investment
LW, thanks. I never grow tired of accurate protrayals of the Kinkaid scam.
I regret to say there was a Thomas Kincaid "gallery" in Gig Harbor for years before there were any in malls around here. It is a sad waste of paint.
I think we've gotten off subject several times here as this was a hypothetical question regarding what art one should buy as an investment if they had millions to spend. However, it also points out that you can have millions and prefer to buy junk. The target market, for instance, of those who buy Kinkaid are likely incomes from 100,000 to 1M a year. I am sure there are a few millionaires who would not be educated in art and would buy a Kinkaid, or perhaps higher on the echelon, an Eyvind Earle. Speaking of that artist, he paints the landscape of the Monterey, Carmel and the inland valleys in a highly stylistic, animation art imagery. They were all studio produced paintings (he has passed away recently) and look like background paintings for major animation films (no wonder, as he created the backgrounds for Disney's "Sleeping Beauty") These are prices in a limited editon serigraph at the average price of $3,000.00. Good investment. Not.
Pastoral bliss always in great demand and Kincaid seems to provide an easy route for some what is so wrong with that?
Well, LW, I have to admit, your poll was fairly slanted. For one thing you don't have any sculpture or other media besides oil/acrylics. For another, you haven't considered the value (where I think an investor ought to be looking) in prehistoric art of all kinds. Now there is something that, if the provenance is good enough, will never go down in value.
And talking of sculpture......
Ah but Piffka the forgeries, yikes. In the realm of antiquities there are more fakes than can be counted it is a very risking and extremely expensive. I would vote bad risk and not a good investment. In addition, getting provenance on these items well if it is real and it is in England or the US then you might be liable for a suit from the country of origin regardless of authenticity.
And that's why I said its provenance would have to be impeccable. To me, it would be the best investment if it were. We're talking about somebody having unlimited millions.
And yeah... what about good old sculpture, wood or otherwise?
Piffka -- it isn't my poll, it's Jespah's but I can appreciate what you mean. I said earlier that it might be more telling to divide up what art from what era one would buy, perhaps by century. 20th Century art is still the hottest commodity on the market and no wonder -- it's still in reach of many more rich people with enough education to make a wise purchase. Forgeries are a problem as no auction house guarantees authenticity although the major ones will offer certificates of authenticity in order to firm up a sale. If there is no certification, buyers purchase at their own risk. Smaller auction houses offering certificates -- sorry, I'd really look at them with a wary eye as the certficates are likely also forged if the art is a fake.
I was thinking of buying the ancient artifacts from a museum... given unlimited dollars. Of course, a museum might not have good provenance either, but if something were dug up by a legitimate group of archeologists, that would be good enough for me.
Old books are another legitimate (to me) art investment.
.......
Sorry about the confusion re. the poll. I thought this was your topic, LW.
Provenance is never impeccable when it comes to these pieces. Smugglers and grave robbers are not prone to document their movements. Plus both the objects and th provenenance or so easy to fake, I would say the easist of all in the fine arts. And international law re acepting even documeted pieces is overwhelmeing.
Quote:provenance would have to be impeccable
ILLICIT TRADE IN ANTIQUITIES
investments
Boy, do you guys make me feel paranoid. I think I'll buy only my own paintings from now on.
Probably you best purchase ever JLN
I'm not paranoid, because even with thes"unlimited" millions I'd still buy just what I liked!
Joanne -- Some of the ancient stuff has to be real.
Right but not available to collectors. Piffka even the British Museum, the Metropolitan, and the Getty have been caught up in these problems. Even it the object is real ownership outside of the country of origin is often illegal most museum directors try to steer clear but you know if a good piece that is real comes up they will buy and suffer the consequences just to get their grubby hands on it.
Two instances where John D. Rockafeller got into a lot of trouble with the law and the Director lost his job. And they knew what the were doing they thought they did any way.
Ancient Art
THE CLOSITERS
For jespah here is a cite.
United States v. Schultz
The wealthy enlist the servies of art consultants/experts who will assist them. Amateur collectors are best to stick to art by new artists in the 1,000 to 5,000 dollar range. Stay complete away from limited edition graphics unless you are using them to decorate with and the ticket price doesn't offend you (and be certain it doesn't offend you for very good reason -- it's likely way overpriced).
Thomas Hoving....."King of the Confessors".....a superb account of the shadowy world of art collecting....
Light, I may not always agree with you , but many mercies to you for the illuminating questions........(
)
Piffka....thank you for your story ....Loved it....It reminded me of
a story for which I no longer remember the reference.....
Two Renaissance painters entered a competition to see who was the best, the most tecnically competent, the most brilliant artist of all.....
Both were sequestered for a stipulated time to paint their entries. Finally, the much anticipated judgement day arrived. Their brilliant artworks were presented to the panel, each covered with a heavy veil.........
Artist A unveiled his work......It was a still life arrangement of fruit so succulent, so stunning and delicious, that birds flew down from the sky in a flurry to partake of its bounty and bees buzzed about....
The crowd oooohed and ahhhhhed, so impressed they were with Artist
A's entry.......
Their eyes were then all riveted on Artist B, how could he compete with such an entry? ......."Unveil your painting, sir ", they demanded.
"That is my painting," said Artist B.
Hey, shepaints, I wasn't sure where we disagree, at least not on a 180 deg. viewpoint. I will always tend to look at art based on the sales end of it because that's what I've done for at least twenty years of my life. That's my personal experience which also included exposure to the personnel of academic venues and direct contact with many different artists.
investments
And that perspective of yours, Lightwizard, is a valuable resource for those of us (like me) who are drippingly naive on the subject. I for one am greatly appreciative. It's like sending our own private ethnographer/spy into a situation to report back to us its inner workings.
