Well, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Rita Hatton and John A. Walker’s Supercollector: A Critique of Charles Saatchi, their strident and pedestrian Marxism notwithstanding.[1] Even as a young man I was not a Marxian but a Neo-Hegelian, I hasten to add. Anyway, they show several important things. First, Saatchi is a speculator or trader rather than an art collector. If the elite coveted oriental rugs, objects somewhat closer to his middle-class Iraqi-Jewish origins, he would have traded in them instead of art objects. Second, he has used every legal method, and some others besides, to increase his wealth. The art market, given to inefficiencies of all kinds, such as stupefying secrecy, suited him better in this regard than any other, including advertising. Third, irrespective of his dubious ends and means, Saatchi has influenced the art world to such an extent that it impossible to imagine that world without him. All values are now in question. The only survivors of universal corruption are the artists operating on the margins of society and communicating with it via the graffiti or mail, including facsimile and electronic mail. In sum, Saatchi has brought the art world initiated by the Renaissance to its ultimate impasse. An unwitting savior, Saatchi is the last to corrupt the art world. So, comrades, let us celebrate!

Footnote

1. London: Ellipsis, 2000.