Paul Goldberger writes in today's NYT on the giving of prizes
in the arts and architecture. Pretty good (for PG) analysis of
the role of patrons, corporations and the Famous Noms.
It's a longish article so I dare not post.
For private e-mail copy send blank message with subject:
GET_some.
Here's a few excerpts:
[Headline]
In 1994, What Draws Eyes? The Megaprize
[Subheads]
The gold medal is eclipsed by the six-figure check.
>From the Pritzker to the Praemium Imperiale: nouveau Nobels.
At 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon
before a private assemblage of for-
maly dressed guests, a sculptor, a
painter, a composer and an architect
will be ushered into the presence of
Prince Hitachi of Japan and his wife,
Princess Hanako, who will present
each of them with a medal and a
check for roughly $150,000.
. . . In truth, the
imperial family does not actually
give the prize, but only presents it on
behalf of the Japan Art Association.
And the Japan Art Association is not
the real maker of the prize; it is
acting on behalf of Fujisankei Com-
munications, a vast Japanese media
conglomerate whose chief executive
conceived the prize in 1988 and
which has been paying the bill, esti-
mated at roughly $3 million a year
to keep it going since its first awards
were given in 1989.
The elaborate ritual surrounding
the Praemium Imperiale, which this
year will go to Richard Serra, Zao
Wou-ki, Henri Dutilleux, Charles
Correa and Sir John Gielgud (whose
health will prevent him from attend-
ing the ceremony), underscores the
extent to which prizes in the arts
have becqme a matter of corporate
prestige and international diploma-
cy, not to mention. big dollars. . .
Like the Nobel Prizes, which were
the models for the new generation of
arts prizes (and which, following Al-
fred Nobel's preferences, ignored all
the arts except literature), the new
prizes are generally underwritten by
wealthy individuals or corporations
seeking to gain high profiles as pa-
trons of the arts. It's a lot easier to
earn immortality in the arts by giv-
ing a prize with your name on it than
by slipping into the welter of donors
to a museum or dance company, at
least so long as you manage to
achieve the publicity that the new
generation of arts prizes depends on
to survive.
* * *
This year, the architect
Frank Gehry, as rapidly rising a star
as exists anywhere in the cultural
firmament, received the first Doro-
thy and Lillian Gish Prize, a grant of
approximately $250,000 . . .
The sheer size of the prize gave it
an instant high profile, raising it
above the thousands of arts prizes
that are given every year carrying
no cash or only small amounts of it.
The first donor to realize the po-
tential impact of a huge sum of cash
was Jay Pritzker . . .
And since the first Pritzker
honoree, Philip Johnson, had a high
public profile, his name added fur-
ther luster to the new prize.
* * *
Is this the best use of money for
the arts? Advocates of the big-mon-
ey prizes argue that the publicity the
prizes bring focuses attention on the
arts in general, and thus helps all
artists, not just the winners. And the
economics of a career in the arts are
such that few winners, however fa-
mous and celebrated they may be,
earn enough money not to care about
it. After he won the Gish Prize, Mr.
Gehry, who has already won the
Pritzker, the Wolf and the Prae-
mium Imperiale, was asked what he
intended to do with this windfall.
"I'm going to try and pay down
some of my mortgage," he said.
-------------------
End excerpts
[Slea$e plug: Our Patron Richard $erra's Nippon-Pri$e pays our
anon-pri$e, yipee.]
in the arts and architecture. Pretty good (for PG) analysis of
the role of patrons, corporations and the Famous Noms.
It's a longish article so I dare not post.
For private e-mail copy send blank message with subject:
GET_some.
Here's a few excerpts:
[Headline]
In 1994, What Draws Eyes? The Megaprize
[Subheads]
The gold medal is eclipsed by the six-figure check.
>From the Pritzker to the Praemium Imperiale: nouveau Nobels.
At 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon
before a private assemblage of for-
maly dressed guests, a sculptor, a
painter, a composer and an architect
will be ushered into the presence of
Prince Hitachi of Japan and his wife,
Princess Hanako, who will present
each of them with a medal and a
check for roughly $150,000.
. . . In truth, the
imperial family does not actually
give the prize, but only presents it on
behalf of the Japan Art Association.
And the Japan Art Association is not
the real maker of the prize; it is
acting on behalf of Fujisankei Com-
munications, a vast Japanese media
conglomerate whose chief executive
conceived the prize in 1988 and
which has been paying the bill, esti-
mated at roughly $3 million a year
to keep it going since its first awards
were given in 1989.
The elaborate ritual surrounding
the Praemium Imperiale, which this
year will go to Richard Serra, Zao
Wou-ki, Henri Dutilleux, Charles
Correa and Sir John Gielgud (whose
health will prevent him from attend-
ing the ceremony), underscores the
extent to which prizes in the arts
have becqme a matter of corporate
prestige and international diploma-
cy, not to mention. big dollars. . .
Like the Nobel Prizes, which were
the models for the new generation of
arts prizes (and which, following Al-
fred Nobel's preferences, ignored all
the arts except literature), the new
prizes are generally underwritten by
wealthy individuals or corporations
seeking to gain high profiles as pa-
trons of the arts. It's a lot easier to
earn immortality in the arts by giv-
ing a prize with your name on it than
by slipping into the welter of donors
to a museum or dance company, at
least so long as you manage to
achieve the publicity that the new
generation of arts prizes depends on
to survive.
* * *
This year, the architect
Frank Gehry, as rapidly rising a star
as exists anywhere in the cultural
firmament, received the first Doro-
thy and Lillian Gish Prize, a grant of
approximately $250,000 . . .
The sheer size of the prize gave it
an instant high profile, raising it
above the thousands of arts prizes
that are given every year carrying
no cash or only small amounts of it.
The first donor to realize the po-
tential impact of a huge sum of cash
was Jay Pritzker . . .
And since the first Pritzker
honoree, Philip Johnson, had a high
public profile, his name added fur-
ther luster to the new prize.
* * *
Is this the best use of money for
the arts? Advocates of the big-mon-
ey prizes argue that the publicity the
prizes bring focuses attention on the
arts in general, and thus helps all
artists, not just the winners. And the
economics of a career in the arts are
such that few winners, however fa-
mous and celebrated they may be,
earn enough money not to care about
it. After he won the Gish Prize, Mr.
Gehry, who has already won the
Pritzker, the Wolf and the Prae-
mium Imperiale, was asked what he
intended to do with this windfall.
"I'm going to try and pay down
some of my mortgage," he said.
-------------------
End excerpts
[Slea$e plug: Our Patron Richard $erra's Nippon-Pri$e pays our
anon-pri$e, yipee.]