klimt in the news
The value of art is a funny thing. I am sure everyone hasn't missed this Klimt in the news. It sold for a record breaking $135 million dollars! It seems like what bits of art information that make it to the "real" news are always something about some ridiculous artist, a new museum or of coarse...have to do with money. I was watching the "Daily Show" and even Jon Stewart had something to make fun (bottom clip second to right, watch it it is really funny!) of about the piece going for such a high price. If you stop and think about it....what really makes this worth anything? Check out this story in the LA Times. Do old men, wealthy men only buy paintings as investments?
posted by art blogs are fun at 2:10 PM
7 Comments:
supposedly, the art market is so good that museums can't afford to buy art anymore. that there'll be a period where you won't see new acquisitions at moma etc. even the dia.
Purchasing works by established or dead artists that cost millions may not within the reach of museums, but it is exciting to think that they may look into purchasing new art by un-established artists. Kind of like buying penny stocks in the hope that the company creates some cure for cancer. I think it is exciting to see non-museums buying expensive art. It forces competition and make museums look towards other investments. Risk. When it works its wonderful. When it doesn’t work it sucks and people get fired.
Museums and galleries are facing a crisis. After 10 boom years, in which there were large numbers of major capital projects in museums and galleries. There is now a clear danger that they face 10 lean years in which art museums and galleries simply will not keep up with escalating prices on the international art market and will begin to look increasingly out of date.
There may be some people who believe that public art institutions should devote their energies to the interpretation and presentation of works of art which they already own, but most people must surely recognize that art institutions become worthless if they are not able to add to their holdings and if their collections fail to reflect changing patterns of taste?
Maybe somebody who knows more than I do can say when was the last time the DIA did anything new?
they are building a whole new structure
D'oh. Fergot 'bout that.
Some old men collect for investment. Others do it because they have a complex. Like Gil Silverman. He wants to own all the fluxus art in the world. He doesnt consider it an investment. Most of his works are only a few hunderd dollars. There is that warm happy feeling some get about owning something that no one else has.
Some collectors own prints, prints are a whole different game. Most print collectors collect them because they really like them and the idea of there only being one in the world doesnt excite them.
The dia kind of has a shotgun collection of works. I cant wait til construction is done so i can see more of it.
the DIA doesn't deserve to be responsible for any art, new or old. they let a group of Waterhouse paintings get *stuck together* in the basement from water damage and poor storage. makes you wonder what else they might have destroyed and not mentioned...
there was more going on with this purchase (i've read) than just the art (which itself contains a lot of gold). it was more a matter of principles, i think, and has come to represent a whole slew of the great non-tabloided drama that makes art so en vogue to the non-arts crowd. Namely, the buyer supported the hereditary owner over a long drawn-out court case wherein she sued for custody of said work from owners who had bought it during Nazi occupation (Nazi's having stolen it from the artist's family). Juicy stuff, ripe with political and social emphasis. I would bet my left arm that the buyer didn't have to pay that much, but chose to pay that amount, to make a point. Making this a larger discussion that just "what makes art worth money at all".
Post a Comment
<< Home