There is an interesting article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review by “retired business editor” and columnist Jack Markowitz – “Pop Culture Collectors Really Need to Take Stock” – which essentially denigrates the entire pursuit of collecting and preserving original movie and television props and costumes, as well as those who participate in the hobby. This is my first exposure to this journalist’s work, but his premise seems to be that if something is not a Rembrandt or otherwise predate the invention of automobiles, film, and television, it is of no value – though value and money seem to be the focus of his feature.
Mr. Markowitz opens:
Looking for a reliable signal of cultural decline? We don’t know what to collect anymore. People with money to burn are buying junk and expecting it to be valuable someday.
Like truly awful modern art that sells at auctions in New York and London for tens of millions.
Or even sillier, the costumes of movie stars. And not even stars in good movies, but eye-candy like “Spiderman,” “Batman” and the “Harry Potter” series.
Interestingly, while the author seems to be preoccupied with value, the enormous success of the three “eye-candy” feature film franchises he references does not seem to be a factor. Per the L.A. Times, the latest Batman film alone has set new box office records, including $155.3 million in ticket sales opening weekend, setting a record for the biggest three-day take.
From an artistic perspective, the film has also received significant critical acclaim and is one of the highest rated films of the year.
As far as the “junk” comment, Mr. Markowitz presupposes that original prop and wardrobe currently have inflated value today or perhaps no value at all, but might be “valuable someday”, and collectors have “money to burn”. I think it is unfortunate in that he does not seem to have researched the subject of his editorial, apart from having read one AP story interviewing Joe Maddalena of Profiles in History.
Mr. Markowitz continues:
This is what comes of a popular culture — pardon, “pop culture” — that no longer distinguishes between what is great and what happens to be playing. Four or more hours a day in front of television may have blunted in Americans the sense of what good is. Maybe trendy movie reviewing is to blame, the pressure to praise what ticket-buyers will flock to anyway. Or could it be our public schools, which don’t teach critical distinctions anymore? “Esteem” has to be for everyone and everything.
Which, of course, they don’t deserve. Rap music is not and never will be up with Bach. Jasper Johns sells at higher prices but is not in the same room with Vermeer. He is just “in” until we eventually grow ashamed of ourselves.
Given a chance to acquire the manuscript of a song by Schubert, in his own hand, or a T-shirt worn by a Bob Dylan, which would a baby boomer choose?
I don’t know how else to characterize Mr. Markowitz’s comments other than elitism in an age trending more toward populism. Is it necessary to put down garden variety “pop culture” simply because it does not measure up to some of the greatest achievements of mankind? When did rap music announce that it is equivalent to Bach? And what exactly does that have to do with the preservation and celebration of film and television?
Interestingly, even Bob Dylan, who has really stood the test of time as an innovator in music, seems to fall into the shameful category by Mr. Markowitz’s account.
More:
A century ago, the banker J.P. Morgan acquired music pages that had passed under the pens of Beethoven and Schubert. Plus an inkwell of Charles Dickens’s. A Bible from Gutenberg’s printing shop. And in a small glass case, a lock of the gray-white hair of George Washington. All can be seen by the public, plus much more, at the Morgan Library in New York.
What would Morgan or anyone of his time and taste have thought about investors — yes, “investors,” the dealers call them — who’d covet a costume worn by Ben Affleck in “Daredevil”? Or by Ian McKellen and Anna Paquin in “X-Men,” the original trashy movie of that title, not the trashy sequels?
These treasures are the stuff of commerce, but of culture, too, on the word of Joe Maddalena of Los Angeles, who can’t escape a bias in favor of elevating the ordinary. He’s an auctioneer.
“It’s the same exact thing as collecting contemporary art,” Maddalena questionably asserted to the Associated Press.
Frankly, I don’t think there is much merit at all to this article by the simple fact that the author seems to have open disdain for anything subsequent to Beethoven, Dickens, and Bach. In this either-or world view, what is the point of constructing any sort of argument if the premise is that popular art and culture today is nothing but shameful eye candy for morons?
The writer also references the “lock of the gray-white hair of George Washington” as something worthy of preservation, but apparently missed the fact that the second highest value realized in the Profiles auction was the autographed Abraham Lincoln photo which sold for $180,000.
Mr. Markowitz concludes:
He hailed the coming to market of a handgun carried by Clint Eastwood in “The Outlaw Josey Wales.” If that doesn’t excite your investing appetite on a par with auto and bank stocks at possibly historic lows, how about a miniature fighter ship from the first “Star Wars” movie? Maddalena expected a $100,000 bid on that one. Some 1,100 items were due to go on sale.
“Pop culture has become the thing to collect,” says the guy who — let’s keep in mind — has an incentive to get us to buy it.
But corporate shares will rise again someday. Rembrandt and Renoir always will be collectible. Will stuff from the prop closets of Hollywood? Should it be?
Most fascinating to me is that last paragraph – is Mr. Markowitz equating stocks and shares and money to a Rembrandt? If this all comes down to money and fortune, is not the success of these modern works of trash driving the value of the stocks of these same companies?
I personally find it sad that someone can have (apparently) no appreciation of the popular visual arts. Film represents a culmination of so much that came before it: novels, plays, music, sculpture, photography, acting, and more. Just because it is new (at a little more than 100 years old), that does not make it less important or artistic than earlier art forms.
Gone with the Wind?
The Wizard of Oz?
Cassablanca?
Citizen Kane?
The Godfather?
Star Wars?
These are all great works, all reflections of our times, our dreams, our aspirations, our fears. This is what we celebrate. And those artifacts used in these films that survive are of value and should be preserved and respected.
Jason De Bord