For What It's Worth - Exhibition Catalogue by Laurens Hebly

FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH The Joanna Harkov Collection

For What It’s Worth - The Joanna Harkov Collection Joanna Harkov-Pruzansky harbored a deep interest in the unknown artists of our time. She would scour thrift shops and flea markets looking for discarded artwork; work whose makers aren’t welcomed into the chummy art establishment where money matters more than anything else. She wondered why these works weren’t considered valuable – who decides the value of art anyway? – and made this the theme of a passion-driven research in the last decade of her life. Schatjes, a brand new space for art and events in Amsterdam, is proud to present a number of works from the Joanna Harkov collection. ‘For What It’s Worth’ tells the stories behind the works, about the people that made them. Stories which, through a dedicated pursuit of the artists, Ms. Harkov was able to piece together.

Oudezijds Voorburgwal 119 Souterrain 1012 EN, Amsterdam url: schatjesamsterdam.com Instagram: schatjesamsterdam Facebook: schatjes

Contents of this Catalogue 04 Foreword 09 The Collection 37 On ‘Regardless’ Human Expression - A Treatise 50 Colophon & Acknowledgements

Foreword

In the tail end of the summer of 2013, a peculiar message was left in the inbox of the website where we peddle our pretty nice shirts. “Please provide me with your postal address,” it read, without salutation, “I believe we have similar ideas, and I would like to send you some information about my research.” It was signed ‘Joanna Harkov’, and included her email address. What happened in the next year left us feeling like we’d landed in a modern-day Tintin book. We should start out by saying that, sadly, Joanna Harkov passed away at the age of 93 last November. Although we didn’t manage to meet her; from the people who had been around her in her final years (the executive notary, who handled her will, and Joachim, her grandson and only living relative), we learned that she was a kind and sociable person, but also sharp and to-the-point, and still very much aware of the world around her despite her advanced age. Fraught with its fair share of hardship and tragedy, we were told her life was above all marked by her indomitable spirit. There was also never a wasted moment. Even as she spent her last weeks bedridden in her family mansion, the Odessa Estate in Amherst, New Hampshire (USA), she could often be found deftly working on her iPad – swiping between Wikipedia pages and typing emails – like the device was something she’d grown up with. Writing by hand still had her preference however, and Joachim still possesses a large brown chest that’s filled with handwritten papers, some of them just scraps, related to the eccentric research she conducted during the last ten years of her life. When we emailed her back with our postal address, she wrote us a long letter. “My grandson Joachim brought a friend to the house who was wearing a t-shirt,” she wrote, “your ‘pretty nice’ t-shirt. It made me giggle and I thank you for that. It is not easy to find some comic relief in this sometimes painfully grey world.” We were flattered, of course. “When I looked up your website, I was intrigued: your ideas about embracing imperfection, about ‘pretty niceness’ as you put it, struck a familiar chord with me. In fact, it touches on the very same field that I conduct my research in.” In the following months, we maintained a regular correspondence with Ms. Harkov (we switched to email though). Writing each other around twice a month, we exchanged thoughts on the unknown art of our world, and everything connected to it. A collector of this type of forgotten art, Ms. Harkov shared with us several long passages from a treatise concerning her theory on art value, of which, with her permission, we publish several excerpts in this catalogue.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Joanna Harkov, presumably vacationing in Vermont in the 1970s. She was notoriously apprehensive of having her picture taken. (Photo: O. Pruzansky).

For What Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Vassily Harkov, Joanna’s grandfather, was executed by the Russian Imperial Army in 1909 for mocking Russian army apparel after getting drunk with a band of fellow Cossacks. His family subsequently fled to America, where they were granted asylum.

In the meantime, we had just started discussing the possibilities of renting a historical basement space in Amsterdam, and communicated the idea of starting a gallery to Ms. Harkov. She was delighted, and proposed to send us a small part of her collection that we could exhibit. Seeing it as an amazing opportunity that would save us both time and money, we immediately said ‘yes’. Subsequently, the works you’ll find in this catalogue (and at the exhibition, ‘For What It’s Worth’) were culled from Joanna Harkov’s collection, and sent to us shortly before she passed away in November 2014. In the second part of this catalogue, we have tried to do justice to the most compelling parts of Joanna Harkov’s research. Not affiliated with any academic institutions, her research was privately funded and passion-driven. Her ideas are perhaps unconventional, but touch upon some important questions about art, and the value of art, that – in our opinion – not enough people are asking. Despite its unfinished nature, her theory and ideas are the underlying thread of the exhibition. Where applicable, we have supplemented her writings with some of our own musings and interpretations. We hope to be able to show that, although definitely eccentric, Joanna Harkov has played a refreshing and relevant curatorial role, which, as we would argue, holds a relevant place in the modern-day art world. Joanna Harkov challenges us to critically ponder that world, and to confront the systems that are in place – and the people who propagate them – for determining the price of any particular artistic expression.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

The Harkov family mansion on the “Odessa Estate”. Joanna Harkov’s father, Gregor Harkov, a Russian of Ukrainian descent, took his family to America in 1910. Joanna was born on the estate on May 7th, 1921.

It is hard not to become enthralled, even influenced, by the magical and upbeat characteristics of Joanna Harkov’s personality, shown to us through her writings. We recommend that you let yourself be transported into her wondrous imagination and ignore the ambiguous nature of some of her reasoning; to find that there is fundamental truth behind all the tangents and embellishments, without attaching much importance to how it was arrived at. At the same time, one wonders how relevant it is to the story, to any story, to know some kind of “objective truth” in its most stripped down form. These types of truth are sharp, and they shouldn’t be put too bluntly. And that is perhaps a reason for why we wrap the morals of our world in the most imaginative of stories: it will make them go down more easily. Joanna’s mind was a place where sharply defined thoughts easily blurred into more abstract versions of themselves. Notions about art, music, love, politics, religion and so on: they would bleed into each other, forming one remarkable observation after another, and transporting the reader to places outside of their own rational world. It forces them to look with new eyes at what surrounds them. We hope you find inspiration and appreciation in these thoughts, as we have been able to do. Laurens Hebly and Thijs van Himbergen Founders of Schatjes and curators of ‘For What It’s Worth’ Amsterdam, August 2015

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

The Collection

FML ca. 2000 | Robert Dovedance (UK, 1968) | Acrylics on canvas board

In his work, Robert Dovedance incorporates themes of loneliness and depression in a way that navigates a fine line between literal and metaphorical. This self portrait, titled “FML”, clearly demonstrates that dichotomy, and raises a number of questions. Did Dovedance really vacation alone on Easter Island? And was it actually raining, or did that occur in his head? And what’s the matter, exactly? Isn’t Easter Island supposed to be a wonderful place? These questions aptly touch upon the unfathomable and fleeting aspect of his work: before the viewer receives any answers, Dovedance has already taken his foul mood to a different exotic location.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Lady/Laundry 2011 | Kris Belich (USA, 1966) | Acrylics on wooden board

At the intersection between gender identity and the poststructuralist questioning of conventional narrative discourse is where Kris Belich would like zhir work (the artist insists on the gender-neutral pronouns developed by Gayatri Spivak) to be placed. There can be no doubt that the artist is trying to incorporate many theories concerning possibly fourth wave feminism in this particular work from 2011. An enigmatic smile recalls La gioconda, and the artful juxtaposition of underwear and the pastoral haze evinced by the brushstrokes directly comments on the male gaze and its commodification of the female form, as well as the stereotyping of the female as “she who does the laundry”.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Joanna Harkov writes: “The theory complicates when looking on this work with ‘fresh’ eyes. If I hadn’t read zhir emails, would I assume “Kris” was a man? Without the theory, how is it possible to see the difference between the discourse and the work? “I can still clearly recall a passage from one of zhir emails, because it seemed to invoke the very soul of the work, as if trying to animate it like some kind of golem, only awaiting the right glyph to give it life. The incantation reads thusly: “‘Hacker, Wollstonecraft, Boudica, Greer but not Paglia, Millet but not Beauvoir.’”

Dan and Beverley Levy 1969 | Maia Kristofferson (Denmark, 1940) | Acrylics on canvas

Retold from Joanna Harkov’s notes: In the summer of 1969, Danish artist Maia Kristofferson was commissioned by the newlywed couple Dan and Beverley Levy to paint their honeymoon portrait. They spent the weekend together at Kristofferson’s farm in Tenerife. Kristofferson purportedly created this portrait under the influence of mescaline. Beverley, aged 66 at the time, was 41 years older than her husband Dan, who had just turned 25, making for an unusual and somewhat uneasy relationship. For Kristofferson, Beverley embodied the emancipation movement taking place in the late 60’s; women of all ages breaking free from traditional sexual norms and choosing alternative lifestyles and unconventional life partners. Dan, the young gallant

male, has now become the object of desire, being the ‘plaything’ of a clearly empowered woman. The work, done in lively brush strokes that create a mesmerizing pattern of colors and light, suggests youthfulness and the rejuvenating effect of sexual attraction. The awkwardly positioned couple seem to portray the balance of power in their relationship, with Beverley at the front looking sternly at the viewer, whilst Dan, behind her, dons a clown’s nose which hints at his silly demeanor and ability (if not function) to entertain with playful abandon. An example of late-expressionist painting (but ahead of its time), the work discretely characterizes the constant shifting of the traditional power balance between the genders.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

The 5 million second rule ca. 1980 | Pablo Cortez (Spain, 1950) | Acrylics on wood, porcelain, wax

The 5 million second rule captures the irreversible moment when a plate of food is dropped. The dramatic shattering of the formerly perfectly circular porcelain disc and the forgone promise of a tummy filled: the situation lends itself to comedic interpretation. Is the food hastily scooped up and reluctantly eaten? However, the artist of the piece, Pablo Cortez, was not trying to be funny. As he wrote to Joanna Harkov after meeting her in Boston in 1987, Cortez was working at an advertising agency in Kyoto (Japan) in the early 80s, and a commercial for microwave meals (a luxurious new kitchen possibility at the time) required realistic-looking food that wouldn’t spoil on set. Sampuru, the Japanese art of sculpting figures from wax and plastic, provided the solution.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Having grown up on an Iberian pig farm near Seville, Cortez was appalled by the idea of halting the transient nature of organic materials. He saw in Sampuru the perfect symbol for the new wave of rubbery, flavorless conveyor belt meals that microwave technology was giving rise to. In protest, he snuck an Indian curry sample and a table prop off the set and made this piece. With the food unscathed, Cortez creates a frozen moment in time; a hyperreality where the temporality of being is questioned. Could it be possible that, one day, the preservatives in our food will allow us to escape our temporal states of being? To preserve our youth, to be immortal? And if so, wouldn’t that shatter the perfectly circular event that is life?

Stillness in the Dark ca. 1970 | Patrick M. Gimbel (USA, ca. 1898 - 1979) | Acrylics on canvas, wood (frame)

Patrick Gimbel painted with little regard for traditional aesthetics. The scene of this still life is barely lit, making it near-impossible to distinguish the composition of the objects. From speaking with his daughter, Joanna Harkov surmises that Gimbel intentionally made darkness the subject of this work; using lack of light as a theme to characterize the troubling times of the energy crisis which struck the Western developed countries in the 1970s.

If we let our future be dictated by the demands of energy consumption, we risk slipping into darkness and being erased from history. Gimbel does hint at a solution with the colorful, floral patterns of the frame. Perhaps he is asking the viewer to reach for the light, and to secure a better future by living in peace with nature.

Yet there seems to be a little glimpse of hope on the horizon, and Gimbel is expressing that this can be found if we can reach the outer boundaries of our capabilities, symbolized by the bright floral patterns on the frame of the painting. Stillness in the Dark seems a testimony to the human journey, and the crossroad on our evolutionary path.

For What Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

#RIP #Blessed 2010 | Alicia Parker-Blum (USA, 1978) | Acrylics on canvas panel

“Can we continue to live online when we die offline? (1/37)” artist Alicia Parker-Blum asks in a multi-tweet eulogy for her late cyberhusband Rick Blum. “Can we speak of a relationship when the man behind the character that your character deeply loves in naught more but a static Facebook profile?” She has no simple answer: “It’s complicated. When I married Rick in World of Warcraft, he was a level 44 Paladin Dwarf and I was a level 27 Pandaren Rogue. [...] But digital love knows no levels, and we all get slain sooner or later anyway. [...] But when the real Rick passed away, his character briefly lived on: standing there, freshly respawned, just outside the headquarters of our Guild. [...] His polygonated chest still moving from the breaths he is programmed to draw, his massive axe gently swaying by his side. [...] He was there as a hopeful reminder that #death and #love, in this modern day and age, are relative concepts.”

Although they never met in real life, Alicia and Rick fell in love online. A colorful range of characters – not on a dragon-slaying mission for once – attended their in-game wedding ceremony at the waterfall near the Hillsbrad Foothills. Naturally, the characters were overcome with grief when, only a few months later, Rick’s mother posted the sad news of his passing on his Facebook profile. Under it, we can still see the real Rick’s last status update: “Pulling an all-nighter to defeat C’thun. Who says you can’t live on energy drinks and cigarettes?!”

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Color by Plumbers XIV 2011 | Don LaJoya (USA, 1970) | Acrylics on board, sink and plunger

“We all wear a mask,” Don LaJoya writes in an extensive email. “Mine is that of a plumber. But there’s more to me, there’s more to everyone. We don’t fit into these traditional singular categories anymore. We don’t paint inside the lines. Our brains are spilling over with all the little bits of knowledge we have these days, because of Wikipedia and whatnot. And it makes us better people, more rounded. Did you know, for example, that roughly 1 out of 10 males is colorblind? With females, that’s much less. [...] I am not colorblind myself, but it’s just an example of something that I know that has nothing to do with plumbing. We’re all filled with information like this.”

own words, his project tries to deal with “today’s overflow of information” and the “clogging of the mind with knowledge”. “There are times when I want to put a plunger on my ear and drain that old cranium,” LaJoya writes, “flush it all out, you know? But you can’t do that. I read somewhere that that’s really dangerous.”

In his free time, LaJoya uses the old sinks and faucets he encounters in his job to make an ever-expanding series of artworks called ‘Paint by Plumbers’. In his

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

OKAY Ongoing since 2014 | Shelbert Farley (UK, 1988) | Paper, glue

“Validation comes from repetition, innit?” street artist Shelbert Farley notes during our phone interview with him. “When people see something three, four, five times in different settings, they start to think it must be about something. Repeating it validates it in people’s minds.” He is referring to his “OKAY” design: an expressionless, sideburned man, done in contrasting black and white. Under it, in bold lettering, the word “OKAY”. Instances of the work can be found pasted onto buildings in and around Farley’s hometown of Little Waltham, UK.

probably important. An’ he stores it. So the repetition makes it a valid statement.” But why this expressionless, sideburned man? “The image itself is secondary,” Farley admits. “It’s just some bloke!” he adds, and laughs. “It’s about the repetition. That’s what validates ‘im. You just ‘ave to repeat something a lot. Repetition is what matters. Repetition leads to validation.”

“Our eyes don’t ‘ave screensavers, do they?” continues Farley, “So when they see a single image they will burn that image onto our, our whatsits, our retinas. Then our brain sees it an’ thinks: ‘Ey! This is

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Cat & Mouse ca.1985-89 | Adrienne Winters (USA, 1944) | Acrylics and ink on wood

Cat & Mouse is a work in a series of paintings titled “Frame Within a Frame.” Painted over the greater part of the 1980s, Winters explored dichotomies and the crucial relationships found in opposition. A longtime friend of Reagan campaign manager William Casey, she credited their relationship with inspiring many of the themes found in her works. Cat & Mouse was painted for him, although he died before the work was finished. Most of the works in the series have links to Cold War geopolitics seen through a personal lens. Cat & Mouse shows the much larger predator, the cat, in peaceful coexistence with the mouse, its natural prey. What is unclear is whether the position of the mouse atop the cat denotes control or moral superiority. In either case, this shows an empowerment of the member in the relationship that is commonly

underestimated. The cat, the enemy, is at peace with the mouse, who is not afraid but calm and composed. In fact, it even seems to be snoozing. The fact that Winters signed the piece and specifically intended the work for Casey lends weight to the theory that this was a far more important and personal work for Winters. Whether Winters or Casey is represented by the cat or the mouse is impossible to determine, though the severity of the outer frame—constraining the inner frame, trapping both subjects in a cold, steel box—speaks to the lack of freedom and constrained context in which the peaceful, friendly relationship in the painting exists.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Drip Up / Crying Monkey (Collaboration) 2008 | Tamara dal Pozzo (UK, 1996) and Toni Cruceanu (Romania, 1997) | Acrylics and gouache on canvas

Ahh, summer... Toni Cruceanu and Tamara dal Pozzo met in July 2008, at a summer camp near the Plitvice Lakes, Croatia. They were 11 and 12, respectively. Tamara writes an account of the meeting over e-mail, which we relate here. The artwork Tamara and Toni made in Arts and Crafts shared a careless, drippy quality, and sparks unavoidably flew between the two preteens. Tamara was Toni’s first kiss, and if we don’t count that one time when Tamara briefly locked lips with Ashaf, back home in London a few months before – no tongue involved! – Toni was hers too.

grew, his friends changed. Tamara, too, was soon absorbed back into her regular life. Now 20, she still thinks about that summer occasionally. When she does, she can’t help but smile. One of these times, Ashaf noticed her and it made him smile. “What’s making you smile, my love?” he asked with affection. “Oh,” she answered, meeting his eyes, “I’m just happy.”

They vowed to stay in touch, and to meet again. It was true love, after all, but there was also that stultifying distance. When Toni got back to Romania, high school quickly changed his priorities. His hair

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

For What Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Untitled Self Portraits Early 2000s | Carl Braun (USA, 1935) | Acrylics on board

Retold from Joanna Harkovâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s notes: Four self portraits by Carl Braun, presented in chronological order. Braun was a bus driver during the day, and painted himself in the evenings. The fourth portrait shows him without a tie: he had retired by that time. Throughout his life, you can see how his technical skill increases. What also increases, in both size and menace, is the subject on the background. Did Carl realize that he was in danger? Or did vanity prevent him from seeing the reality? According to his wife Jane, with whom Joanna Harkov corresponded, Carl disappeared shortly after painting the rightmost portrait.

For What Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

POOT! ca. 2000 | Donna Ask (USA, 1958) | Pastels on paper

Joanna Harkov writes: “Donna Ask captures the diminutive freedoms of life in technically adept pastel crayon sketches. Organically laid down in vibrant colors, the subject is possibly the artist herself in a moment of blissful solitude; a state sometimes desired by even the most outgoing among us.

“Initially the scene can make the viewer feel like an involuntary voyeur. This discomfort only grows with the realization that, by her willingness to depict this very human occurrence so unabashedly, Ask subtly shifts the embarrassment toward us and our prudeness.”

“Transcending embarrassment, ‘POOT!’ is honest to the point of self-deprecation. Wearing only an apron, the subject engages in what is seen as our most humorously banal taboos: the act of passing gas.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Self Portrait 2001 | Joyce Saunderson (USA, 1963) | Acrylics, cloth on canvas

Joyce Saunderson moved to Islamabad from Tucson, Arizona in 1999 to marry Ahmed Bashir, the love of her life. She quickly realized that to adapt, she would have to give up certain freedoms as she knew them. Joyce’s upbringing included art classes and she used these to externalize her internal conflicts.

“You can look underneath the veil, if you want. That was essential to me, somehow. I was able to live with the idea that I would be mostly covered, as long as there was something ephemeral, something temporary about the covering. My husband didn’t object and I kept it in the house.

“Just before September 11th,” she tells Joanna Harkov, “I was struggling with my conversion to islam and especially Sura 33:53-54, which is used as the justification for wearing a face veil. I disagreed with the interpretation, but it was useless to object, really. I didn’t want to leave my husband or Pakistan, so I had to find a way to deal with this.”

The situation in the country got steadily worse though, and eventually we left for America. On the plane, I took off my veil. My husband said: ‘When in Rome…’ and that was the end of it.”

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Joyce gave the painting to Joanna after meeting her in New Hampshire in 2012.

Untitled Triptych (“The Baubelbear”) Year unknown | Jason H. Maas (USA, ca. 1960) | Acrylics on wood

Joanna Harkov bought this work at a thrift shop in Basel, Switzerland, and tracked down Reynold Garland, an old college friend of Jason H. Maas: “Jason had been the talk of a reunion he hadn’t attended. I remembered how he used to make attempts at famous paintings by Matisse and Gauguin. A hobby at best, but more likely an affectation. The story was that he was now painting in Switzerland. [...] I managed to get in touch with him and we arranged to meet at his apartment in Basel, where he had been recovering from an alleged sunstroke he had picked up in his travels.” “He was vague and distracted. I remember telling him off for leaving a good job in marketing to blow his trust fund travelling around Europe. He claimed to have seen “the Baubelbear,” some sort of space

alien. That was a secret name, he told me: he shouldn’t have told me that name.” “I remember exactly what happened after that: ‘Is this him?’ I asked, pointing at an orange creature he’d painted into two of his old paintings. ‘No, this is what he appears as if you ignore the higher space topologies he can inhabit,’ Jason told me. But then his face lit up. ‘You know what, that’s what’s missing… that third dimension,’ and he starts splattering white paint onto a black canvas, ignoring me, saying it’s like ‘learning perspective all over again.’” “So I left, but visited again the next day. He didn’t answer the door. After a week, I convinced the landlord to open the apartment: there was no trace of Jason, or any of his paintings. And I haven’t heard from him since.”

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

For What Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Salad Ingredients in an Architectural Space ca. 1975 | Heinrich von Braam (Austria, ca. 1950) | Acrylics on canvas

Von Braam suspends various vegetables in space, contrasting the softness and warmth of organic forms and hues with the stark, frigid atmosphere of structural patterns. Von Braam was part of the Austrian New Wave movement of the late 1970’s till mid 1980’s. The New Wave hit the streets of Vienna as the punk music scene also began to take hold of the city’s cultural life. Von Braam, having moved to Vienna from farm life in the rural mountain town of Wiener Neustadt, now found himself surrounded by the impressive, symmetrical buildings of the city. Although initially taken by their geometric beauty, which inspired his paintings of that period, he eventually experienced a sharp pang of contrast with the natural, organic forms he knew from his hometown and his youth. A deepening frustration grew inside him for purely

geometric shapes, and he found himself constantly striving to create more disorder from the seeming orderly ways of the urban environment. Von Braam’s vegetarian lifestyle then started to permeate through many of the architectural paintings he was creating at the time, with vegetables being symbols for nature’s variety and wholesomeness. For him, it was the key in breaking the geometric order; “mixing it up,” as he told Joanna Harkov in his letters, “like salad”.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Untitled Year unknown | Artist unknown | Pencil, watercolor on paper.

Joanna Harkov’s notes state that this painting was purchased at a garage sale in Traverse City, Michigan, in 2004. She muses that the unknown subject of this painting was most certainly a handsome woman of great poise, yet the relationship between her and the artist was undoubtedly one of lust and not emotion. The artist shows some difficulty dealing with this, crowning her with a halo and having her hair radiate from her visage, yet the effect is quite the opposite.

clinging to her torso: the woman beneath is barely concealed.” “The focus on her body rather than her face does not belie a misogyny in the work,” Harkov continues. “This piece is truly a labor of love. It is the darkness of the hair, the off-color halo, shoddily slapped above her head, and the deep deadness of the eyes that show the artist does not understand the mind of this woman, or who she really is beyond her corporeal form. The use of color speaks to how this troubles them.”

“Beauty is not pushed outwards, rather the viewer is drawn inwards, to the dark, hollow eyes and disfigured face. This is an effort to hide the artist’s true concern, her body. Here is where the style, technique, and love truly come into their own. The curve of her breast, the bodice of her dress

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Woman, Child and Bananas Late 70s / early 80s | Joeloung (Yugoslavia, ca. 1950) | Acrylics on canvas

Under the pseudonym Joeloung, Serbian patent clerk and feminist Milica Petrović created a small number of artworks concentrating on the topic of single parenting. Yugoslavia’s late 70s surge in divorce rates had men often abandoning their traditional roles as parents.

orange give the scene a lively and resilient character. The feeling that radiates from this scene is that the love between mother and child can overcome hardships, and that, in any case, bananas are aplenty.

Petrović, outraged by the behavior of her sister’s husband, painted this powerful scene of mother and daughter at the pinnacle of their loneliness. The husband is diminished to a banana in a bowl; perhaps a phallic reference, perhaps left there by him as a cynical prank. In any case, it implies the reason behind the separation; the second banana suggests that foul play, or even a change of sexual preference, may have brought this relationship to an end. The copious use of red and the warm yellows and

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Untitled 2001 | “Frank” (USA, Birth year unknown) | Acrylics on wood

This 2001 monochrome work accumulates interpretations like some artworks collect dust. Is it a sea lion in an intimate embrace with a celery stalk? Is that celery crushing a spider? And if it is, why? The enigmatic artist known only as “Frank”, told his story to Joanna Harkov by letter. He related how he, a dedicated ‘fat acceptance activist’, became increasingly interested in the 1920’s murder case surrounding comedian Roscoe Conkling “Fatty” Arbuckle. A young socialite died under mysterious circumstances in the comedian’s hotel room. Salacious rumours that she suffocated while in an intimate embrace with the popular comedian destroyed his career, despite the fact that he was fully exonerated. The public had already made up their mind.

writes, “I don’t know where ideas come from. That’s just how I’ve always seen it. She was a celery and he was an innocent sea lion and it was later proven that they didn’t have relations. I’m quite heavy, of course, but I’ve been with smaller women and I didn’t crush them. That’s what I wanted to convey. It’s a picture of a debonair and charming sea lion, who managed to get this celery sexually interested in him through the sheer force of his personality. You, the viewer, are walking in and his face seems to say: ‘Yeah, I’m a sexually active adult and this is a consensual situation. Please close the door.’”

“I don’t know why it’s a sea lion and a celery,” Frank

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Trans Former 1989 | Kevin Freudenberg (GDR, 1930) | Construction paper, glue

Were it not for the fact that his uncle in the second degree was Hans-Jürgen P. Walter, Trans Former may never have found its way into anybody’s collection. Freudenberg’s work was peripherally related to efforts to popularize Gestalt psychotherapy in the GDR. Whereas at first glance the egalitarian themes may have appealed to the state, today it is seen as one of the “embryonic therapeutic practices that diverged from the dominant socialist paradigm” (Leuenberger, 2001: “Socialist psychotherapy and its dissidents”). Freudenberg was enlisted by his distant uncle’s compatriots to make artwork for the pamphlets they distributed to the psychology departments in the East. These two panels remain, but there may have been hundreds more. Unremarkable in composition and color, the entire point is that the work be taken as an insignificant part in a significant whole. Once the

background for what could have become a powerful series of pamphlets, the Wall fell, dashing the movement into obscurity and irrelevance. The works were added to the Harkov collection with documents relating to Freudenberg’s October 1989 arrest. Listed as contraband on one report were several BetaMax tapes of “Transformers,” dated 1986. Among the episodes, the character Swindle was prominently featured. The color scheme of the robot matches the works, and it is undeniable that Swindle was a capitalist before all else. This, combined with the fact that the character is literally part of a larger, more powerful robot, was cited by the arresting officer as reason to see Freudenberg as a subversive agent of the West, bent on the overthrow of the Democratic Republic. Freudenberg died in prison of unknown causes on November 8, 1989.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Untitled (Still Life with Book, Mug, Another Mug, Pen, Plate, Drying Laundry, Holy Grail & Tesseract) Year unknown | F.W. Carstairs (USA, 1949) | Acrylics on canvas

F. W. Carstairs’ 2007 painting is a bit of a curiosity. The mundane descriptive title of this artwork belies the depth of feeling and artistry with which these ordinary everyday objects are depicted. Working in what must be a deliberate pastiche of a ‘naive’ style, Carstairs at first seems to suggest a simple domestic scene. But look closer and you’ll see a certain beauty in the simplicity of the style and composition. A few completely unremarkable objects are arranged in such a way as to draw the viewer’s eye to the first chair, at the front. The observer’s viewpoint is supposed to be close, but not identical to the person sitting in the chair, who is tellingly not pictured. Then, across from the careful composition of knick knacks: another chair, also empty. This is obviously an appeal to the viewer’s sense of moral outrage. “Where

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

is your god now?”, it seems to say with its stark intersecting lines, recalling a tapestry whose warp and woof consists of the very days of our lives. And this is all before the rich imagery in the back of the painting is taken into account. Laundry is hanging to dry on a single line, yet the brushstrokes and the intense numinous quality of the depiction can only be a reference to the richness of the American immigrant experience. Regardless, it is exactly this complete banality of the objects that draws the viewer in and allows him to see the wealth of meaning underneath.

Who’s afraid of Black, Yellow and Blue? 2009 | Fred Myckoff (USA, 1961 - 2009) | Acrylics on paper

The myth of the Big Bad Wolf ran like a worrying thread through Fred Myckoff’s life. A professor of Cultural and Historical Studies at a small private college in upstate New Jersey in the 1990s, Myckoff wrote extensively on the various tropes found in Slavic and Germanic mythology. He was never published, and the struggling college folded a mere three years after its founding in 1992. Myckoff spent the following years trying to hawk his writings to various publications. Eventually Myckoff, paranoid and frantic, was admitted to the Essex County Hospital in 2005. It was here that he took up painting. The ham-handed execution of this work is striking. The muddied colors, the obfuscation of the trees by

what could be a mist, and actually including a wolf in the composition: for an academic who taught the subtleties of fear lurking in hard-to-see places, there is certainly very little subtle about this piece. But Myckoff had no more patience for subtleties. As he struggled to make sense of his condition, he began to do away with the allegories and tropes. The wolf gained increasing prominence in his paintings, and it eventually became clear that Myckoff had a deep-seated fear of dogs. The fact that the one stable friend in his life was his Bouvier Ike, showed how deep his phobia ran, and how tragically paradoxical it was. Myckoff died at the Overbrook Asylum in 2009, still unpublished.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Woman (Some Assembly Required) IV 2013 | Ugne Jorgumandsdottir (Iceland, 1984) | Chamotte clay

Ugne Jorgumandsdottir’s work references the female torso of the Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles, the 4th century B.C. Greek sculptor whose work was so seminal, it introduced the concept of the female nude. This coincided with a renewed poetic appreciation of the female as an object of desire after years when the prevalent attitude in Greek society was that women had no souls and love was only possible between men. In her time, the Aphrodite of Knidos was as famous as the Mona Lisa today, although it was her “dewy-eyed” gaze, as described by the writers of antiquity, that most impressed worshippers.

intent of the work and forgoing the deteriorating effect of time. From an email conversation with her: “I was like, a woman has other body parts, you know? It’s insluting [sic] to just depict her as a torso, you know?” On Praxiteles, she writes: “It’s just so typical for some ancient Greek guy to completely dehumanize women; they were so all about that. This guy was probably gay or something and my art is a protest against that, and also, in general.”

Jorgumandsdottir apparently took exception to the current state of the statue, which is missing its head and various limbs, reading some sort of political point in it, and possibly misunderstanding the original

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Some Men See Butter Fly 1980 | Thomas Green (Ireland, 1952) | Acrylics on canvas, butterfly

Retold from Joanna Harkov’s notes:

other. But their lips never touch.

Judging from deacon Thomas Green’s diary there was always an uneasy tension between him and bishop Samuel Henry Eames, of the Holy Trinity Cathedral of Downpatrick, not far south of Belfast.

“At that exact moment, with a wispy grace,” Green writes on March 16th, “a single, blue butterfly gently touched down on the very tip of the bishop’s nose. Immediately, I had to think of the shamrock, this version not with three heart-shaped leaves and green, but with two heart-shaped wings and vibrantly blue. It was as if Saint Patrick himself was reminding us of the Holy Trinity. Reminding us that, with the love of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit between us, there is no place for the earthly, desirous love between two men.”

“The bishop has cast glances at me, and I am convinced they are glances of desire. Forgive me Lord, for I believe that tomorrow I shall cast one back at him.” (February 3, 1980) Not long after this entry the two men are poring over a map with the route for the upcoming St. Patrick Day’s parade (the saint is said to be buried on the grounds of the Downpatrick Cathedral), when, “in a confusing moment, where it was unclear who initiated, or why,” the two clerics lean in to kiss each

Green left the cathedral shortly thereafter, took up painting, and became a high school teacher in Bath, UK.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Untitled Year unknown | Terry Lench (USA, 1962) | Watercolor on paper, aquarium, polyester props, pebbles.

Terry Lench was crazy about boats, and ships, and the sea. His ex-partner, a former sailor named Randall Stern, told Joanna Harkov how Terry would wax lyrical about waves, the ocean’s salty spray and the freshness of a sea breeze in his face. He loved the open water more than anything.

Randall explains, “Terry just loved being surrounded by objects related to ships, and the sea.” Lench drowned in 1999 while swimming off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

A daytime harbor employee, Terry operated the cranes that would load cargo onto the ships. After work, when his co-workers had gone home and the noise and bustle had died down, Lench would take out his watercolors and paint the scenery at his favorite time of day. He combined his paintings with various objects to make water-themed collages. In this one, a watercolor of a docked ship was mounted behind an aquarium. “These constructions had no real meaning to him,”

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

On ‘Regardless’ Human Expression

[Editorial note: a small selection from the first chapter, and the epilogue, of Joanna Harkov’s treatise is published here with her permission, in order to give a glimpse into her complex, chaotic, but wonderful mind. Comments by the editors/curators appear in editorial notes as this one. The rest of this treatise is – for reasons of clarity, brevity or inconclusiveness – redacted, omitted or otherwise adulterated.]

On ‘Regardless’ Human Expression The Determining and Manufacturing of Art Value A Treatise by J. Harkov

[Editorial note: To illustrate the scope of the research ambitions underlying Joanna Harkov’s treatise, we publish here an excerpt from her preliminary draft of the Table of Contents (without page numbers to avoid confusion).]

Introduction by the Author 1. The Valuation of Art 1.1 ‘Regardless’ Human Expression 1.1.1 Definition 1.1.2 Methodology 1.1.2.α Sample and Data Collection 1.1.2.β ‘Experiential Snowballing’ 1.1.2.γ Inductive Reasoning: the Logical Positivists’ Fallacy 1.1.3 Limitations of this Research 1.1.4 Margins, Grey Areas and Common Grounds 1.1.5 Art, art, and “Art” 1.2 Determining the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Values of Regardless Human Expression 1.2.1 Variables of Value 1.2.1α Monetary Value 1.2.1β Emotional Value 1.2.1γ Other Factors 1.2.3 Monetary Value vs. Emotional Value 1.2.4 The Harkov Equation 1.2.5 Venn Diagram: Public Appreciation of Artistic Expression 1.2.6 Flowchart Charting Buyer’s Decision Flow 1.2.7 Musings on the Harkov Equation 1.3 Art Value and its Discontents 1.3.1 Questions about Identity Raised 1.3.2 Questions about Identity Dismissed 1.3.3 “Identity” - the Failure of Theoretical Intent 1.3.4 Amalgamated Synthesis of Identity Issues 1.3.5 Art Value and Identity Revisited from a Holistic Perspective 2. Increasing the Value of Art 2.1 Inverse Boosting (Depreciation) 2.1.1 Sarcasm, 90s Referencing and Punnery (“Baby don’t Hirst me”) 2.1.2 Vandalism as Commentary 2.1.3 The Critic as the Vandal 2.2 Methods of Art Value Boosting 2.2.1 Appreciation Manipulation of the Piece by the Artist 2.2.1.1 Ownership 2.2.1.2 Acquisition and Appropriation

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

2.2.1.2α A Word on Manipulation by the Curator 2.2.1.4 Message Manipulation by a Second-Tier Artist 2.2.1.5 Medium Manipulation/Alteration by a Second-Tier Artist 2.2.1.6 A Word on Literal vs. Figurative Reframing 2.2.1.6α The “Space” 2.2.1.6β The Space 2.2.2 Manipulation of the Narrative by the Artist 2.2.2.α Background Story / Biography 2.2.2.β Positing Historical Significance 2.3 Appreciation Boosting (“Hyping”) 2.3.1 Methods 2.3.1α The ‘Chain of Increasing Returns’ 2.3.1β Inducing FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) 2.3.1γ Derivative Merchandise 2.3.1∂ Partial Derivative Merchandise 2.3.2 Actors 2.3.2α Boosting by the Artist 2.3.3β Boosting by the Critic 2.3.4γ Boosting by the Curator 2.3.5∂ Boosting by the Audience (Social Currency) 2.3.5∂-a Online (Social Media Appreciation/Like Economy) 2.3.5∂-b Offline (Word of Mouth) 2.3.5∂-c Testimonials 2.3.5∂-c/1 “Fake” 2.3.5∂-c/2 Fake/Real [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Introduction by the Author

Good day, This treatise shall not concern the question of what art is, as it is a preposterous question that, to me, implies a laughable foolishness on the side of the asker and/or a worrying disinterest in the intricate workings of the ethereal human mind. More generally, it ignores the biology of – and parasitic/symbiotic relationship with – the carnal receptacle that this mind inhabits. It is neither in my interest, nor in anyone’s really, to get involved with this type of quasi-philosophical poppycock or any derivative of it. If, however, this is your particular perverse proclivity, I can recommend reading ‘Corporate acquisitions’ by Jemison and Sitkin1 and some of the later research by Haspeslagh and Farquhar2, but certainly not anything by Gompertz. Instead, this treatise will assume that “art” is everything (or nothing), and everything is art (unless it is nothing (in which case, sometimes, it may still be art)), and in the event that some entity may claim art to be another thing altogeher; I hereby lay the burden of proof on said claimant, and hope to have passed before I am drawn into yet another tedious and irrelevant discussion. If I seem angry or rude here, it is because of a personal matter. You see, the discussion is not interesting to me for the simple reason that I do not have the time for it, and I mean that quite literally. I am 93 years old, and my own carnal mind-receptacle has turned against me. Simply put: I am rapidly approaching the infamous ‘end of the road’. I want to spend my remaining days like I spent my long life: to the fullest. I will be working on my ideas in the most efficient way possible, and I will communicate only with people and thinkers who help me realize as much of a full-bodied theory as I can possibly muster up before my candle is snuffed out by the relentless breeze of time. This treatise, then, concerns itself with the market value of all saleable artistic expressions, which is to say: all expressions. Specifically however, I focus on what I call Regardless Human Expression. The term, with its seemingly equivocal use of the word ‘regardless’, is what I use to describe the product of a human expressing themselves regardless of any convention, simply for the reason that they feel they must. This is true for almost any known artist, but certainly also for a large number of the so-called amateurs. For them, this practice results in work that disregards any societal conventions or professional considerations. To the outside, it may sometimes be perceived as epigonism (the imitating of another’s art or ideas), but discarding it as that, without questioning the motives of the maker, forgoes questions that are, in my view, relevant to the further understanding of the human condition. Why my interest in the second-tier artist, the imitator, the amateur? I see things this way: if an ‘artist’ is someone who uses that which is around them as a medium to make art (like van Gogh used the paints given to him by his brother, or Damien Hirst used ‘the medium of money’ to glue thousands of diamonds onto a human skull), then why should “other people’s ideas” not be a medium in and of itself? I believe this is why the epigonist is often confused for a cheap imitator who lacks original thought. The epigonist, however, employs another’s ideas in their own quest for validation, using it as a medium by which to formulate expressions that can be regarded as their own.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Can a sentence only be powerful when it is uttered for the first time, and only by its author? Of course not. Similarly, should art not be equally quotable as language? Knowing that the border between inspiration and plagiarism isn’t clearly defined, who can truly guard it, let alone judge it? In other words: where jurisprudence is a flexible and subjective – yet vital – part of law, should epigonism, similarly, be subjected to ‘artisprudence’?3 These are questions for others to answer, although they do run like a philosophical thread through my research. In this treatise, I focus on determining the value of forgotten works of art, and I introduce the beginnings of an equation that aims to do so. It’s turned out to be a rather ambitious enterprise; conceptualizing the endlessly ponderable cloud of interconnected variables which forms the core of my research. It is this equation (which I egocentrically dubbed the Harkov Equation, for posterity purposes), that I hope will inspire some to embark on a quest of discovering a catch-all system able to conclusively demonstrate the folly of those who, under the guise of being ‘connoisseurs of art’, spend, or advise others to spend, many millions on a work that is, at best, worth no more than the catalogue value of the materials used in making it. All that remains now, is a ‘thank you’ to you, my reader, whom I hope will pursue and be inspired by the questions that I lay out here, and further them by way of targeted peer-topeer review and debate. Science is truly the only religion in which we don’t matter, and so it must be the only way to answer the questions that do. Yours,

Jemison, D. B., & Sitkin, S. B. (1986). Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 145-163.

Haspeslagh, P. C., & Farquhar, A. B. (1994). The acquisition integration process: a contingent framework. 1994) The management of corporate acquisitions. Macmillan Press Ltd. London.

Author’s note: Ironically, I can’t for the life of me remember whether this tiresome aphorism was my own invention or cribbed from one of my sources.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

1. The Valuation of Art

[Editorial note: we omit section 1.1 in its entirety and trust the reader will have surmised the meaning behind ‘Regardless Human Expression’ from the Introduction by the Author.] 1.2 Determining the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Values of Regardless Human Expression It is posited in this treatise that the market value of any given piece of human4 expression (from now on, for simplicity’s sake: ‘work of art’) can be determined mathematically by quantifying different aspects of that work and its maker in four dimensions, including but not limited to social, historical, economical, geographical and contextual elements, entering them into the Harkov equation, and subsequently solving for ‘X’. Why four dimensions? The assumption here is that time is quite simply the universe folding into itself, creating a dimensional frame, as is expertly detailed in the latest advancements in Brane theory.5 Think of a four-dimensional universe as a crystal growing in fluidal torus, itself suspended in Hypertime of sorts. While science may still be at the stage of defining the different dimensional classes, and while this process may never end due the theorized existence of an unlimited number of dimensions (for purposes that have common ground with what post-post-structuralist Levi Staubenfluss calls “insignificality”6), I shall from here on out assume ‘time’ to be the fourth dimension and use this assumption in any following reasoning. Time holds the highest relevance to the theory, as it involves a direct link with the value progression of any given work. The most fitting conception of time as relates to this is the basic Buddhist units of “Kalpa” (aeon) and “Ksana” (a millisecond, in which at least 900 things may begin or end nonetheless), both of which are as nothing in the mind of the Buddha. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche of the Kagyu tradition describes it thusly: ”Until concepts are exhausted, there is time and you make preparations; however, you should not grasp onto time as truly existent, and you should know that within the essential nature of Mahamudra, time does not exist.”7 So, put differently: does it really matter? Let us at least try to consider this theory as releasing us from time and space. 1.2.1 Variables of Value Before one can determine the market value, or worth (these denominators can generally be used interchangeably) of an art piece, one must grasp the discrepancies between the different kinds of ‘value’. For brevity’s sake, and to leave it to others who come after me to fuss over the details in the margins of my research, I’ll rather roughly divide all denominators into two large groups here: monetary value and emotional value. Monetary value is the final output of the Harkov equation, emotional value is one of the value groups (or variable string networks, for which n=0, see ‘Methodology’ for the network

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

decision flow tree) that is fed into it. The remaining groups are not insignificant nor are they excluded, but instead, and for the time being, they can be safely incorporated into these two main groups without obtaining significantly differing results, which, in order to simplify matters somewhat, I have done here. 1.2.1α Monetary Value (‘X’) Monetary value derives in principle from the cost of materials used for the work – such as acrylics or oil paint, watercolors, gouache or pastels, but also paper, canvas, gypsum, clay, or marmalade, and so on – to which is added logistical costs and expenditures for transport and handling as well as PR costs incurred by the artist to others, and by others incurred to the artist, as well as a percentage of the costs for management next to the manager’s periodic retainer and, generally, legal representation for all involved with the artist (which is applicable to all contemporary artists). Also, gallery costs (see: The Space) such as rent or a type of commission on any sold works, and costs for the optional yet advisable opening event(s) at which the work is exposed to the “audiential gaze”, including, but not limited to: snacks, drinks, a deejay (all this, of course ties into notions of hyping art and the subsequent boosting of art value, discussed later on in this treatise) – all of these are incorporated into this value. The sum of all the above is then multiplied by a coefficient theta (‘θ’), which is essentially a composite variable derived from the Harkov equation’s emotional value fill-in clause (the socalled ‘cloze clause’8 – a reference to my days as an elementary school science teacher). The result is one of the two main values that are used in computing the final estimation ‘X’ – the value of the work – in Bitcoin. 1.2.1β Emotional Value Mu (‘μ’) Determining the emotional value of a piece is tricky. As a starting point, it is the value that 1) the artist and 2) the artist’s audience attribute to the psychological nature of the work,

I am not undermining the possibility of artistic forms of expression from other animals, such as a painting elephant or a chimp who farts national anthems, but I am simply ignoring this nuance to underline the absolute truth that humans are part of, and always will be, the animal kingdom. In fact, if I’d have the time, I would write a different treatise on why – amongst all the beasties – we are the most beastly of them all.

See, for example: Dirichlet Branes and Mirror Symmetry. (Aspinwall, Paul; Bridgeland, Tom; Craw, Alastair; Douglas, Michael; Gross, Mark; Kapustin, Anton; Moore, Gregory; Segal, Graeme; Szendröi, Balázs; Wilson, P.M.H., eds. (2009). American Mathematical Society.)

Staubenfluss, L. F.: The simple brain: insignificance as a broader universal concept in the understandment of existence by the human physiological framework ‘Insignificality’ is defined as “the rounding off not of numbers, but of ideas and concepts, to a whole ‘value’, as to simplify the underlying network of interconnected, ever-increasing entropies with the goal of understandment by the common brain – justified by the reasoning that our utter insignificance in the general scheme of things allows us – simply must allow us – to grasp at the few straws that we are given with the tools of our own invention, because human peace of mind is more important than the fleeting, impossible-to-define notion of ‘objective’ or ‘absolute truth.’”

Unfortunately, the Kagyu tradition is one of those that is primarily based in oral transmission. Confirming what a certain master said and how this should be interpreted is as easy as asking a student, and in the case of a deceased master, a student of his students, quite literally all the way down. How accurate this transmission is, is a matter of some debate.

The cloze clause was developed in response to a quandary I was in after obtaining one of the works in the sample, Trans Former by Kevin Freudenberg, it brimmed with a certain emotionality, a volatility that couldn’t be transcribed in a way. Once I recovered some of the story behind the work and its connections to Gestalt therapy, I became even more convinced that it would have to be a core component of the equation.

For instance, let us not forget Sokal’s pioneering work: “Moving towards a new orthogeny of neo-desituationist politics, its this new hermeneutics of style that engender a recursive set of heuristics to engage with dominant hegemonic discourse, bridging a nascent ontological gap in metaliterature with a rigorous post-structuralist re-evaluation of values dissonance.” in Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1997). Impostures intellectuelles. Odile Jacob.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

divided by the inverse relationship each of these parties have with their parents. This is a key indicator of the basic determinant of audience participation metrics: the ability to put rationality at the center of their being and divide Business and Pleasure as such. One complication in this otherwise rigorous and fitting variable is the difficulty of determining this aspect when one or both parents are no longer alive, and/or could not attend the exhibition of the artwork (because they are deceased, for example, or on holidays). Fortunately, and necessarily, the outcome of the ‘Trauma Subequation’ sigma (σ) covers for such eventualities. Additional iterations of the nearly infinite (and therefore intrinsically estimated) aspect of emotional value include wildly different sets of variables, including, but not limited to (and I list them here chaotically as to indicate their range): the artist experiencing sibling rivalry in youth, their sexual orientation, their perceived gender identity, their (in)ability to not take things personally, their favorite movie, a susceptibility to other people’s moods (empathy), the artist’s first love and how it ended (‘still friends-state’ and ‘not even Facebook friends’ being the extremes), closeted skeletons, and whether or not the artist has, at some point in their youth, sprinkled salt on the snails in the garden. As one will have probably surmised by now, emotional value is a complicated factor to quantify. Fortunately, the equation provides a way to determine an approximation of this value based on the answers to a few directed questions in the ‘cloze clause’. The result is then weighted by multiplying by what I dub the artist’s ‘Mental Absorption Coefficient’ phi (φ): φ = τ (tau: ‘tears’ in ml) / κ (kappa: ‘mental handkerchief’ in gram/m2) See the following chapters for an introduction to the maths behind these considerations. 1.2.1γ Other factors Other factors that must be determined in order for the equation to yield significantly trustworthy data include variables pertaining to the time period and location of the work’s production, identificational aspects pertaining to the artist (tattoos, piercings, an ‘interesting’ or unconventional fashion sense, facial hair, glasses that demand attention, scars, etc.), all factors pertaining to the work’s Umwelt, and its larger context vis-a-vis the artist. In addition to these, other (mostly thematic) aspects of the work such as ‘Nature scene’, ‘(Self-)Portrait’, ‘Still life’, fully abstract, semi-abstract, etc. ought to be considered at this point. The ‘Boolean Originality Variable’ Omega (‘Ω’) needs a special mention here. ‘Boolean’ because either 1 (‘TRUE’) or 0 (‘FALSE’), ‘variable’ because variable, and ‘of originality’ because it concerns the angle from which the work can be surveyed in order to assess its uniqueness. Essential to the equation, when the work is deemed original the originality variable may singlehandedly cause its value to skyrocket. Similarly, if the piece is an iteration seen countless times before, especially when it has also been done more deftly, and with more skill, the originality variable may make its value plummet to depths which, in and of themselves, could sometimes be seen as unique. The word epigone is quite understandably thrown about when speaking of today’s more underappreciated artists, but is even applicable to some of the more high profile artists out there.9 While the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists the word to mean ‘follower’ or ‘disciple’, it also notes it means ‘inferior imitator’. It is therefore my ambition that the equation, most notably in determining the originality variable, provides the most accurate representation of whether an artist and their work are on the ‘follower, disciple’ side of epigonism, or,

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

lamentably, they have crossed the line into the territory of the inferior imitator. If that is the case, at least they are not alone. [Editorial note: Joanna Harkov goes on to describe the overlapping areas between monetary and emotional value, and muses on how a more definite categorization can be made in these cases. As her research was not concluded, and its conductor has passed, those musings are now suspended in an inconclusive state and are omitted here as to not obfuscate the true (yet equally unfinished) core of the research: The Harkov Equation.] 1.2.4 The Harkov Equation (Incomplete) [Editorial note: The following is the most current version of Joanna Harkov’s incomplete equation.]

Where: X = Value of the Expression in Bitcoin x = Externally Perceived Value in Bitcoin n = Sum of the Components (materials, Umwelt, etc) e = Euler’s number Ω = Boolean originality variable μ = Emotional Value φ = Mental Absorption Coefficient t = time (where it relates to art, see above, “Buddhism”) σ = outcome of the trauma subequation ɑ = Artist Confidence Coefficient ɣ = Ego Bloat θ = Cloze Clause value

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Epilogue: Impetus! or: The Genesis of this Treatise [Editorial note: In the following epilogue, which she wrote two weeks before she died, Joanna Harkov provides an anecdotal account of what sparked her late-blooming passion for buying forgotten artworks and tracking down their makers.] As will become clear to those who immerse themselves in the Harkov Equation and the theories behind it, when the outcome of the subequations before or, less likely: after, the main multiplication operator equals 0 (zero), the equation itself returns X=0. There are so many scenarios in which that may happen, that those works make up the vast majority within the catalogue of hitherto calculated values. In recent years, I have – somewhat jokingly at first – adapted the term “The Cesspool of Forgotten Art” for this phenomenon. It is precisely in this cesspool that I have cast my curious rod to retrieve those works deemed to be ‘worthless’ and of ‘no value’, and to test the various preliminary iterations of my equation thereupon. I became enthralled with the possibilities of creating the equation on the basis of unknown art and extrapolating my findings to the revered artists of our time, hoping to definitively prove – and here I imagined myself with a finger pointed at the entire establishment while shouting “HA!” – that valuation caps on contemporary art are, themselves, worthless. This hope was the stuff of dreams, of course (I once quite literally dreamt that I was wading through a type of bog filled with all manners of colorful canvases and odd sculptures). Now that the sound of my clock ticking becomes ever more ominous, to the point that it might break at any moment, I realize my ambitions could be regarded as slightly delusional. It is with that in mind that I here wish to veer slightly off course and reflect in a more anecdotal manner on the events that transpired which led to my interest in, even passion for, these matters. I hope it might elucidate to the reader what motivated me to set up such an ambitious research, and essentially, what its humane underpinnings are that have made my journey – although inconclusive – worth its while nonetheless. The passion for forgotten art came rather late in my life, in 2004, and was set in motion by the passing of my wonderful friend, and cat, Ditzy. Ditzy had been my best friend since my other best friend and husband, archaeologist and college professor Ollie Pruzansky, passed away in 1992. On the very day that I lost Ollie, Ditzy, then an unnamed, scraggly street tabby of about 5 years, had simply wandered onto the premises of the Odessa Estate to find me, contemplatively rocking back and forth on my porch. She stopped at my feet and with a single, inquisitive meow, snapped me out of that focusless gaze and, at once, established a firm friendship between us. I consider myself quite down-to-earth, but spiritually speaking I saw in Ditzy a reincarnation of Ollie, or at least of some of his features. To me, the name Ditzy echoed the scatterbrained nature that the two shared: a trait which gave me great pleasure observing.

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Joanna Harkov’s husband Oliver “Ollie” Pruzansky, was an archaeologist and, later in his career, a history professor at the Southern New Hampshire University in Nashua, NH. He was also an avid wood sculptor. (Photo: J. Harkov)

After all, I love the flaky ones; those who make the same mistake more than once but do so smiling, without letting it ever hold them back. In other words, I saw in both Ollie and Ditzy a degree of fearless innocence that made it impossible not to love them. On that first encounter with Ditzy in 1992, she had a considerably large twig stuck in her fur. It reminded me of plucking twigs and bits of leaves out of Ollie’s hair after we had been horseback riding on the estate. Ditzy and Ollie faced the branches on their paths head-on, with the steadfast conviction that a friend would be there when needed. All you had to do was ask, and with that single meow, Ditzy had asked. I don’t see myself as a sentimental person, but when Ditzy died of old age in 2004, I

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Dermy After Ditzy, the adopted street tabby, passed away, Joanna Harkov had her preserved by an amateur taxidermist. The man did a rather poor job, and Ditzy was never the same. In Joanna, who referred to the new entity as ‘Dermy’, the event sparked a passion for amateur art and its makers, which she would pursue in the years that followed. (Photo: J. Harkov)

decided to seek out the services of a man I had just met who called himself a taxidermist. I say he called himself that, as opposed to saying he actually was one, since the job he did on Ditzy was so laughably mediocre (I hate to use this word here, “laughably”, for it concerns the remains of my feline friend, but it made me laugh, somewhat bitterly, and that fact is vital here), that I couldn’t help but find out what had led the man to laying claim to the title of taxidermist. Ditzy had been mounted awkwardly on a log, her face oddly dented, and she managed to look at once scared, aggressive and surprised. This new creature had so little to do with Ditzy, that, as to not confuse my memory of her with this new presence, I called it ‘Dermy’. I contacted the taxidermist: not to complain, but to ask about his motivations to get into taxidermy. I was intrigued. His explanations were unsatisfying, but oddly nourishing nonetheless. He seemed unconcerned with aesthetics, or even notions of craftsmanship, but was brimming with an undeniable creative urge, moving him inexorably towards more of his creations, refining his technique and his own axioms of style along the way. As for me, revelling in all this underlying story, I had been bitten by the “art theory bug”! It is then that my strange passion began in earnest. This treatise is the result of years of finding forgotten art and exploring what made their makers tick. On the weekends, and later during the week as well, I would visit garage sales, Sunday markets, thrift shops and estate sales to buy up works. In the evenings I would google my way to the identities of the makers, and I would write them. If they were deceased, I would find their relatives or old neighbors. I was unstoppably driven to find out who they were, what had made them such, and, essentially, what the story was behind their art. I now see that this treatise, these ideas of mine, could also be regarded as a ‘regardless’ human expression in and of itself. And that is what fills me with enough satisfaction. Perhaps

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

George Joanna and Ollie’s son, George Pruzansky (1946 - 1974), worked odd jobs during his short, troubled life. Here he is seen working as a mall Santa Claus, posing with two delighted children. (Photographer unknown)

my findings will never see the light of day. I hope, of course, that they might serve as some small seed for the further development of the dialogue on the value of art, or be a small nail in the coffin of what I consider today’s misguided art industry – chances are that they won’t. And that is okay: I had fun. So, for what it’s worth: I find peace in the idea that I was able to have such an inspiring time, and to add so much color to the sunset of my life. Enough with the sentimental hogwash, though. On with it, people!

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Acknowledgements A huge thank you to the following people: Anna Otto & Gabriel Dolderer - for their help in building pretty nice things Chantal van der Horst & Jan Luitse - for the amazing opportunity Doudouce Luitse & Fritz Streiff - for their awesomeness and help in making it all happen Ellen Pots & Sebastiaan Kaland - for being great neighbors Eva Ottevangers - for all her mental and practical support Irina Buga & Mike Blommestijn - for all the food donations and smiles Laura Scheske - for all of the above Matthijs Dinant - for bringing a cold can of Coke at the exact right time Mieps and Hans van Himbergen - for all their help, no questions asked Mol van Lynden - for her sage advice and valuable insights Nathaniel - for lending us his bakfiets Obbe Tiddens - for his relentless technical prowess and creative problem-solving Rebecca van Enter - for her social media crash course and gold frame touch ups Wanda and Adriaan Hebly - for their help & advice A special mention goes out to Alex van Ommen and Olivier de Vries, without whose ideas and meticulous editorial expertise this catalogue would not have existed. We owe you one, boys. Another special mention, of course, goes out to Joanna Harkov, who took us on this strange but fulfilling journey, and to her grandson Joachim Pruzansky, who provided photos, stories, and insights into the life of his grandmother that were indispensable in putting this exhibition together. Our gratitude also goes out to all the people who donated to Schatjes, and the exhibition ‘For What It’s Worth’, on voordekunst.nl. You are all very good-looking and you smell great: Amsterdams Fonds voor de Kunst, Andrea Sindova, Annemaaike Roeters & Teun van der Bom, Bertus Tulleners, Carla & Rob van de Braak, Charley Ambagtsheer, Claire Jansen, Daisy & Günther Scheske, Dianne van Abeelen & Ton Bastings, Doudouce Luitse & Fritz Streiff, Edwin de Jongh, Eveline van den Heuvel, Frauke & Thomas van Himbergen, Gabriel Dolderer, Gabi van der Linden, Irene de Jong, Jaap Meester, Jasminka Beganovic, Jeanette Hebly, Joelle Hoebert & Jos Hoes, Joep Damen, John Brooke, Joost Burgers, Jurian Baas, Kirsten van Reisen, Krista Dutrieux & Joris Wiemer, Laura Scheske, Leanne Hoogwaerts, Lex Cleton, Lotje Cohen, Lynn Zebeda & Ama van Dantzig, Maarten van Doornmalen, Magda Michelesio & Piero Boncompagno, Manon Doesborgh & Joep van Esch, Mariah Mansveldt Beck, Marieke Liem & Jesper Hjortnaes, Mathieu Steijn, Matti Koivu, Max Klijnstra, Meier Boersma, Mieps & Hans van Himbergen, Mol van Lynden, Nicky Grünfeld, Olivier de Vries, Olivier Onvlee, Paul Hoogervorst, Pui San Tam & Lamar Heystek, Reinier Mesritz, Richard Hebly, Robert Jan de Jong, Roderick Akkerman, Roeland Verhallen, Rutger Aberson, Ruud Verschuur, Sarinee Nonejui & Thijs Kwik, Sean Charles, Sjoerd van Aken, Sjoerd van Hooijdonk, Somaye Dehban, Stef Groen, Susy Risseeuw, Suzanne “Miss Suzy ‘87”, Suzie Brink, Teoman Çelik, Trish Nice, Valerie Hilfer & Valerio Francati, Vera Schölmerich, Wanda & Adriaan Hebly, Wendelien Hebly, Willem-Karel Plet, Wijnand Hoogerbrugge, Wiwi Ho, Yorinde Segal & Pieter van der Kamp. Finally, to all those people we didn’t know would help us yet when this catalogue had to go to printer: thank you!

For What It’s Worth | The Joanna Harkov Collection

Stalin Joanna Harkov and her husband Ollie Pruzansky loved being surrounded by animals. Apart from two horses, a dozen or so sheep, and the coop of chickens that they kept on the Odessa Estate, their most trusty companion was Stalin, the mastiff. Named ironically, Joanna would get a great kick out of calling him and exerting gentle authority over her ‘good old boy’. Stalin died in 1988, of old age. (Photographer unknown)

Colophon Author - “On ‘Regardless’ Human Expression” Joanna Harkov Additional Writing / Editing Alex van Ommen Laurens Hebly Olivier de Vries Thijs van Himbergen Additional Photography Joanna Harkov Oliver Pruzansky Joachim Pruzansky This catalogue was published by Schatjes in Amsterdam, 2015.

Art & Events Oudezijds Voorburgwal 119 / Amsterdam schatjesamsterdam.com