Wednesday, September 27, 2006

so you want to be a dealer?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

This is a great article if you are an art dealer or have any interest in the field....OR if you are a collector. Here are a few points to look for in collecting big works:

10 Short-Term Buys
Blue-chip contemporary artists who are undervalued, listed in alphabetical order, include Carl Andre, Richard Artschwager, John Chamberlain, Joseph Cornell, Sam Francis, Robert Gober, Ralph Goings, Howard Hodgkin, Frank Stella and Tom Wesselmann.

10 Long-Term Buys
Blue-chip contemporary artists who will continue to appreciate, despite prices that are already high, include Willem de Kooning, Philip Guston, David Hockney, Jasper Johns, Donald Judd, Roy Lichtenstein, Brice Marden, Robert Rauschenberg, Cy Twombly and Andy Warhol.

10 Holds
Blue-chip artists whose prices are maxed out but who are nevertheless worth hanging onto because of the high quality of their work include Jean-Michel Basquiat, Alexander Calder, Maurizio Cattelan, Chuck Close, Lucian Freud, Andreas Gursky, Ellsworth Kelly, Joan Mitchell, Gerhard Richter and Ed Ruscha.

10 Sells
Blue-chip artists whose prices are maxed out and may actually sink at auction include Keith Haring, Robert Indiana, Alex Katz, Robert Mangold, Louise Nevelson, Kenneth Noland, Chris Ofili, Lucas Samaras, George Segal and Donald Sultan.

5 Sleepers
Mid-level artists who will eventually be considered Blue-chip include John Baldessari, Ed Moses, Ed Paschke, Ken Price and Richard Tuttle.

5 Wild Cards:
Blue-chip artists with narrow markets whose future prices are too difficult to call include Matthew Barney, Louise Bourgeois, Vija Celmins, Tom Friedman and Bruce Nauman.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are the 10's and 5's?

What would some of Detroit's local artists be ranked at?

I was in Dallas and saw 3 shows with 3 young artists that really blew me away and I wanted to buy but they almost sold out (the ones we wanted were sold). I considered that no one in Detroit gives a rats ass about Dallas artists and the dallas art here would be valueless to a collector who collects names. I see that this list is skewed towards the N.Y. or high end art scene. What ablout local or reigonal art and artists.
If you treat an art collection like a stock portfolio, it changes the scope. Kind of like the day when you stop seeing your pet pig as a pet and start seeing it as bacon.
My wife and I buy art that we like.
Regardless of possible future investment. Its not how much it's worth, it's how much someone would pay you for it.
The gallery owner who bought Warhols 30-some soup can paintings for 1,000$ sold them for millions. That equates to buying microsoft stock when it was 3 dollars a share. takes the fun out of owning a warhol.

11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I care about Dallas artists. I was one. I relocated here about five years ago.

I've been creating work and putting together shows pretty much on my own in hopes of finding more art patrons like you "dont plan to retire...". Thank you for buying what you like instead of being sold a brand.

Not that I'm knocking success. More power to the name brand artists of the Detroit area. However, it's refreshing to find a collector with their priorities straight... Now for the plug.

I have a show this Saturday night titled Ghost Gallery in Birmingham. If you get a chance please come and introduce yourself. You can get a preview of the show as well as all of the information on my website:

2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to add that i saw more red dots in 2 days in dallas than i saw in 2 years in detroit.
Steve, Dallas is a hot bed of art and collecting.
You may regret relocating.

8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And 3 women on that list?? Tells you something about the market doesn't it.

7:13 AM  
Blogger Todd said...

The Richard Polsky article has to be taken with a grain of salt. I've known Richard for many years. His generalization tend to be... well, exactly that. And they can quite often be a bit hamfisted. It's much more entertaining to go back through his 'predictive' articles from years past, and, aside from the really obvious no brainer calls (buy Warhol, etc.), he's (in general) not that great at 'calling the market.' Granted, in the past eight years, because the art market in general has had such a meteoric rise across the board Richard's predictions on the whole have done okay, but that's not really 'calling the market,' but rather following it. It's always much harder to make predictions at the bottom rather than at the top of a given market. In addition, anyone who isn't sure about Nauman's place in the artworld in terms of historical importance, effect on artists who came after him, and his general market is pretty suspect to me!

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes the Detroit/Dallas comparison is rather silly. Dallas is still glutted with rather 'suspect' new money. And when you barely work to earn it who cares how freely you spend it.

Bush's pyramid schemes and collapsed oil companies alone keep Dallas flush with new money.

Unfortunately all of the money in Detroit is spread out in the enormous suburbs, and still centralized in the largely older, largely conservative sectors. sucks.

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ura fucktart.

money is money

11:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home