Comments on: A guide to the market oligopoly system

By: FelixSalmon

FelixSalmon — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:07:51 +0000

Thanks Ed! I have to admit I’ve always been a bit fuzzy on that front, thanks for clearing it up. There goes my plan to make millions by plastering this picture all over coffee mugs :-)

By: EdwardWinkleman

EdwardWinkleman — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:48:45 +0000

Quick note, for clarity, Felix. Although you own the drawing, William still owns its copyright. He’s not the litigious type as you know, but it’s worth nothing that collectors can’t legally grant the right to reproduce artwork.

By: Sam_Dobermann

Sam_Dobermann — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:10:10 +0000

Felix,
Thanks, I love the drawing and your discussion, too.

By: FelixSalmon

FelixSalmon — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:10:55 +0000

@lambertstrether, yes you can! Reuters doesn’t own the drawing, I do. And I promise I’m not going to sue anyone for reposting it.

By: RJKYorkville

RJKYorkville — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:54:51 +0000

When I squint at this delightful piece, I’m reminded of “outsider” artist Achilles Rizzoli (1896-1981), a true California dreamer.

By: Orchidseye

Orchidseye — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:51:24 +0000

i like the lettering

By: lambertstrether

lambertstrether — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:09:19 +0000

So, can I repost Oligopoly_lo.jpg without being sued by you or Reuters?

How about if I reframe this comment, and my subsequent post, as brilliantly subversive work of art?

By: LEEDAP

LEEDAP — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:02:59 +0000

The art market is funny. At the top, it is financed by buyers who can afford it, thus it is certainly an oligopoly. However, at the bottom it is also influenced by the artist, sometimes driven purely by supply, as evidenced by the form known as graffiti. How many markets do you know that are driven purely by supply? So, it is strange both at the top and the bottom and it is all very interesting from one perspective or another.

By: RobertWBoyd

RobertWBoyd — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:56:05 +0000

“This is where the collector hypocrisy comes in: collectors love to say that they buy art just because they love it, and that they will never sell it. [...] But the fact is that beyond a relatively modest initial level, no collectors will buy anything unless they think that it has real monetary value now, or will have it in the future.”

Is this really true? I am a collector but on that modest level you describe. I make an assumption that anything I buy almost instantly drops to a value of zero–in short, has no investment value whatsoever. Clearly this is not how people at the upper reaches think. But I think there is a large group in the middle that have all sorts of complex motivations when they buy art.

I’m sure there are some naive ones who buy art thinking it is an investment. But surely most people who are willing to spend, say, $25,000 on a piece of art have done enough research into art values to realize that there is a good chance that the piece they bought will drop in value–and drop precipitously–as soon as they buy it. Now does that mean it doesn’t have value for the collector? On the contrary, the ability to buy an object with no practical value for thousands of dollars that instantly loses most of its value is itself valuable–it signals your taste and wealth to your peers. Plus the collector may just like the piece. (And liking a piece of art today is not a promise to like it forever.)

By: FelixSalmon

FelixSalmon — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:38:01 +0000

Eli Broad, I believe.

By: MickWeinstein

MickWeinstein — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:08:59 +0000

Brilliant all around. Who is the oligopolist in the upper right corner?

By: EpicureanDeal

EpicureanDeal — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:53:46 +0000

Even better, Powhida’s pyramidal composition leaves the most logical spot for the footnotes and commentary right at the top of the drawing, where it is certain to attract notice from even the least geeky viewers. A free art world education to all comers. Clever and subversive, too.