How Much Is Too Much?

Art is worth to the purchaser, whatever he is willing to pay.
That is my truth and it is priceless.

I find these "art value" debates to be unbelievable silly. In particular since they are on an ostensible, "fine art site." Why don't we debate the value of a football player, basketball, CEOs of major corporations who lose money but are still compensated in millions? media moguls, actors? The list of highly paid people goes on and on. Art at the level implied by this discussion leaves the realm of "decorative" and become primarily a "commodity." As a commodity, it (the work of art) can then be commodified. That is it, in a nut shell, pure and simple.

I'm pragmatic like Marlene, any object is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Personally I don't understand why someone pays $100mil+ for a single piece of art no matter what how much money that person has. I can't image it's for the love of art, but it's their money and they can do what they want with it.

The market will regulate itself.



What makes art valuable? - BBC Documentary HD

I watched that video and whole time I was telling the dude in the pink shirt to stand up straight.

The price that someone is willing to pay for something IS what it IS. Who am I to advise them any differently?

Star football players are paid millions to enable fast-food-eating couch potatoes to plant themselves in front of big-dollar TV screens in high-caloric frenzies of glorious beer-drinking gluttony.

Star actors are paid millions to enable popcorn manufacturers and soft drink manufactures to sail on the seas of buttery, sugar-infused profits, to say nothing of the profits that the movie companies make to provide the background for this.

People pay for what they crave. There is little of the thinking mind involved. It's all about the sensory mind. .. appetites, ... desires, .. reflexes, ....

Kevin:

most people You listed are overpaid. Especially one group You forgot: (criminal) investment bankers.
Why is also art overpaid in such spectacular cases? Because all this people do not know what to do with this unsavory/unmerited income which is only a big number of zeros for them. They do not know the value of real work.
The good thing: they bring back money into the cycle.

Rudi, I am not arguing whether they are over paid, or they are not. My point centers around a very large group of artists who seem to think that "art" should never attain the value level of say an expensive car, or a sports figure, actor, etc. I find this disconcerting.

As for very expensive art, well it is purchased for many reasons, desire, investment, even dishonesty. There are very real cases where a nefarious person acquires a work of fine art. That work never needs leave their wall or vault to work for them. Let's say (to keep it clean) this art lover makes their fortune selling drugs, a middleman perhaps. They go to a money man needing $20 million dollars to finance a drug purchase. The money man gets for collateral a $48 million dollar painting, not the painting but the promissory note (so to speak). The money is lent, drugs purchased and then resold for $40 million. The money man get $25 million in return and the artwork stays on the wall or in the vault.

Art at that level is a commodity. What about that do people NOT understand?

In relation to the artwork offered on this site a baseline of approximately $120.00 for a 20"x 30" print is good. The decorative art market in the USA holds steady at 1 billion in sales year to year. People don't want bare walls. One the other hand the market for original art sold by notable galleries and auction houses is very tiny. The only way to know a wealthy persons motivation paying millions for a piece of art is to talk to them personally.

Worth never factors into cost. If it did, diamonds would be cheap.

In modern capitalist society, cost is based on what people are willing to pay, and worth is assigned at that point. If a person chooses to pay millions for a piece of art, then that is what it is worth at that time.

Yes, Cynthia gets it.

You are right for 99.9 % of all art. The most of it is not overpaid, more is underpaid.
I meant the spectacular cases from the newspapers. I would name them more money washing than commodity.

all art that is for sale is a commodity - like it or lump it. carrots or karats are a commodity. art is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I don't begrudge the million dollar price - a bit jealous perhaps - but I have given up worrying about other folks purchases and sales - they have their problems - I have mine.

I'm thinking of exhaling forcefully into an old fashioned canning jar that I seal, affixing my name to it, entitling the work, ... Gasp ... , and setting the retail price at the upper range of $ 57 million, with the very reasonable reserve price of $ 3.7 million.

Bids are now open, starting at the ridiculously low reserve of $ 3.7 million.

Do I hear $ 3.7 k , ... $ 3.8 k, ... we have $ 3.8 k, ... $ 4.2 k , .................................................

Robert, was your breath minty fresh prior to creating the now famous work "Gasp"?

Robert, if you rename yourself Damien Hirst it might just work. But as you... probably not. Ah well.

I tried to convince a friend of mine to pay me $100,000 for a painting. With the idea of course, that he would get his money back under the table. We could then promote my works as being worth six figures and hopefully watch them rise in value. Darn fool would not play along. Sheesh, some friend.

NICE!

... crafted for quality
sealed for freshness

Only, $57,000,000?

Hmmnnn, I believe there are 8 too many zeros there.

Kevin, I disagree if he had minty fresh breath when he created it.

Robert,

Apply with the Frieze Gallery London. You never know.

Dave

Ok Ron, you have a point. he should add the last two zeroes .00. Ar.

Kevin, many of my works are worth several zeros! $000,000,000,000.

Proving once again, it's the zeros that count.

Mr Fraigio my gym instructor used to call Howie Meyer a zero. I guess he thought Howie
did not count. Poor Howie.

not signed

I think maybe I need to remove the "57" and add two zeros THERE.

I don't know if the FAA pricing feature will allow this, however.

I believe that this difficulty of removing the "57" illustrates a confusion in the culture of big art spenders - they forget to remove the numbers besides zeros, and end up doing something really dumb.

But given my anticipated limitations with the FAA pricing feature, I must keep the price as is and hope for a real dumb big spender, who has no clue about the physics of air containment over long periods of time in such a simple vacuum device.

But, hey, it's not the real physics of the jar that counts anyway. It is the symbolism of exerting the effort through a focused gesture of containment, and the deep emotion of longing for immortality of one single breath in all eternity. THIS is what a buyer would be paying for - the dream, the transcendent impossibility of living forever, the hope of stealing some small vestige of a lasting immortal identity from the grim reaper, in the infinite quest to make one's perpetual mark on the cosmos.

I believe Robert that what counts in your brilliant work is not so much the air as the idea which is sealed up in the jar.

Robert,

I think you need to round the 57 up. Maybe 60 or better yet 100.

Dave

Let's not get greedy, ... even for the sake of numerical elegance.

I think that the "s" in "Gasp" should be a $, since THAT's what the gasp is REALLY about.

We all better give our art to someone really famous!!!!!!

I think the threads about the value of select pieces of art recently started with a rush to beat the whatever out of Peter Lik because someone purchased a work for 6.5 million. Instead of celebrating his success... he was roundly booed and put down as a nominal artist/photographer and a business shyster. The buyer was deemed as "highly suspicious", even as someone who should remain anonymous for making such a stupid investment! It was even implied that it was a sales scheme. Many began to compare their work to his... you know, the ones who are having a hard time getting $200.00 for a large print.

So when you speak of silly arguments up there... yeah, they can take the cake around here at times.

He should be thanked for his contributions. But the peanut gallery came out throwing rocks instead.

Glenn, to the point!

Limited time only, my Gasp is reduced by a million dollars, to the ridiculously low price of only $ 56, 000, 000.

You can thank me for my contribution later.

It's a "Got To Have It Regardless Of The Price" person who will buy it.

Cynthia - If no-one then wants to buy it, is it worthless?

Its an investment for people who have run out of places to stick their money. Most of this art is stored away and never seen.

I recently saw a segment on a classic car storage place. High end investors put money in classic cars that are never driven or even seen in person. They are just stored in a facility that specializes in this market and photos are sent to the new owners. Then at some future time the owner puts the car on the market and hopefully makes some money.

Just another way to try to beat the market.

....

Is a classic car or painting worth the amount paid? Sure if there is an auction history that backs it up. I.e. its sold in a real market. People end up overpaying for investments all the time - in the stock market or in the art market. They certainly try to get things for less then their value. But with galley and auction house commissions its rather tough to get a bargain in the art world.

Marlene is absolutely correct - art - or anything else, a can of beer - is worth just what a person is willing to shell out for it. In the case of, or a case of, beer - at least it will quench your thirst for a bit.

Travel Pics understands my dilemma - no one wants it - therefore it is worthless, worth less, not worth anything.

Traveler's pic,


At that time.....that was the qualification....and she is right.....the price is the price is the price

...in a given moment in time.....

Bloomberg about a year and a half ago did an article on up and coming artists in NYC getting hundreds of thousands
for shinola, jmo. There was mention of the pre crash 2007 group of up and coming artists, their paintings had dropped in
price by half.

Prices go up and down. Dont kid yourself that prices only go up.

Dave

Roy, just because something doesn't sell does not mean no one wants it, but rather most likely means the market hasn't found it yet. I believe my art has value even though it currently isn't selling, it's just that the right people haven't seen it yet.

Remember the phrase "safe as houses"? Cabbage Patch Dolls, Beenie Babies, Baseball Cards, Wang, Compaq, EF Hutton, Eastern Airlines, Woolworth, Polaroid stock.... All investments have the potential for downward risk.

David K,

I just sent out an email to family and my technical mentor. I passed an idea a friend of mine had for me last night by
them. The friend suggested I call myself an 'alternative artist' as opposed to a "fine artist".

She made the case very well. Pointing out how my art would be received in a different light and bought by a different
crowd as alternative art. Remember my methods are not painting or drawing techniques. So in fact I am making
alternative art.

In particular I want my sister Eve's take on such marketing. I am waiting to hear what she thinks before going over all my SM lit and
website set up etc to change everything over.

Marketing and finding the market need to marry up well.

Dave