarcasm. Hits just right 💘
I’ve worked in four states, and they all have laws which compel employers to give a certain amount and duration of breaks based on hours worked.
Not really honest about calling that 'murky'? I mean many collectors have collections for more reasons than just because they love art. And why should buying art be virtuous? (OK I know it wasn't all that serious posing it like that but still)
Here is my point: A business is a business so you need a business pretext.... like 'business class' on planes is a pretext. You need a business excuse to spend that money. investing in art makes business sense. Sure all your explanation and insight is spot on... but calling it murky? No, not all about 'just art' but also not not about 'just art'.
Do make sense?
You should also understand how this keeps the rich getting richer. It breaks the economy. Keeps the money from circulating back into the economy. It's more than just this that helps the rich, they have too many tax evasion loopholes.
We can be sure that corporate art collection helps to overshadow anti-corporate art. Sell out or starve.
"they want to be good community partners, and seem like good community partners, but NEVER at the expense of their profits" (emphasis added by me) This is exactly why you can't trust corporations, they will always choose their own profits over human life.
yup
Personally when I see a company with pieces of art around, my first thought is that they have money and probably are doing things right. That is it.
1:33 is that the office from Billions?
Some people really can’t grasp the societal benefits of corporate self interest huh
Great point at the end. The corporate art world is populated almost entirely by art that is “safe” and inoffensive. There will always be challenges for artists dealing in controversial ideas and topics, but the actual domination of corporate art is up for debate.
Yep... I recently interviewed a corporate art consultant. Companies either buy or lease artworks. The leasing leaves the artwork with a nominal value close to the end of the lease term, and the CEO can buy the artwork at an incredible discount for himself. Oh and the phenomenon of private collection being bigger than public collection is not a new thing. The public collections we see these days almost all derive from old royal collections and other private collections.
"For himself," ha! And it is indeed nothing new, as we can pretty much call MoMA "The Rockefeller Museum." That is an area a wanted to cover but didn't feel like I had the time to get into it deeply, but does it all even out if/when corporations create foundations that house and care for and make the art public? Are they absolved of the original sins of collecting, if and when a foundation is created that has a public-focused mission?
Is there any chance sources and references can be included in the description? I find all of the information so interesting and would love to read deeper into a couple of themes!
Who's work is on the left at 4:51 ?
9:24 On July 30, 2011, Alex Schaefer set up an easel across the road from a Chase bank and began painting the building in flames. However, before he had finished the police arrived, asked him for his information and if he was planning on actually carrying out an arson attack on the building. Ridiculous. Later they turned up on his doorstep asking about his artwork and looking for any signs that he was going to carry through an anarcho - terrorist plot based on his paintings. If this wasn’t bad enough a year later he was arrested for drawing the word ‘crime’ with a Chase logo in front of an LA bank.
2:02 I've been tangling with the concept of integrity, and I keep tripping over the threshholds of front doors. (*cussword of choice*, yes, it has two h's). That front, that projected image, is a statement of intent. The incongruity we love to spot and magnify is failure to attain that set of aspirations. "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." - No one knows
Your work is your work. You work there. Erhem.
Does anyone know what the paining of the $1.000 bill is called at 0:29 ?
i pass the ubs building at 2:07 everyday and it's always got interesting art that changes over time!
They glanced over that Damien Hirst that was behind the Anish Kapoor sculpture.
I was walking towards work one day in San Francisco when I noticed a nick cave sculpture at the front desk area at ubers office.
What artwork are they hanging on drilling platforms? I've worked in environments like that any 'artwork' is going to be oily and grease stained VERY quickly on an drilling platform.
You have admirable sense of humor and intellect.
Listen to Prem Rawat!
I can't figure out how the sculpture in the thumbnail works
shiny donut