To understand the value of art, one must comprehend that there is a phenomenon in the visual arts known as the "art world."[1] This world begins with the artist and consists of art schools and academic institutions that educate undergraduate and graduate students,[2] museums and galleries (commercial and alternative) that offer the work for sale, and art audiences who view the work and who may or may not purchase the artwork.   Most importantly, the art world has gatekeepers who determine what art is and its value.  These are the museum and gallery directors, curators, dealers, collectors, art critics, and art historians.  One place where all of the elements come together is the art auction.  Therefore, I will focus my attention on the value of Chicano art as determined by a Chicano art auction and will analyze the Arizona International Latina/o Arts Festival (AILAF) auction (2004) as a case study of Chicano art sales.

Introduction

Chicano art auctions probably date back to the first days of the Chicano Movement in the 1960s and 1970s.  I would venture to say that whatever funds were collected went to the collective cause of  "El Movimiento" and not to individual artists. This tradition continues. Examples include the Self-Help Graphics Corazones de Aztlán Art Auction and Awards Ceremony (Los Angeles, California) and the Movimiento de Arte y Cultura Latino Americana (MACLA) Annual Latino Art Auction (San Jose, California), which support programs offered by the respective organizations.  Other Chicano art auctions have collected funds for HIV/AIDS treatment and education scholarships, medical needs of the uninsured, etc.  Among these are the Annual Whitman-Walker Clinic Art Auction (Washington, D.C.) and the Guadalupe Art Auction—later known as the Clínica Tepeyac Art Auction and Fundraiser—(Denver, Colorado).  Undoubtedly, countless other Chicano Art auctions have occurred (and are still occurring) throughout Aztlán, raising funds for many Chicano art centers and worthy causes in our communities.

These auctions function to expose Chicano and non-Chicano art audiences to Chicano art and to serve as a fundraiser for organizations. Since the Chicano community has always placed a high value on the collective, individual artists gladly contributed their art for barrio causes. Though some of the artists introduced at these auctions have gone on to enjoy greater success, the majority of Chicano artists have remained somewhat obscure since few sales resulted from such events. After all, the individual artist has often received little or no commission from the sale, having donated the artwork for altruistic reasons.  

. . . And Along Came "El Gary"

The most significant event to singularly bring about a renewed interest, indeed a Chicano art renaissance in the new millennium, has been the recent books on Chicano art published by Gary Keller of the Bilingual Review Press at Arizona State University.[3] The three volumes published to date present seasoned and emerging artists from throughout Aztlán on a scale heretofore unmatched. Chicano artists who had struggled for decades were finally given their due recognition in the halls of Chicano art. Emerging artists who were known locally or regionally finally received national exposure. Significantly, these publications  included Chicano artists from throughout Aztlán and the United States. Dr. Keller had finally broken the Califas/Tejano vidrio ceiling in Chicano art to make the important point that Chicano artists exist outside of California and Texas. To others this might be a minor point, but to those of us who live outside these centers of Chicano art, this finally brought us in from the cold of the Chicano margins.   

Dr. Keller is on a mission: to bring Chicano art to its rightful place of recognition in American art. To meet these ends, he also organized the first annual Latina/o Art Auction and Symposia, held May 2-4, 2003, at Arizona State University, which gained national and international exposure through a live auction featured on eBay.  A first indeed for Chicano artists! 

Moreover, what made this auction different from other Chicano art auctions was that the purpose of the auction was to showcase Chicano art for the Chicano artist’s sake. The individual Chicano artist, not a Chicano organization or agency, was "La Causa." This was unprecedented because the auction was designed to help Chicano artists per se, as the artist was able to keep 88.5% of the revenue from the sale of his or her artwork.[4] 

Having made preliminary remarks on Chicano art auctions, I now turn my attention to an analysis of the 2004 Arizona International Latina/o Arts Festival auction held at the Sheraton Phoenix East Hotel and Convention Center in Mesa, Arizona, on May 1, 2004. 

Methodology

I would characterize my methodology as an ethnographic study, including statistical analysis of auction sales. I participated in the auction as an observer. Though I registered as a "bidder," I did not bid on any of the lots. In my capacity as an observer, I took copious notes on each item from its presentation to its purchase or nonsale status. I took notes on the beginning bid, the purchase price, whether the artwork sold or not, and whether it was purchased by someone on eBay or someone present in the audience. Finally, I used printed materials that were sent to each artist to supplement my notes and observations.

In the auction catalog, each art lot (art piece) had information on year, medium, size, and estimated value given as a range. For my purposes, I coded the estimate as the statistical medium of the range. In addition, I coded the art media listed for the artworks as follows: the label "oil" included all works listed as oil on canvas or oil on linen; the label "acrylic" included acrylic on canvas, acrylic on paper, and acrylic on wood/panel; the label "mixed media" was used to code works that used two or more media; the label "lithograph/serigraph" was used to code those works listed as such; and the label "other" was used to code works that did not fit into any of the above categories, such as sculpture, etc. I also coded the sex of the artist. 

I entered the coded estimated value, beginning bid, and final sale price into my statistical program. I also coded whether the artwork sold at or above the lowest estimated (medium) price, in other words, whether it met its reserve price.

These coded items became my variables for analysis. I used STATPAC, a statistical software program, to create a codebook of all variables and to input data from each art piece into a data file. My analysis of (labeled) nominal variables is presented as percentages, and analysis of numeric data is presented as a mean (average). Lastly, I conducted minimal analysis of information using cross tabulations.

Analysis

The analysis that follows is presented in three parts:  (1) analysis of all artwork up for auction, regardless of sale status; (2) analysis of artwork that sold; and (3) a short analysis of artwork that did not sell.

Profile of All Artwork Up for Auction (N=54)
There were 54 artworks up for auction, all having a reserve price that had to be met. Chicanos (men) created 74% (40) of these works, and Chicanas (women) created 26% (14). The media of the artwork were as follows: 22% oils, 35% acrylics, 15% mixed media, 13% serigraphs/lithographs, and 15% other.  The estimated value of the 54 pieces of artwork up for auction averaged $2,406 for a total value of $129,925. The beginning bid for all artwork averaged $1,542, with the lowest beginning bid starting at $300 and the maximum bid beginning at $4,400.

Characteristics of Artwork That Sold at Auction (N=34)
Sixty-three percent (34) of all the artwork up for auction sold.  The estimated value of all artwork sold averaged $2,304. The beginning bid for the 34 artworks that were sold averaged $1,552, with a minimum beginning bid of $300 and a maximum beginning bid of $4,400. The sale price of each artwork averaged $1,707. However, artwork was auctioned off for as little as $350, and one item sold for a high of $4,600. A total of $58,025 was collected from bidders (with 10% premium added that was paid by each successful bidder to ASU). Approximately three-fourths (26) of the artwork that was sold did not meet the lowest estimated price of the artwork.

Approximately two-thirds of the artwork sold was by Chicanos (men). Of the artwork that sold, 24% were oils, 35% were acrylics, 18% were mixed media, 9% were serigraphs or lithographs, and the remaining 15% were "other." Only 24% of the art sold at or above the lowest estimated price. 

Sixty percent (19) of the artwork that was sold was purchased by someone present in theaudience of the art auction. Forty-four percent of all purchases were made by someone who placed their bid on eBay. Dr. Keller, who is an avid collector of Chicano art for the Arizona State University collection, purchased 29% (10) of all of the art; this represented 52% of all art sold to the audience present at the auction. Dr. Gilbert Cárdenas, who was also present in the audience and is a long-time collector of Chicano art, purchased four artworks at the auction.

Profile of Artwork That Did Not Sell at Auction (N= 20)
The estimated value of artwork not sold averaged $2,580, with a minimum estimated value of $800 and a maximum estimated value of $6,500. The beginning bid for artwork not sold averaged $1,527.

Conclusions and Commentary

What kind of conclusions can we make about Chicano art auctions in general and the 2004AILAF auction in particular? First, Chicano art auctions, and especially the AILAF auction, can be highly successful in exposing and selling Chicano art to national and international audiences. Second, there is an audience for Chicano art purchases via eBay on the Internet. Third, it is important that both collectors of Chicano art and collectors who are themselves Chicano be present at Chicano art auctions. Fourth, acrylics and oils are easier to sell at auction than art in other media. Finally, Chicano art can still be purchased at very reasonable prices. 

Though Dr. Keller was being very generous to the Chicano artists by allowing each to keep almost all of the sale amount of their individual work, I recommend that he reconsider this position. Since artists are accustomed to galleries taking 25% to 50% (sometimes even more) of the sale amount, it might be behoove the auction organizers to take a higher percentage of the sale in order to help meet their expenses for the event. Artists should not become accustomed to expecting that whoever hosts such an event can do this with grant or university funds, much less out of pocket or solely through volunteerism. Otherwise, these events may not have longevity.

Now let us return to our initial thesis on the value of art.  First of all, there is not one monolithic art world in the visual arts but many art worlds.  The art world that overrides all others is the mainstream art world controlled by the dominant white society. Another art world, with much less power, is the Chicano art world. The two overlap, but do so only minimally. Herein lies the explanation of the value of Chicano art. The mainstream art world has neither accepted nor integrated Chicano art into the marketplace. There are some exceptions to this rule as exemplified by some of the artists in this art auction, e.g., Alfredo Arreguín, Martin Charlot, Luis Jiménez, and Amado Peña. However, most of the artists in this auction are relatively unknown in the mainstream art world as evidenced by exhibitions in mainstream galleries and museums and in major art history publications.

Within the Chicano art world, many of the Chicano artists in this auction are known. Others are just beginning to be recognized, though they have been making Chicano art for decades. Certainly, Dr. Keller’s recent publications on Chicano art have introduced us to these and many other emerging Chicano artists. Since recognition is part of the equation that determines value, this state of affairs merits discussion.  

Why has Chicano art not gained a stronghold in the mainstream art world? Let me venture some observations. The mainstream art world responds to an integrated group of contributing factors, which cumulatively determine value. Though there are exceptions in contemporary art, the mainstream art world values credentials. Among some of their preferred prerequisites that artists should have are: (1) an education in fine arts—a bachelor of fine arts (BFA) degree and preferably a master of fine arts (MFA) degree; (2) a national and international reputation from having exhibited in major mainstream galleries in the artist’s city of residence, other cities in the United States, and throughout the world; (3) a record of exhibition in major museums, including having been purchased for their collections of contemporary art; (4) some presence in major biennials, e.g., state biennials, the Whitney Biennial, Documenta 11, the Venice Biennial, etc.; (5) a publication record that includes having been included or cited in major art history texts and art journals; and (6) a history of documentation in art catalogs that accompany exhibitions.  It should be noted that these are ideal requirements that are often more ideal than real. 

Again, with few exceptions, most Chicano artists have not yet achieved such a record of accomplishment.  One major step in gaining recognition for Chicano artists is through inclusion in art publications. Dr. Keller’s books on Chicano art[3] are a major contribution in this direction, as are his efforts to bring exposure to national and international art audiences through Chicano art auctions on the Internet. Though Dr. Keller has made quantum leaps in bringing recognition to Chicano art, he cannot do this alone. Chicanos who are art historians in academe must do their part by publishing critical analyses of contemporary Chicano art. Postmodern and postcolonial theory must be integrated into such analyses. More Chicanos need to become curators, a task that should be relatively easy for Chicano art historians. Moreover, there is a small but growing Latino upper-middle class and upper class that should be purchasing Chicano art as a demonstration to others that the arts are highly valued. We must also make inroads with collectors from Mexico, e.g., Carlos Slim, Eugenio López, Aurelio López Rocha, and others. 

Though a mainstream art world is a reality that all of us involved with Chicano art must acknowledge, we must create a Chicano art expertise that can bridge the two art world cultures (mainstream and Chicano). Chicano art is American art and should not be timid in calling itself such. Since the Chicano experience is a holistic and changing one, we must prepare ourselves for Chicano art that does not appear on first impression as "classic" Chicano art as we have known it. After all, more and more Chicanos are getting educated in art schools and are being influenced by art ideas that have heretofore been unknown in Chicano art. This has to influence their art making. 

We are on our way to gaining the recognition for Chicano art that it deserves.  We have a long way to go, but time is on our side. By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that Latinos will be 25% of the population of the United States, and the majority of these Latinos will be Chicanos or Mexicanos. A Chicano art auction is an excellent place for us to think about where we come from, where we are, and where we are going. The new millennium belongs to us, and we must not break faith with the meaning of Chicano art as a marker of who we are in our epoch. 

Notes

[1] Howard S. Becker, Art Worlds (Berkeley: University of California, 1984).

[2] There are Chicano/a artists who have do not have any academic training in art schools, colleges or universities, but who nevertheless are creating Chicano art. However, it should be noted that the current mainstream art world prefers artists who have been trained in academia because a common set of understandings exists between them about contemporary art and art history.

[3] Gary D. Keller, Mary Erickson, Kaytie Johnson, and Joaquín Alvarado, Contemporary Chicana And Chicano Art: Artists, Works, Culture, and Education, 2 volumes (Tempe: Bilingual Press, 2002); and Gary  D. Keller, Mary Erickson, and Pat Villeneuve, Chicano Art for Our Millennium (Tempe: Bilingual Press, 2004).

[4] See the following statement from the document inviting the artists to participate:  "Auction Financial Arrangements—The HRC will charge a 10% commission against the total sales price of your art, plus a 10% buyers premium to be paid by the successful bidder. You will pay for shipping of your piece(s) to Tempe for the auction and a 1.5% fee for insurance. If the piece sells, the buyer will pay for shipping to his/her location. If the piece does not sell, you are responsible for the cost of having the piece shipped back to you."

George Rivera, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Fine Arts
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado
George.Rivera@Colorado.edu