Comments on: The contemporary-art bubble http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Ploppi http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-45432 Sun, 06 Jan 2013 01:36:46 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=19784#comment-45432 The rich get even richer and are they hiding their money in art as in some kind of tax dodge or genuinely investing in a big name or over hyped artist in order to re sell and make a big profit.

Looking at the quality of the art that sells for a lot of dollars. Money seems to be the motivation.

]]>
By: PhilH http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-45419 Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:41:24 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=19784#comment-45419 I agree with dmcdougall’s final point that the art money is a function of the spending power of the rich, which is showing no sign of decreasing.

A bubble state, as far as I can see, is one where speculation drives more of the valuation than analysis: when fools enter the market. Unless most expensive art is being bought by speculators rather than monied art buyers, this is not yet the case in art.

Imagine if the value of a piece of art in the market was a product of its proximity to the vogue, and the vogue was a random walk on the landscape of the art world. Then speculators would be lost because the sheer number of artists is such that the house always wins.

I would like to see insider trading laws for art; brokers who buy an unknown artist’s earlier work when they see a big name client heading that way. Surely art indices and funds are not far off? Given the art clientele, make it a raffle for the lease on each piece in the collection.

]]>
By: JamesBlom http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-45260 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:25:13 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=19784#comment-45260 How sad to read another article from a so-called ‘art market expert’ who has no interest or knowledge of art. Salmon talks about Wade Guyton’s X and U paintings as if they were simple commodities that either come “with” or “without” art historical importance. But would he have a clue as to which one is true?

He quotes verbatim a fellow journalist putting down Jeff Koons’ work, but he’s just repeating what he’s read elsewhere and assumes readers will fill in the blanks. He doesn’t have the depth of understanding to consider the foundational market for Koons, people who’ve had redemptive or transcendent experiences looking at his work.

Similarly with Christopher Wool, Salmon queries how many are circulating in the market, but hasn’t done his research. Wool works slowly, as does Wade Guyton. Both artists produce fewer works and that’s a part of their practice, but that wouldn’t be of interest to Salmon. He’s indulging in sheer speculation.

If we believe Salmon, Jeff Koons and Christopher Wool are totally interchangeable with Damien Hirst or Richard Prince, all of them valued in terms of comparable market prices and that’s all.

Salmon continually quotes other writers to flesh out his article but doesn’t reach any of his own conclusions. The only theme he’s interested in pursuing is his apocalyptic vision of the collapse of the art market.

Maybe it’s time for a more balanced and better educated view.

]]>
By: JamesBlom http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-45256 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:55:47 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=19784#comment-45256 How sad to read another article from a so-called ‘art market expert’ who has no interest or knowledge of art. Salmon talks about Wade Guyton’s X and U paintings as if they were simple commodities that either come “with” or “without” art historical importance. But would he have a clue as to which one is true?

He quotes verbatim a fellow journalist putting down Jeff Koons’ work, but he’s just repeating what he’s read elsewhere and assumes readers will fill in the blanks. He doesn’t have the depth of understanding to consider the foundational market for Koons, people who’ve had redemptive or transcendent experiences looking at his work.

Similarly with Christopher Wool, Salmon queries how many are circulating in the market, but hasn’t done his research. Wool works slowly, as does Wade Guyton. Both artists produce fewer works and that’s a part of their practice, but that wouldn’t be of interest to Salmon. He’s indulging in sheer speculation.

If we believe Salmon, Jeff Koons and Christopher Wool are totally interchangeable with Damien Hirst or Richard Prince, all of them valued in terms of comparable market prices and that’s all.

Salmon continually quotes other writers to flesh out his article but doesn’t reach any of his own conclusions. The only theme he’s interested in pursuing is his apocalyptic vision of the collapse of the art market.

Maybe it’s time for a more balanced and better educated view.

]]>
By: Juan1 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-45194 Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:31:43 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=19784#comment-45194 “The market for art is unlike any other, because it’s built on some notion of true, underlying value ­”

Are the paintings of Jackson Pollock really more historically important than the films of Alfred Hitchcock?

Your language is more suited to a defense of The Church or university. The fact that you associate that kind of seriousness with the rich in this day and age, is just odd.
Or maybe not. Do you crave service to an authority as morally serious as it is powerful?

The “fine” arts are the arts of aristocracy. We no longer have an aristocracy; we have a subsection of the bourgeoisie with loads of cash. Even the old “high bourgeois” are gone.

Art stars are pop stars. How many of them last? And do their marketers care?
I don’t know who’s worse in these debates, the boosters or the scolds.

That the according to Dave Hickey Guggenheim now has critics sign contracts [stipulating that you won’t disparage anything on display?] is roughly equivalent to the Koch brothers demanding changes in curriculum, but that is not a defense of the purity of what came before

]]>
By: AngryInCali http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-45161 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:51:13 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=19784#comment-45161 I wonder what (and who) will be the determiners of “art-historical importance” after the bubble bursts, since the academics, critics, and museums have nearly completely sold out to the rich and their galleries. And will the art be preserved once prices return to reality?

I am convinced the art bubble has reached down to the very lowest levels of the fine art world, based on prices over the last few years, even at tiny Williamsburg galleries. So this isn’t simply an issue of Gagosian and White Cube laying off some people; the ability of the industry to support the current number of artists and dealers and critics is at risk.

]]>
By: dmcdougall http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/12/11/the-contemporary-art-bubble/comment-page-1/#comment-45146 Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:19:55 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=19784#comment-45146 These are all fair points, and I agree with your assertions about the space between underlying value and the current price of many of these works. When the bubble bursts, it certainly will burst in a way that significantly damages the art portfolios of a good many rich people.

But, given the kind of investment art is, and the way it is tied to conspicuous consumption and class striving, the money funneled into the art market is partly a result of rising inequality and the consolidation of economic gains to the 0.01%. I find it likely that rising inequality, and the increasing consolidation of economic gains to a very few, may fuel a lot more money into the speculative art market for some time to come.

]]>