By Sarah Douglas 顾灵/编译

上周，佩斯画廊（http://thepacegallery.com）宣布中断其与古典艺术专家级艺术机构Wildenstein(http://www.wildenstein.com)长达17年情同手足的伙伴关系，佩斯总裁Marc Glimcher接受了Artinfo的专访，对佩斯画廊的未来与发展新方向进行了详尽的展望，其中包括收购坐落在25街的 Bortolami Gallery（http://www.bortolamigallery.com）画廊空间，聘用伦敦Ibid Gallery （http://www.ibidprojects.com/ ）前画廊总监、艺术家Vita Zaman主持佩斯在切尔西的画廊空间，同时受聘的还有中东艺术专家、菲利普斯拍卖行的前任国际顾问、常驻伦敦的Tamara Corm。佩斯画廊由Marc Glimcher的父亲——Arne Glimcher创建，并在Marc的多年努力下成为当代艺术界风头浪尖的核心画廊，在Marc看来，只有创新才有未来的可能，并在任何情境中抓住每一个机遇，哪怕是在金融危机的最低谷，这种机会依然无处不在。

 

下文为采访稿全文：（A代表Artinfo，M代表Marc Glimcher）

 

A：让我们先来聊聊最大的新闻：佩斯早在1993年就正式与Wildenstein达成伙伴关系，而此次与Wildenstein关系的结束，是否与这两年艺术市场的不景气有关？

M：部分原因是这样没错，但这是一段维持了很长时间的伙伴关系，她的发端还得从收藏家、慈善家（石油大王）大卫 洛克菲勒（David Rockefeller）说起。他是个爱把人们拢在一块的家伙，于是他把我父亲和Daniel Wildenstein撮合一起待了八年，直至真正牢固的伙伴关系确实建立起来。事实上，父辈们总有种希望，某一天两个家族可以联姻，然后最终正式成为一大家子。许多Wildenstein的藏家们都希望涉足当代艺术领域，于是在1990年至1991年，艺术市场开始跌到谷底的那两年，佩斯画廊一直有着杰出表现，这与我们对提升艺术家身价的保守态度有着极大的关系，并让画廊始终发展稳健。而这些彼时的情景与当前的状况又是何其相似，新的收藏者们涌入市场，想要真切看到他们收藏伟大艺术作品的机会。这正是扩展公司疆域的好时机，而我又是个急性子，满怀迫切地想要把想法立即付诸实践。

 

A：Wildensteins也这么看？

M：Daniel正是这么看的，他对我说过：“我们都亲眼目睹了画廊的创建，因此我们看事物的眼光是一样的。”我听他这么说的时候非常激动，就好像棋逢对手的就是好朋友。

 

A：所有针对近来这次伙伴关系破裂的报道都倾向于“心平气和的握手再会”。纽约时报称，作为交易的一部分，佩斯画廊收购了Wildenstein的部分股份，同时也收购了PaceWildenstein共有股份中的49%，据说这些股份价值成百上千万。这种说法是真的？

M：我可以如实回答你的问题，但在那之后我必须引颈自刎。

 

A：那在与Wildenstein伙伴关系终止与佩斯画廊发展方向的调整两件事之间有否联系呢？

M：这是当然的。在1993年，变化的到来是显而易见的，但究竟是什么样的变化，不清楚。当然我们肯定会采取一切措施来拥抱我们朝着发展的那个方向。

 

A：具体是什么样的变化？

M：艺术世界的全球化。全球化的方式与所有人想象中的都不尽相同。作为一名收藏家，或艺术家，究竟意味着什么？意味着奢华，意味着梦幻？在过去10年间，我们不断听到关于“究竟什么是画廊？”的提问。而对其的回答，在诸多拥有创新意识的人们看来，无疑是特许经营与品牌化，而后者也取得了非常巨大的成功。佩斯在这方面参与了一些，但众多的交易商一直以来都与拍卖行携手合作，将其独立品牌深刻植根在每场拍卖或交易中，概念化他们实则具体的行事风格。

 

A：那接下来有些什么计划？

M：在我看来，商业化之后的变革是网络（Network）。创建并成为某个网络的一部分是几乎整个世界在至少过去十年间投入大量精力的深入参与。因为其自身属性的与众不同，艺术世界从基因上就决定了比其他领域要慢那么半拍。所以如今网络在艺术界的发展才刚刚萌芽。

 

A：可不可以从艺术世界以外来举个例子？

M：麦当劳是个巨大的特许经营商——它的品牌随着门店的越开越多而越做越响。苹果，它是一个杰出的品牌，也是一家杰出的特许经营商，更是通过将其细分任务分派给越来越多的独立实体而不断壮大成为具有非凡影响力的网络。购买苹果应用的人越多，苹果也就越强大。当你开始借助众人的力量来多元化成长你的计划时，事情就变得非常有趣了。

 

A：艺术交易商也已经成为某种团体网络了，不是吗？

M：是的，当我们在伦敦白立方画廊举行一个Chuck Close个展的时候你当然可以这么说。但这是非常原始的一种网络形式，并没有充分把确实存在的潜力全部发挥出来。画廊之间的关系将因网络而彻底改变。

 

A：如何改变？艺术界是不是会越来越多的按照娱乐圈的模式来发展？

M：差不多，但比娱乐圈要走得远得多。如果假定我们现在是V2.0，那么娱乐圈的模式顶多算是V3.0。正如当年工作室模式走到了尽头，不得不放弃他们的艺术家一样，总有一天画廊也会走到头而不得不放弃他们的艺术家。然而艺术家们的需求，画廊们的需求，依然并不是以经济需求为主要动力的，所以代理机制依然是很难想象、勿提实现的了。正如他们称好莱坞的运营机制为“10%”那样，大量的商业比例依然与艺术家的纯粹定义对着干。在这艺术世界里，从达明 赫斯特到Joe Schmo（著名音乐人）依然都遵从着这么个模式：他们有艺术交易商（经纪人），他们要做秀，他们通过做秀来卖东西。与此同时，又有其他因素来提升其重要性。

 

A：比如？

M：因素之一就是信息。我们花了过去整整15年的时间来创建一个可以规整我们画廊所有信息的系统。

 

A：佩斯确实有着让人乍舌的档案管理经验。

M：我们为此甚至有些狂热，佩斯的网站刚上线不久，在那上面登载着每一条新闻、每一项活动、每一份派对邀请，甚至还有六万余件画廊经手的艺术品。

 

A：还有因素之二？

M：画廊地理层面上拓展的可能。像佩斯这样拥有巨大艺术家资源的画廊所面对的问题是如何将这些资源合理有效地分布到世界的其他地方，通过艺术交易本地化来实现交易量的最大化。佩斯在北京的分部成立于两年前（佩斯北京：http://www.pacebeijing.com），坐落在草场地艺术区，画廊主持是冷林，他与画廊的其他工作人员之前都为北京公社工作。他有一定的自主权，同时也是基于网络的概念来操作，而佩斯北京的运营都倚仗我们总部的资源，根据我们的规划来制定他们的发展目标与策略。

 

A：所以冷林先生和北京公社是发展佩斯“网络”的合宜人选？

M：首先，冷林永远也不会成为特许经营商。这是他的事。而他是那种你想和他共事的人。这此合作并不是说他的品牌就永远消失了，或至少是停滞不前了，只是说为了这个网络构建协调了一下。

 

A：能不能说佩斯现在处于扩张期？

M：是的，当艺术市场像最近几年这么上下颠倒、剑走偏锋，还是有航班可以搭乘前往安全与保障的彼岸。过去两年中，有许许多多人都来找我们，希望私下出售搭乘交易，而他们中的绝大多数也都是信誉良好的可信赖之人，其中当然也不乏艺术家本人。如今的时代貌似对我们青睐有加，如果你在不稳定的时局中迈着坚定沉着的步子，那你就有机会扩张。当然，也不是每一次我们都能把握住这样的机遇。

 

A：比如？

M：2000年左右。

 

A：千年虫

M：是的。那时候我们干得很不错，所以当那档子事发生的时候，我们决定继续承担更多风险，而不是洗手不干。如今是不可思议的更大的机遇，我们相信我们知道我们该怎么做。

 

A：那让我们来说说你要做的改变的具体方面，比如人员和空间。

M：在切尔西(伦敦西南部一住宅区,为艺术家和作家的聚居地) 我们做出了一些改变。迪亚艺术基金会（The Dia Art Foundation）收回了我们在22街的空间，所以我们正考虑在切尔西重新选址来开设新的画廊空间。让我们惊喜的是如今坐落在25街上的Bortolami Gallery，她不是那种庞大臃肿比块头的画廊，她很美。而且她离我们现在这家画廊所在的街区非常近，当然我们还在找是不是有更有趣、更接近市中心的空间。

 

A：那员工方面呢？

M：我们正在吸纳一些新成员，比如Ibid Gallery前画廊总监、艺术家Vita Zaman将会主持佩斯在25街的画廊空间，她也会和我们一同前往莫斯科参加Mark Rothko（马克 罗斯科，俄裔美国抽象油画家，美国身价最高的已故艺术家，1970年在自己家中开枪自杀身亡）展。

 

A：你是指4月23日在俄罗斯车库文化中心举行的罗斯科展？该空间的总监是Dasha Zhukova，此次展览中的作品（the group of Rothkos）原先均为纽约金融家Ezra Merkin私人收藏，而也恰恰是佩斯经手将这些画作以3.1亿美元的天价与一位匿名买家进行了交易。有没有在莫斯科开分馆的打算？

M：没有，但要在莫斯科开拓疆域的有效方式目前而言依然是办画展。这批画作之前极少向公众露面，而罗斯科还从未在莫斯科、乃至整个俄罗斯展出过。

 

A：有推测称这次这批画作可供出售。

M：没有，他们不出售，他们本身是借来的。

 

A：那中东市场呢？关于你聘用了佩利普斯拍卖行前任国际顾问与中东艺术专家Tamara Corm的消息是否属实？

M：是的，她将主要服务于我们的中东市场，当然也会为我们在其他地方的发展提出建议，但她将会常驻伦敦。

 

A：你认为如今我们正处在艺术市场循环的哪个环节？

M：艺术市场差不多10年一个循环，如今由很多重新排序的工作在进行，并对谁不好惹，谁看着蔫不断有着争论，而艺术交易商们又总是逞能，希望即使在时局不好的时候依然显得很阔气。

 

A：也就是说，现在是一个重估的阶段？

M：没错。

 

A：现阶段有很多画廊貌似都在搬迁或是开设新馆，有点像抢位子游戏，让人回想起1991年的SoHo。

M：风水轮流转，时机时机，机不可失，时不再来。而艺术市场的动机永远只有两个：好的艺术品与艺术家。

 

A：那让我们从好的艺术品说起？

M：即使绝大多数的艺术品交易都是在私下进行的，并且在未来基本上也是这样的运作模式，很多伟大的杰出作品不断易手，且并未因易手多次而变得廉价。正如那些老一辈艺术交易商们常挂在嘴边的那句：“你只需为能买到她而高兴，不用花心思来讨价还价。”当然，这绝不仅仅是嘴上说的。这是人们能把一件杰出艺术作品抱回家时的肺腑之言。同时也是新客户们的真心感受。1992年，艺术市场也正处于相似的循环节点，我们为美国大通银行（Chase bank，摩根大通的母公司）举办午餐会，与会的都是些上流社会的风云人物，其中有几个走过来和我父亲说话：“我从未赢得您的注意。”——这话不假，因为我父亲与他从未谋面——“现在我想是时候收藏艺术了，我准备好了。”说这番话的人，是美国图书零售巨头Barnes & Noble的创始人、DIA迪亚艺术中心的前资助人、大收藏家Len Riggio。如今，相同的情况又出现了。就在此时此刻，我们已经获得了六位新的藏家主顾。

 

A：那关于艺术家的机遇呢？

M：艺术家方面有不确定性因素，我们不能过多地向其架设画廊的短期利益。而画廊的长期利益在艺术圈循环的末节并没有收到应有的重视，而如今艺术家们对其的重视程度正在不断提升。Hiroshi Sugimoto就是一例。

 

A：当几个月前Sugimoto离开高古轩并加入佩斯画廊时，似乎“权威”已经可以来形容你的画廊了。你是不是有意图来改变这种企业形象？不管怎么说，最终画廊继承权是归你所有。

M：画廊是被认为“权威”没错，而也正是这一点始终让我懊恼不已。而父亲从来一点也没被这类评论所干扰，因为他谁的话也不听。他从来没有视佩斯为一家“大画廊”，对他而言，所有这一切只是意味着：50年前，他的父亲死了，他的兄弟告诉他因为他们破产了，所以还是开家画廊来维生吧，而他恰恰是个画家，于是他打电话给他的朋友们，开了一家小画廊，专卖激进主义的画作。

 

A：然后这家专卖激进主义画作的小画廊成长得很快。

M：然后这家小画廊成长为如今的大画廊，并被舆论称为“权威”，我们的一些代理艺术家一签就是30年。她从一家极简主义的迷你画廊成为了一家“卓有建树”的“大画廊”。这种讲法从来就没打扰到我父亲，从来没有。但对我来说，这份打扰是自然而然、不可避免的。在繁荣时期，有众多画廊甚至刻意把自己打扮得不那么“权威”。我觉得，他们的所作所为都太过商业化了。他们代理着一大批连他们自己都不敢兴趣、不相信的艺术家，并屁颠屁颠地互相跟风着那些生来就称不上是风格的东西。从某种程度而言，随波逐流、追着时尚做些时髦事仿佛就是和权威主义对着干。对我来说，这些事恰恰是做得最权威主义的勾当。当你在绞尽脑汁地想如何服务一群艺术家，竭尽所能地想你可以为他们做的事与可以和他们一起做的事，而恰恰你看上去是一家权威艺术机构的时候，事实上，你的处境就很危险了。所以我说，所有我们能做的，只是竭尽所能地做得更多、做得更久、让画廊走得更远，然后关于“权威”的念头就会烟消云散、显得无关紧要了。因为我们永远会做我们之前从未做过的事，正如对画廊定义的追问，以及对艺术交易商的界定，还有所有一切可为我们艺术家服务之虞。

 

Marc Glimcher on the Future of Pace

Pace dealer Marc Glimcher posing between two Sol LeWitt drawings in a show at his flagship57th Streetgallery.

By Sarah Douglas

NEW YORK— On the heels of the announcement, last week, that thePace Gallery had ended its 17-year partnership with the classical-art specialists at Wildenstein, Pace president Marc Glimcher sat down to discuss the gallery’s new direction, which includes taking over the current Bortolami Gallery space on 25th Street; hiring Vita Zaman, an artist and former director of London’s Ibid Gallery, to work out of Pace’s Chelsea space; and taking on London-based Middle East expert and former Phillips de Pury specialist Tamara Corm. According to Glimcher — who has long worked to bring the gallery founded by his father, Arne Glimcher, to the fore of contemporary art — the future depends upon innovation, and seizing the opportunities left in the waning days of the recession.

Let’s start with the biggest news: the ending of the Wildenstein relationship. Pace formed the partnership with Wildenstein in 1993, at a pretty dismal point for the art market. Did that contribute to the decision to partner up?

Partly. But it was an older relationship, one that went back to [collector and philanthropist] David Rockefeller, who loves to put people together. He put my father together with Daniel Wildenstein eight years before the partnership was formed, and they hit it off. There was always the idea that one day our families would get together. A lot of Wildenstein collectors wanted to expand into contemporary art. Then, in 1990 and 1991, there came this weak moment in the market, but Pace had a pretty good two years after that, due to our conservative approach to raising artists’ prices. This gave us a sense of stability. And just as is happening now, new collectors were coming into the market, who saw that they could have a chance to get great artworks. It was a good time to have the resources to expand and I was being very aggressive with the idea of pushing forward.

And the Wildensteins saw things similarly?

Daniel did. He said to me, “We both come after the gallery’s founder, so we see things the same way.” It was very exciting. It was off to the races.

The recent ending of that relationship has, by all reports, been amicable. The New York Times reported that as part of the deal, Pace bought out Wildenstein’s part of the joint inventory, and also bought out Wildenstein’s 49 percent share of PaceWildenstein. Hundreds of millions of dollars are said to have changed hands. Is that accurate?

I could comment, but then I’d have to kill myself.

Is there a correlation between the ending of the Wildenstein partnership and a change in Pace’s overall direction?

There is. In 1993, it was clear that change was coming, but how that change was coming was unclear. We certainly made attempts to move in directions that would embrace it.

What change are you referring to?

The globalization of the art world. It has globalized in a different way than anyone thought it would. What it means to be an art collector, or an artist, is in flux, and that’s fantastic. Over the last decade, we’ve seen the whole “what does it mean to be an art gallery?” question come up. The answer, for a lot of innovative people, has been a franchise, a brand. That has been incredibly successful, and Pace has participated in it to some extent, but there have been a lot of dealers who, along with the auction houses, made the concept of planting their brand around the world a defining characteristic of what they do.

So what’s the next step?

What I see as the next evolutionary step after the franchise is the network. Creating and being part of a network is something that the rest of the world has been deeply engaged in for at least the last 10 years. Because of its strange characteristics, the art world is genetically behind the rest of the world, so the idea of networks is just now taking root.

What would be an example from outside the art world?

McDonald’s is a franchise — its brand becomes more and more powerful through the opening of more and more McDonald’s. Apple, on the other hand, while it’s a powerful franchise with a powerful brand, also becomes more and more powerful through a network, by spreading its mission to more and more independent entities. The more people buy into the mission of Apple, the more powerful Apple becomes. Really interesting things can be done when you start to multiply your plan by the power of lots of people.

Art dealers already network to a certain extent, no?

Yes. You can say that we’re networking when we send a Chuck Closeshow to White Cube gallery inLondon, but that’s a primitive form of it. It doesn’t take full advantage of the potential that’s there. The relationships between galleries are going to change.

How? Will the art world function more on the model of the entertainment industry?

I see that coming, but that’s further down the road. If we’re in version 2.0 at the moment, that’s version 3.0. Just as the studios got busted and had to give up their artists, someday the galleries will get busted and have to give up theirs. But the needs of the artist, and of the galleries, are still non-economic enough that it’s impossible to imagine a workable agency system. The “ten-percentery,” as they used to call Hollywood, is a big volume business that still goes against the concept of what it means to be an artist. In the art world, everyone from Damien Hirst down to Joe Schmo still basically has the same kind of system: they have art dealers, they have a show, and they sell the things from the show. In the meantime, there are other issues that are going to rise in importance.

Like?

One of them is information. We’ve spent the last fifteen years creating a system that holds all the information about everything we’ve ever done at the gallery.

Pace does have a history of being prodigious archivists.

We’re a little fanatical about it. We’ve just launched our Web site, where every news event, every party, and the 60,000 works of art that have passed through our doors will be searchable.

And the other?

The ability to extend the gallery geographically. A gallery like ours has huge resources for its artists, so the question becomes, how can those resources be extended to other parts of the world while making use of the local phenomenon of art dealing? Our gallery in Beijing, which opened two years ago, is very much the Beijing Communegallery, where the person who runs it, Leng Lin, came from, as did the other people who work there. There is a level of autonomy, and a way of functioning that is based on the concept of a network. They draw on our resources, and get from us a way of framing their mission.

So Leng Lin and Beijing Commune turned out to be well-suited to this concept of a Pace network?

Leng Lin would never be a franchise. It has to be his thing. That’s the kind of person you want to work with. That requires not that your brand disappear, or not be pushed forward, but just that it be subjugated to the network a little bit.

Would you say Pace is in expanding mode at the moment?

Yes. When things go sideways or upside-down in the art market, as they have over the past year or so, there is a flight to safety and security. Over the past two years, we’ve had a relatively large number of people come to us who want to sell privately and with great confidentiality. Artists have also approached us. Times like these tend to be good for our gallery. If you have some firm footing in an uncertain time, you have opportunities to expand. Of course, there have been times when we missed those opportunities.

Like?

Around 2000.

The dotcom bust.

Yes. We were doing quite well, so when that hit, it was a time for us to take more risks than we ended up taking. Now there is incredible opportunity once again, and we feel very strongly that we know what to do.

So let’s speak about some changes you are making, in terms of both staff and space.

In Chelsea, we are making some changes. The Dia Art Foundation is taking back our 22nd Street space, so we are rethinking Chelsea and taking a new gallery down there. It’s the fantastic space that is currentlyBortolami Gallery, on25th Street. It’s not the big, bloated, whose-is-bigger type of gallery, but it’s beautiful. And it’s very close to our existing space down the block. There is a search going on for another interesting, major space.

What about changes in staff?

Some new people are joining us as art dealers. One is Vita Zaman, former director at London’s Ibid Projects. She will be working in our gallery on 25th Street. She will also be coming with us to Moscow in a couple of weeks for the opening of the Rothko exhibition.

You’re referring to the Rothko exhibition opening on April 23 at the Garage, the space run by collector Dasha Zhukova. The group of Rothkos in that show once belonged to Ezra Merkin, and Pace worked with the Rothko estate to broker the sale of those paintings to an unnamed client last year for a reported $310 million. Any plans to expand to Moscow?

We are not planning to open a gallery inMoscow, but the right way to establish relationships there is to facilitate something like this. These paintings have never really been shown publicly before, and there has never been a Rothko show inMoscow.

There has been speculation that those Rothkos are for sale.

They are not. They are on loan.

What about the Middle East? Is it true that you also hired Tamara Corm, a Middle East expert and former international specialist with the auction house Phillips de Pury & Co.?

Yes, she will be working for us in the Middle East and a lot of other places but will be based inLondon.

Where do you think we are in the art market cycle at the moment?

Cycles in the market take ten years. Right now there is a lot of re-prioritizing going on. And a lot of talk about who is still strong, who looks weak. There is sort of an obsession among art dealers with appearing strong in a time of weakness.

Is this, generally, a time of reassessment?

Absolutely.

A lot of galleries seem to be moving at the moment, reopening in new spaces. It’s a bit like musical chairs — like SoHo in 1991.

Everything is shifting. This is a time of opportunity, and the market is driven by opportunities that come in two forms: one is great works of art, and the other is artists.

Okay, let’s start with great works of art.

Although much of it has been done privately, and will continue to be done so, really great works of art have changed hands. They aren’t cheaper, but they have changed hands. There’s that old line that art dealers give you: “You should just be excited that it’s available, and not looking for it to be cheaper.” Well, this happens to be a moment when that is not just a line. This is when people get an opportunity to buy incredible works of art. It’s also a time when new clients come forward. In 1992, at a similar moment in the market cycle, we hosted a lunch for Chase bank. They had some top clients in and a guy comes over to my father and says, “I could never get your attention before” — which wasn’t true, he’d just never met this person before — “Now maybe I can start collecting art, I’m ready.” It was [Barnes & Noble founder, art collector, and former Dia patron] Len Riggio. The same thing is happening now. There are half a dozen new collectors who have established themselves at this moment.

What about the other opportunity, in artists?

Artists are uncertain right now and there’s a sense among them that there are things that are more important than the short-term value of a gallery. The long-term values of a gallery were not very appreciated at the end of the last cycle. Now they look more important. Hiroshi Sugimoto is an example of that.

When Sugimoto left Gagosian to join your gallery several months ago, it seemed to confirm Pace’s reputation as an “establishment gallery.” Are you at all interested in changing that image? After all, you’ll be inheriting this gallery eventually.

The gallery is seen as establishment. I guess that has always bugged me. My father doesn’t get bugged by it, because he doesn’t listen to anybody. He doesn’t see us as an establishment gallery. To him, it’s about this: 50 years ago, his father died, and his brother told him he had to start an art gallery because they were broke, and he was a painter and called all his friends and they started a gallery for radical art.

Then that little gallery for radical art got bigger.

And a gallery gets to look pretty establishment when it gets big, and when artists stay for 30 years. It went from being a minimalism gallery to being an establishment gallery. That doesn’t bother my father, never has. But it’s natural for it to bug me. During the boom, some galleries did things to make themselves appear less establishment. But my feeling is that all the things they did were very commercial things to do. Go after this group of artists that you don’t actually have any interest in and don’t believe in, follow this group of collectors. Somehow following the trends and doing the most fashionable thing came to be what seemed anti-establishment. To me, those are the most establishment things you could possibly do. Whereas if you stuck to building a community of artists, and thinking of all these things that could be done for them and with them, you were in danger of looking like an establishment organization. So I say, all we have to do now is to push harder and further, and then that idea of whether or not we are establishment will be irrelevant, because we’ll be doing things that have never been done before, like pushing the definition of an art gallery, and the boundaries of being an art dealer, and doing all of this in the service of our artists.