Under one of the discussions forums titled "Private Museums", a statement caught my eye : "...but the individual and subjective choice of the private collector cannot replace the work of a team of art historians and experts in indicating which works of art are significant in the development of art history."
(thanks Silvia!)

But is that really correct?

If we take for instance Chinese Contemporary art, as a more recent example; it was one collector: Uli Sigg; who began in the 80s to collect works of art from artists in China, while he was stationed there with the Swiss government (think he was the consul). He - as one academic had put it to me "made Chinese contemporary art Salon-Fähig" (presentable at the gallery level).
Currently, he is even being criticised as having had too much influence on the market, having pushed prices to dizzying heights. His own collection, the SIGG collection, not only has a coffee table book published, but has travelled around the globe and presented by well-known museums, and is regarded as a prime example of the development of Chinese contemporary art. Comparable in quality – or even better - than any museum.

Indeed, this particular art market saw also phenomena which we in the "art world" do not really want to talk about: How market demand (ie collectors demand) can dictate what the artist churns out. We saw (but did not want to admit it) how art was being produced out of China with factory-like efficiency.

The downward economic situation is actually now being seen as a god-send by established galleries who specialise in Chinese Contemporary art; as a way to “kill out the bad seeds” and to ensure good art – and good galleries – are the ones who will survive when the crises is over.

It is of course not possible to give a quick snap-shot of the rise (and fall?) of Chinese Contemporary art here. But suffice to say, I believe that we have indeed a collectors market. Although the art-market has always been seen as a dichotomy to the law of economics and marketing (ie the supplier; or in this case the artist; does NOT produce to meet market demand ie the collectors wants) there is without a doubt, a huge influence by collectors on the type of art being produced today.

What are your thoughts, my collector friends? I am for one, fascinated on how one type of consumer behaviour which may be considered as a hobby by many, can have such an influence on art as we know it. Art is, after all, a reflection of how society has been developing in history.

Am writing a book on the subject: any collectors out there, who are interested to share their thoughts with me - and be interviewed :o) - do let me know.
your voice may be more important than you think....

Dear Jasmin, I agree with you on the fact that the influence of the collector is growing and growing. Independent-Collectors itself is the proof of the growth of influence, self consciousness and autonomy of the collector, and it’s just one example. Also I think every initiative which promotes art, its production and its distribution is important, regardless if they are private or institutional. Still I think it is to be hoped that private initiative and institutional action integrate in a more balanced way.

As you say, “there is without a doubt, a huge influence by collectors on the type of art being produced today”. So it would be interesting to understand how far are artists ready to go to answer the demand and make the offer suitable to the demand? And also do we really have to welcome the economical crisis because it’s skimming the market? Is our friend Patrick right when he says “Time works for public collections and against the private ones. That's why I think that the directors of public museums should even be happy that they didn't have the funds to buy everything that has been judged important the last years...”?

I am interested in knowing more about your researches and hearing the opinion of the collectors themselves…

Hello Jasmin,
Here are my very ''unexpert'' views.

''"...but the individual and subjective choice of the private collector cannot replace the work of a team of art historians and experts in indicating which works of art are significant in the development of art history."

As a parallel illustration,I would recount the following story reported in the British Papers a few months ago.

A group wine experts were invited to evaluate bottles of wine ,but without any prior information about the Source,the makers,or the vintage.
To cut a long story short,97 % of the ''experts'' got it completely wrong.it was pointed out that without prior knowledge of the pedigree of the wine,the experts perhaps chose ''worst'' then us ordinery folks.
I leave it to you all to draw your own conclusions.

''How market demand (ie collectors demand) can dictate what the artist churns out.''
I have seen this actually happen a lot in India too.I have one ''knee jerk'' question:Is art that is produced or even churned out in accordance with the demands of the art market,collectors,worth collecting ?Would such art stand the test of time about its ''artistic merit'' ?By ''artistic merit'' here I mean would people throng to,queue up outside Museums ,to see it after 50,100,300 years ?

And yet I was talking to a very good and successful artist yesterday who opined that the huge euphoria in the art market of the past 5 years was very good for artists because it gave artists,normally considered as struggling and always short of financial resources or security, an opportunity ''of a life time''
to better their lot AND to have the freedom to experiment and be much more adventurous than they would otherwise ''afford'' to be.

I leave the discussion open to more views

Best regards

Kumar

Well the influence of the collectors is really immense.
It is more important than the oppinion of the gallerists
who follow the collectors.

By the way, I love to taste a good wine
and never ask the meaning of some experts in front of.
Maybe afterwards I can have a look if tey were right.

I decide what will become my art.
This decission is the real great fun of collecting.
And any gallerist can have my spinky true perspective of 300 years.

Sven Schalenberg

one of our most active members, Wilhelm Schürmann, and his wife Gaby Schürmann currently present parts of their impressive collection in Museum Abteiberg, Mönchengladbach (Germany). the exhibition is titled "das gespinst" which means something like cocoon or web (and also refers to phantasm).

there was a good review published on artnet (germany) yesterday. unfortunately only in german, but even if you don't speak german, you might enjoy the images:

http://www.artnet.de/magazine/reviews/smolik/sm...

„DAS GESPINST – Die Sammlung Schürmann zu Besuch im Museum Abteiberg“, Museum Abteiberg, Mönchengladbach. Vom 13. September bis 15. November 2009