I had almost given up all thought of actually owning any of the art I like in the future. Even when confining it to New Zealand art and within that, limited editions of block prints/screen prints/lino-cuts/lithographs/etchings, it seemed unachievable. However yesterday I received the Art+Object Catalogue for their upcoming “New Collectors Art” auction. There is quite a lot in it that I would be VERY happy to own and as everything is pretty much expected to be under the $5000-$10,000 mark, it gives me hope. Not this time though unless I sell one of my children (I’m joking – ok!).
There was a nice Richard McWhannell, several Gordon Walters screen-prints including Arahura, a Billy Apple ‘Paid’, an Ian Scott ‘Lattice‘. But to me (of course) I would jump at the Philip Clairmont “Vietnam: Past and Future?” (1972) .
(the Billy Apple in the sale has a ‘workshop’ invoice)
Its funny how in catalogues and galleries you often see pieces appear and disappear as if they were never there. I have been keeping a little database of Clairmonts that come and go like this and comparing it the the list in the back of ‘The Resurrection’ book. Its very interesting to watch their travels. I suppose the sales sites could give the same picture but my database predilection is a hangover from my IT geek days.
Other things that have made my vaguely embarrassing desire to OWN art seem possible and not quite so indulgent, are some articles I’ve read recently:
2001 article about Jim Barr and Mary Barr. “one of the Barr’s most expensive early purchases was a work by Philip Clairmont for $180, which they paid off over six months.” The lesson – buy emerging art.
And in Art New Zealand about Jim and Milly Paris “the Parises have chosen to sacrifice many of the luxuries that would normally come their way.” The lesson – prioritise.
I just love this photo. I sort of wish it was my living room:
However being the little socialist I am, my money really would be better off going to Dafur or something. I’ll probably just stick to paying the bills.