Good News for People Who Love Bad News

For New York Magazine Jerry Saltz writes: "The good news is that, since almost no one will be selling art, artists—especially emerging ones—won't have to think about turning out a consistent style or creating a brand. They'll be able to experiment as much as they want."

This is as close to conventional wisdom as you're likely to find in the art world about how financial crises affect artists and institutions, but at best it is intuited knowledge and either not provable or untrue. For weeks now this notion has bubbled up in writing and conversation with artists, curators, and journalists. Though Saltz writes that "hardship and poverty aren't virtues," the myth that art improves when it isn't selling registers a traditional anti-capitalist note.

When this disappears:

"Major support for this exhibition was provided by Peter Norton and the Peter Norton Family Foundation. Additional support was provided by Tim Nye and the MAT Charitable Foundation. Significant funding was provided by the National Committee of the Whitney Museum of American Art."

then this disappears:

Tim Hawkinson, Überorgan, 2000.

How is that good for art?