The Chicago Tribune runs this Bloomberg wire report on a female Saudi artist who has broken through in the art world. The article says that her success at an art auction has opened the door for other female artists in the country. Interesting.
UPDATE: A kind reader provides a link to the artist’s work.
Saudi artist breaks barriers for women
Massoud A. DerhallyHer father is chairman of National Commercial Bank, Saudi Arabia’s largest lender. She has a degree in business from Riyadh’s King Saud University. Now, Hanan Bahamdan is making her global mark — in art.
Her oil painting, “Mannci,” sold last month for more than three times its top estimate at Sotheby’s inaugural sale of modern and contemporary Arab and Iranian art, making Bahamdan the auction house’s first female Saudi artist. The somber-toned canvas of a working-class Egyptian man fetched about $75,000 at the London sale, compared with an estimate of $14,000 to $20,500.
The sale opens a path for Saudi Arabia’s female artists, who had been left out of a rush by collectors into Middle East works. Oil prices have tripled in four years, boosting the ranks of wealthy collectors in the region, while a decade-long boom in the global art market has enticed new investors.
“This is a first step, and many Saudi artists are exhilarated with the sale of my painting at Sotheby’s,” Bahamdan said in a telephone interview from Riyadh. “They say: ‘You’ve opened the door and opportunity for people to learn about us.’”
Christie’s International, the world’s biggest auction house, sold $15 million of contemporary works in Dubai on Oct. 31, led by a record $657,000, including commission, for Ahmed Mustapha’s “Qu’ranic Polyptych of Nine Panels.” Mustapha had held the previous record of $284,800, set at Christie’s first auction in the emirate in May 2006.
Bahamdan, 41, has been painting for 20 years and has held exhibitions in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. About 300 people attended her first exhibition in 1991 at her house in Riyadh, where she had 50 pictures on display. Later, she worked for two years in a studio in Egypt with Mohamed Sabry, one of the leaders of pastel painting in the country. She has also lived in Beirut and London.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
November:30:2007 - 13:36
I have located the site for the artist for those interested
http://www.hananbahamdan.net/site.swf
The painting which fetched $75K is second from the top on the gallery link.
November:30:2007 - 14:16
Thanks for the link to her work.
December:21:2007 - 08:01
Her work is very good and her portraits especially possess great power.
December:21:2007 - 11:05
Another good Saudi artist is Hend al Mansour. She is in the USA now.
http://www.hend-al-mansour.org/index.htm
December:21:2007 - 11:54
John, has anyone in the State Dept. ever considered sponsoring artists of Bahamdan’s caliber for a whirlwind tour of the U.S., as State does with students?
December:21:2007 - 12:08
State does not, as a matter of policy (and practicality) sponsor foreign artists’ tours of the US. The problems are several.
First, to choose one artist over another leads to incredible backbiting, accusations of favoritism, pay-offs, use of political connections, etc. No one not being paid large sums willingly enters these waters. Artist Agents, however, do get those large sums, so it is left to them to put together such shows and tours. A Cultural Attaché may, if so inclined, provide information, hints, tips, etc. Equally, a Commercial Attaché can find listings of possible sponsors.
Second, US Public Diplomacy is intended to highlight American artists, not foreign artists. American taxpayers prefer that their tax dollars go to Americans, not foreigners. Subsidizing foreign artists is too fat a target for State to leave hanging out there for Congressional or media critics.
The general view is that it is more properly the role of the artist’s embassy to fund such programs.
This aversion applies to artists of all stripes–writers, musicians, dancers, etc. Dealing with American artists is hard enough. Prima donnas are high-maintenance. Even more humble artists have requirements (such as how art work is crated, shipped, hung, lighted) that it’s overly burdensome on the bureaucracy and bureaucrats.
Alternatives to commercial sponsors include universities and museums, of course. They have the skills, desire, and budgets to do shows like these.
December:21:2007 - 12:44
I am disappointed. Medieval monarchs spared nothing to attract great foreign artists – it was considered a normal (sometimes critical) function of an ambassador. Our mental images of Washington and Jefferson would be drastically different without the influence of Houdon. In the nineteenth century Congress commissioned the French sculptor Saint-Gaudens for a statue of David Farragut, and a generation later Theodore Roosevelt engaged him to revamp America’s coinage – though by then Congressional opposition to foreign artists had grown so much that Roosevelt referred to this as his “pet crime”.
I think the “Americans-only” emphasis on public art really took hold with the make-work programs of the 1930s, and I’m sure America is poorer for the lessened competition: you need only compare the government-sponsored artwork of the Depression period to the cookie-cutter government work of today to see it. Truly great artists aren’t “national”, they add to the culture of the subjects they portray.
December:21:2007 - 13:06
There’s no shortage of artists of all stripes queuing up to come to the US. The difference is, its those with sufficient funds to make their ways to the US. The free market is also the free marketplace of ideas and visions.
The way that marketplace works is if an artist is sufficiently good to get notice, then more notice come in. ‘The rich get richer’, in other words.
Not to be too blunt, but most ME artists are really quite bad. They get the ‘artistic inspiration’ and ‘individual vision’ parts down, but not the discipline part, where they actually have to produce something others want to see/buy. Those who achieve that discipline find their ways in the marketplace, American or glboal.
December:21:2007 - 13:22
I have to agree with John on the issue of “marketplace.” The global travel and economic dynamics have changed. If the talent has appeal, it has a good chance of attracting its audience.
Besides, I have never been comfortable with the idea of state patronage setting the tone in art and literature. I don’t want some official or politician ramming their choice down my throat, not to mention that many of my favorite authors were banned or imprisoned at one time or another.
Of course, the tyranny of trend-setters and art-critics is not to be dismissed….
December:21:2007 - 13:58
Not to be too blunt, but most ME artists are really quite bad
That’s why personal selection is so important. Houdon, for example, wasn’t nearly as appreciated in France as he was in the U.S. If I was the cultural attaché I’d try to convince the National Gallery to do the inviting and I’d be creative with the sources for funding.
That’s some attitude there, that if an artist is rich enough he or she would automatically come to the U.S.! Why shouldn’t they go to Rome or Paris instead? Besides, great artists are prima donnas and have to be enticed.
I have never been comfortable with the idea of state patronage setting the tone in art and literature.
I agree about the literature part. But it was the historian Louis Mumford who pointed out that city planning is the first function of the executive, and public art is a part of that. Artists like Houdon and Saint-Gaudens were personally wooed and engaged by Presidents or at least Cabinet Secretaries. Athletes and actors attend White House dinners under presidents Democratic and Republican, and I don’t think nationality is the critical factor in receiving an invitation. It would cost virtually nothing to extend the same hospitality to truly exceptional foreign artists.
December:21:2007 - 14:43
As Olive says, the tyranny of trend-setters and critics is formidable, but they are, in fact, the unelected gatekeepers of culture. Until they’re ignored, become obsolete, or out of fashion.
If an artist chooses to go to Paris or Rome, that’s perfectly fine. If they make big enough name there, they’ll find buyers in the US or elsewhere. Some of those buyers may be companies, some may be museums. Artists are all starving artists until they aren’t.
I’ve very strong feelings about spending tax dollars on art. Knowing artists and critics, I’m deeply suspicious that any of them are actually out there for the greater good of mankind. That stuff is fine, but only after the artists, critics, curators, et al. have made it work for their wallets and/or power networks.
The truly exceptional usually get recognized in their lifetimes now. They’re the ones who win international awards (though if the recent history of the Nobel Prizes is any measure, those are of diminishing worth). They’re the ones who get invited to the White House, Buckingham Palace, and the Quay d’Orsay. They get shows in the major museums, or at least the chance to sell their stuff to them.
Consider me crass if you must, but I lose no sleep over the plight of artists other than the ones to whom I’m related. Just ‘tribal’ instincts, I guess…
December:21:2007 - 16:13
Tax dollars are “for the greater good of mankind”? And I thought I was the ideologue here!
So assume tax dollars aren’t being used. This isn’t about nurturing artists. This is about nurturing and communicating culture. Pastels, oils, and charcoal reach audiences other media cannot, precisely because “trend-setters and critics are the unelected gatekeepers of culture”. Therefore a discerning brush should be at least as highly valued courteously treated as a discerning pen.
December:21:2007 - 16:56
No, tax dollars should be spent for the minimal necessary for a developed society. I don’t include art in that minimum, though. I suspect governments spend more to remove graffiti than to acquire new art.
December:22:2007 - 01:02
I don’t believe the state is necessarily good judge of a “discerning brush.” Rather, it is more likely to interpret that in terms of a “politically convenient and well connected” brush.
While occasionally some governments have demonstrated good taste, many also have taken advantage of their power to destroy art, and sculpture if it threatened them. “Degenerate art” anyone?
So on the whole, I repeat my distaste for letting the state be any arbiter of artistic endeavor. Political acumen and good taste are not mutually inclusive talents and I prefer to keep them separate as far as possible.
September:27:2010 - 14:31
Comments and views in this thread are valid in some respects and not so valid in some. I have known the Artist Hanan for over 25 years and can say with all honesty that she is a market leader in her work and range. She is going to be a role model for womankind and will go down in history as “The Artist who brought acceptance and equality to the Female in the world of Art”. earlier this year another one of her work sold for Sterling £43500.00 at Sotheby’s in London
Watch her space and see her profile rise.