4 ms·

Well if you're an artist with an MFA over time its easy to be sitting on over 250k in debt. The key point is the artist is selling a piece for $750, the collect

Well if you're an artist with an MFA over time its easy to be sitting on over 250k in debt. The key point is the artist is selling a piece for $750, the collector then can turn around and sell the same piece for $40k+. The art doesn't start gaining real value until the artist is no longer participating in the value chain of their work.

motohagiography 9y ago
It would be funny to ask a founder who has been diluted out whether one could say the same thing about software.
biztos 9y ago
> no longer participating in the value chain of their work I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean the value chain of the gallery/dealer/auction world is where prices go up then yes, that's true, but the artist is very much participating by creating and selling new work. In the $750 -> $40K+ example the artist will definitely get a lot more than $750 per piece in the future. If you mean art only gains real value after the artist is no longer making any (i.e. is dead), then actually that's not true for contemporary art.
petesalty 9y ago
Honestly, as a collector with 16 years of collecting under my belt, I can tell you this does not happen very often. I do have a few things that I paid hundreds for that are now worth thousands, but I also have works that I paid hundreds (and sometimes thousands) for that are worth nothing (although I really treasure them). If you happen to catch an artist at the beginning of their careers, and are willing to take a chance on them, then this might happen but more often than not it won't. Also, as a collector you actually want artists to be successful so you want them to be growing and continuing to get more recognition and keep producing work. In order for them to do that you want them to get better and better value from their work. The artists mentioned here might not have done so well in that auction but they certainly went on to very lucrative careers.

motohagiography 9y ago

It would be funny to ask a founder who has been diluted out whether one could say the same thing about software.

biztos 9y ago

> no longer participating in the value chain of their work I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean the value chain of the gallery/dealer/auction world is where prices go up then yes, that's true, but the artist is very much participating by creating and selling new work. In the $750 -> $40K+ example the artist will definitely get a lot more than $750 per piece in the future. If you mean art only gains real value after the artist is no longer making any (i.e. is dead), then actually that's not true for contemporary art.

petesalty 9y ago

Honestly, as a collector with 16 years of collecting under my belt, I can tell you this does not happen very often. I do have a few things that I paid hundreds for that are now worth thousands, but I also have works that I paid hundreds (and sometimes thousands) for that are worth nothing (although I really treasure them). If you happen to catch an artist at the beginning of their careers, and are willing to take a chance on them, then this might happen but more often than not it won't. Also, as a collector you actually want artists to be successful so you want them to be growing and continuing to get more recognition and keep producing work. In order for them to do that you want them to get better and better value from their work. The artists mentioned here might not have done so well in that auction but they certainly went on to very lucrative careers.