mjw47 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Also, if you are a highly discerning art critic, and that's how you earn your daily bread; then you perhaps have a financial vested interest in art prices being high; which would in turn, compromise your truthfulness. An art critic isn't going to say it's all a con, not much of it is actually worth anything; as if he did, he wouldn't make much money from being a critic. Rather, he has to say, there is something really very special (and thus, valuable) about this work of art; and it takes a professional like me to really understand it, that's why I'm making money being an art critic. Maybe the entire art industry is a precariously balanced tower of cards? EDIT: If I made a precariously balanced tower of cards, said it was a work of art, and called it 'the art industry'. Maybe there'd be good coin in that for me? (but most likely not, as it would need credibly from the very art critics it pokes fun at). On the other hand if you were to call it 'The futile longing for continued being' and asked Sewell to give his considered opinion you could be quids in. On my way into the garden to throw some spare paint at a 4x4 piece of plywood. I shall call it 'The internal turmoil of a tormented Blade', eat your heart out Jackson Pollock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Cotton on to public opinion before the public even realise it and you're made these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coutts Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 so my point is that it isn't a rule of thumb that all people buying art directly from artists or through galleries are naive. I think it really IS a general rule of thumb because very few buyers have any connections with an actual gallery as a means of selling, especially not in a position where a gallery is sending over high ticket paying customers. Which by the way is very nice so good for you. Couple that with the fact that most people want a quick sale, the auction rooms are their only option. Which as you say, if the right people are bidding on the day could have fantastic results, but mostly, with expensive gallery art at auction, it rarely sells anywhere near expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 ...Take Pre-Raphalite art ... Dante Gabriel Rossetti's 'Pandora' was last sold in 1966 for £1,250 ... it was expected to fetch 7 million at Sotheby's recently, so a change in fashion comes into your question too (I've still not found out how much it eventually sold for). It's a very fickle thing art, and I doubt that you'll get a definitive answer to your question. Yes, fickle indeed. Pandora was left "unsold" at Sotheby's at the end of May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Yes, fickle indeed. Pandora was left "unsold" at Sotheby's at the end of May. That would explain it then. Although I admire Rossetti very much, I don't consider 'Pandora' to be his finest. Here's my (quick) modern day interpretation of his 'Snowdrops' minus snowdrops (oil). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horribleblob Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I agree, not his finest. Jane Morris with (Samsung?) flip phone, circa 200X? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 "Is art all a big con?" Yes. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPC464 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I heard a news report, about how in light of recent events, the value of one particular artist's (I wont say who, because I want to make this thread about art and it's valuation, rather than this particular artist) works have all lost 80% or more of their value - all because the artist lost his reputation, in a non art related, scandal. It makes me think, art has no intrinsic value, in and of itself; it only has value because of it's connection to a famous person (i.e. the artist who created it). Is this true of all art? That it doesn't have intrinsic value of it's own? Check out the Banksy film Exit Through The Gift Shop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_Through_the_Gift_Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 art is a well known as game in which one pays for pays for the right to hang on his walls someone elses mental troubles embodied in paint. it fascinates a small circle of devotees who are convinced the world needs it. others outside the circle are convinced the world doesn't the game makes sense as long as the entire circle joins in, it reveals its true nature as soon as somebody violates the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcoblog Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 art is a well known as game in which one pays for pays for the right to hang on his walls someone elses mental troubles embodied in paint. it fascinates a small circle of devotees who are convinced the world needs it. others outside the circle are convinced the world doesn't the game makes sense as long as the entire circle joins in, it reveals its true nature as soon as somebody violates the rules. You've not really thought this through have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.