Once I started regularly selling work in 2011-12, I had to think a lot about the work’s owner, realizing that descriptive/prescriptive language — in its precision and concomitant lack thereof — was crucial. How to let someone else know what you mean(t). (Wittgenstein meets Derrida meets pretty-much-everyone.) This could all be considered axiomatic to an extent, but I haven’t seen proof of that outside of clever and/or cumbersome quarters of institutional critique. In any case, I’ve embraced “collector relations” in my conceptualizing [enterprise]. It can add an integral aspect to what (my) art purports to be.

I think the current specataculational art fair [ABMB] was the impetus for this post. I’d like to say how interesting it is to create artwork deliberately for the transactional qualities of the art fair (i.e. emphasize immaterial work or work that . And though I’ve often been dissuaded from aestheticizing the art fair as institution per se, I continue to think such advice misses the crucial point: art fairs are equal to museums in several ways, they are consumer cathedrals where museums are ecclesiastical palaces (art galleries some sort of eucharist(?)).   

though it’s in no way an artist’s [not to be confused with artist-as-showperson] requirement to offer their goods at market to then transfer title of ownership, it’s in many ways impossible to comprehend an artwork’s import without reference to its precedents, which are commonly known through their ownership (or stewardship is some cases). 

I think it’s silly that there would exist some sort of profane-sacred double standard whereby the fair is deplored by even its most conspicuous exhibitors, but can’t not be indulged. Make such indulgences rich in content…