Art as an Investment

Quite frankly, it is such a zoo out there with galleries and they're really isn't anyone seriously able to give very good advice as to how to get work into a museum, for instance. You have to connect up somehow with a smart and reputable dealer who has confidence in your work. Pollock's big break was Peggy Guggenheim (who, from the film, apparantly liked more than his paintings!) There isn't much written about how artists break into the business but what is out there points directly to a crusading dealer and/or collector and most of this happens in New York. Unless the big name collectors start buying one's work, it's doubtful it will ever get into a museum, even a small independent venue. I worked for a company that promoted artists and it was marginally effective (stayed there for less than eight months). It was run by someone who was a painter himself and he was able to promote having exhibitions at smaller museums around the world, especially in the area. However, he rarely sold any of his own work even though he had managed to get it into institutional exhibits from time to time, particularly outside the U.S. He had a good grasp on the academic side of the art world but not on the commercial side. It's a long, difficult road and it's no wonder that so many successful artists do literally drink themselves to the top! It's quite acceptable in the art world for an artist to be a drunk or even a drug addict just like in the pop music industry.

It's a complex and baffling, this thing I can only call "the art society." I'm not being pessmistic about it because that's the way it operates. Can't change it so I'd be the last one to subject myself to the frustration. Just paint and get exposure wherever you can -- if one find themselves being accpeted because of the commercial appeal of the work, that's a decision one has to make. There's no way one can avoid being used in that case. On the plus side, there's the prospect that one can make a living from painting. It sometimes may mean swallowing one's own pride and creating what the market wants. There are some painters who have accomplished that without prostituting their art beyond reason. It all comes back to the same thing -- paint for yourself, put the work in community shows, local galleries and find a reputable dealer. Lots of slides or other reproductions sent out to a lot of different venues! Whether or not the Internet is every going to work is debatable. So far, it's been an electronic flea market. Not that some of the pieces sold aren't expensive but you'll find they are the commercial products where the seller is really just trying to turn over what they refer to as "paper."

I used to be involved with the All California Show at the Laguna Beach Museum of Art and I really was upset when it was discontinued.

I LOVE your post! I was wondering when someone would get around to that concept. Where is the search for new talent? original art? the "emerging artist"?
I also believe you should buy what you LOVE first, as an investment in ORIGINAL art, it is hand-made, one-of-a-kind, that means YOU get to enjoy it and it WILL increase in value simply for that reason. IF the artist has a 'following', collectors, if he did not give his art away, his prices will have only gone up. If you love it on your wall like a prized piece, what is twenty years?

NO ONE can predict the amounts or the 'jackpots'. But the growth due to an artpieces' age and uniqueness IS somewhat predictable... the prediction is you have a far better chance at something (nearly anything ) ORIGINAL than a 'print' or repro of anything. Machine-made mass produced anythings have made the hand-made one-of-a-kind item special and 'limited' by its own nature. The grand total may be anybody's guess, but if you love it on your wall first, it is NOT a risk as the financial markets are. (And what fun is it to see a financial statement on your wall??)

The BEST is if you commission an artist you like, you get the joy of affecting their art history AND you get a BLENDING of YOUR essence in THEIR craft. That may end up a lifetime souvenir that is PRICELESS to you.

Welcome to a2k, mette, and thanks for reopening this topic...

Investing in Art
I have just again joined A2K, and clicked onto this discussion, quite old in comparison to other discussions. It was a long read...but really a wonderful one...it seems it is one of the best discussions I have come across on the net...with some wonderful remarks from LW (initiator and
grand contributor), JLN, Joanne Dorel, Piffka ( great story teller), Ossobucco, etc.
Here are some thoughts of mine that I had as I read through the discussion:
Given, one wants to invest money in art. ..Each would have a different reason: (1) increase in value of art...good return on investment
(2) surround oneself with images one likes...have power to maintain enjoyment through ownership...if one likes crap, one can keep it with him/her forever; beauty, hah, lies in the eyes of the beholder, and would depend on his knowledge and experience in dealing with the visual
(3) increase one's social standing...art, social standing, and
wealth have always been interconnected. Investing in art, having it on one's walls, helps create an environment where money and the moneyed feel comfortable...a snob's success.

Of course, criminality would accompany collecting; it always goes hand and hand with money.

The value of conceptual art is that it opens the door for other artists to
see differently and expand those artists' work, perhaps (as well as for the experienced viewers). A new or broader conception may not, however, produce a good or better work. Historically, the more original an artist is,
may be important for increasing the monetary value of an artist's work.
A new conception may signify, as well, a change in the historical ambience in which an artist's work was produced.

Technique IS important...inasmuch as it helps the artist make his statement. Technique (or craft) in and of itself is negligible. However, good technique or craft may enable a work of art to live longer...like giving good genes to a work or art.
It should be appreciated that there may not be such an item as an ETERNAL work of art. Even the Mona Lisa will eventually disintegrate.
Which leads me to think that all art which has stood the test of time and proven to be art of quality belongs in museums, not in the hands of private investors....so that it will be maintained better...and that more would be able to appreciate great art.

Thomas Kincaid: It is possible, maybe even probable that Kincaid has impaired vision and mental capacity...and is not dishonest...but really likes the trashy Betty Boop images he produces. And it is probable that the people that buy his art images, like Kincaid, have impaired vision and mental capacity, and think Kincaid's images are the Last Judgement of the modern age. A modern tribe of scum, if you will. HOWEVER, when I look at the Betty Boop images of the Victorian Age, so loved by the population and hung all over THEIR wall, it shouldn't surprise or shock anybody. After all, we are seeing clearly why Bush got elected. There is a lot of bad taste around, and in a democracy the taste gets circulated.

Nuff said...thankyou for the discussion.

Well, now I will go back and reread the thread.

Re collecting: I read a stunning article from the LA Times this morning, and your comment brought to mind that I should post a link on a2k. I'll do it here -
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-getty25sep25,0,6964081.story?track=tothtml




edit -
Now, having just reread this thread, I find this link on the Getty's antiquity acquisitions quite appropriate!

bm

Art as investment
vivien, what is "bm"...don't understand your post.

ossobucco, just read your web link about collecting at the Getty...just common ordinary folk doing the best they can, hah!!! thankyou.

bm stands for book mark. That means Vivian wants to keep this thread on her active list for future reading or posting. This post does the same for me.

yes it's interesting and I'm far too tired to think of an intelligent response just now! I should have gone to bed over an hour ago <yawns>

I've strong opinions on the Getty thing. Will try to put words to my reaction to their use of money tomorrow.

ossobucco, I didn't have to register. A click on your link was all that was necessary.

Oh, that's good news. I'll go erase that bit then.
Thanks..

Osso,

There is a new article out on the Getty and stolen artwork. I saw it on yahoo about an hour ago.
Doesn't paint a pretty picture.

edit.

(Nevermind, it's the same article you linked.)

Goodstein-shapiro (considering calling you shap, or good, slapping my fingers) I need to mention that you and LW both call me Ossobucco, when it's buco..

I don't entirely mind, find it a tad endearing, but I hear bucco in my own ears as bucko, as opposed to boo-co.
So I fantasize all these people thinking of little me as bucko...

well, hell, I am not a veal shank either, and never understood when I picked the name how it would be my association for years - it was a simple choice in a few seconds several years ago - even though I am most of the time chary re veal noshing.

I now associate the name with sounds, and buck o is not the set of sounds for me. Not that you have to listen, but that I need to point it out.

O-Tay, Bucko.

Point taken.

Hiss,
followed by
fit.

<smooch>

Not a pretty picture, girl is revving up for reviling.

Ah, well, I am no girl and reviling is a cover for a complicated set of opinions. Manana, or domani, as the case may be.

I bought a painting by a local artist named Christopher Shearer. HE did kind of Bierstadt kind of work from the late 1800s. He did Appalachian scenes . I paid 500 cause it needs cleaning(I considered that a bargain beleieve me).
. I bought it cause I love his work and his sense of the hills gets me. Now Its conservation then new frame. Its a 36 by about 52 and the only thing against it is that the painting is vertical in length. A dealer said once that horizontal paintings are more market friendly. I figger the kids l have to fight over it.