When an artist dies, what do you do with the art?
Our island has - or had - a reputation as an artist's colony. When we moved here, there were a plethora of Yankee ex-pats who retired here, many of whom were school teachers or college professors in the arts, and were talented artists themselves. So we have an arts association and a gallery and it is great and hopefully it will continue. But the newer residents are from Georgia and less interested in art (with some exceptions) and more interested in coming here for the weekend and going to the beach and such. There is nothing wrong with that - but our demographics are changing and unless we can recruit more people into the Arts Association, the whole thing could go by the wayside.
....like so many other things that already have.
It is funny, but when we moved here, it was during the last gasps of ad hoc management of the island. We had a volunteer fire department and volunteers ran the museum and worked at the golf course. Someone got mad at the Authority and called the labor board and complained, as people were being "paid" in free rounds of golf and whatnot. And the labor board said "No, you can't do that!" and now everyone has to work for a wage and no more freebies.
So now we have an $800-a-year fire fee and a professional fire department and a brand-new "safety center" they will be moving into. And much of the volunteer work - such as folks who spent their winters helping restore the old buildings on the island - is going away in favor of paid professionals. And maybe this is progress, but something is lost - a sense of community. It also means, things are getting expensive - it is no longer a cheap place to retire!
But I digress.
Many of the old guard have shuffled off the mortal coil, and this includes many of the artists. What do you do with all that art, once an artist dies? We've seen this go down a number of times, and a recent example is a case in point. A nice fellow who was a painter passed away, leaving behind quite a portfolio of paintings. Now, many of his paintings sold over the years or were given to his children and relatives. The better pieces went away, leaving the lesser works that failed to sell, or were works-in-progress. What do you do with this art? Who even "owns" it?
We've managed to sell a few pieces in the gallery, but a small number stubbornly remain. You hate to throw away art - it is sacrilegious to do so! But our house is already full - wall-to-wall with paintings and sculptures. And without being critical, do you really want one of the lesser works?
A similar situation arises with a local sculptor. He is long-dead and for years, his works were sold by one of the volunteer organizations, who paid storage fees at a storage locker, to keep the works and lesser works and works-in-progress and molds and whatnot. All the good stuff sold, and no one wants to take possession of the stuff in the storage locker - but no one can bear to throw it away, either! And the family wants none of it - they already have all the good pieces.
It is a conundrum, exacerbated by the fact they are paying to store it. So they are now tired of paying and want us to take it over - but we have no room for this, or any desire to pay to store it. But you don't want to be the guy who "threw away art" do you?
Potters don't have this problem so much - most potters smash their lesser works or pieces that were defective in some way. Maybe potters are more mercantile, but they seem to be more interested in selling things and moving them out - at any price - as they know they will drown in a sea of pots, if they don't. And if they keep all the rejects and unsalable items, they will drown in a sea of ugly pots in short order.
Famous artists don't have this problem. People will still pay a lot of money for a "lesser work" of Picasso or Warhol. It may be ugly and actually suck, but someone will want to hang it on their wall, if only to say they have one.
For lesser and more obscure artists, this is not so much the case. So, when they pass on, the relatives show up and take all the nicer pieces, leaving the balance to be disposed of. And who wants to be the guy who tosses art in a dumpster? Not me - that's for sure!
I am not sure how to solve this problem, other than to say "No" if someone approaches you and asks if you can take over Uncle Earl's collection of work. Unless you really like it, well, you will be saddled with it for life.
Of course, in some cases, wily collectors can find a "trove" of used art, and then market it as a lost discovery. For example, Vivian Maier was a nanny in Chicago and took thousands of photos over the years. She was a real artist, but never "discovered" in her own lifetime. Shortly before she died, her storage locker (again!) of prints and negatives was auctioned off for lack of rent payment, and some collectors managed to promote her as this great unknown undiscovered photographer and she became posthumously famous. It's all in the promotion, baby!
Similarly, George Ohr became a famous potter - mostly after his death. He made unique pieces of pottery and sold quite a few, but it was only years after he died that relatives found trunkloads of his pottery and again, promoted him as this great undiscovered genius and sold a lot of his works - for a lot of money. You tell rich people it's collectible, they come running. They smell money!
It is unfair, but many artists only become famous after they die. Maybe faking your own death is a good move, artistically, anyway.
Of course, there is another takeaway from all of this. The guy making all the real money from the art isn't the artist, but the promoter or gallery owner who "discovers" the artist and promotes their work. It is like religion - you don't want to be the guy who started it, they'll crucify you, literally. But the next guy who discovers and promotes the religion, he's got it made. Better to be Paul than Jesus, I think.
