3 ms·

At a fundamental level I don't understand what fractional art ownership is, who would pay for it, or why they would pay for it. I understand what fractional jet

At a fundamental level I don't understand what fractional art ownership is, who would pay for it, or why they would pay for it. I understand what fractional jet ownership is and why timesharing a vacation condo works, but fractional art ownership seems to me to be fundamentally different. Where was the evidence for need? What do people do today in lieu of fractional art ownership?

abossy 17y ago
Agreed. While reading through the article, it feels like an over-analysis of what is really a no-brainer: a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in a bad economy. Sure, many great ideas probably seem absurd initially, but that's more the reason to minimize burn rate and increase longevity (which isn't evident from the 9-month number they cite).
brett1211 17y ago
Hi- People already physically share their art with other people and institutions over the course of the year, think of all art in museums that is "on loan" from private collections. Fractional ownership would enable art investors to diversify their portfolios and would reduce the entry point for investors in the space. Also, unlike planes, art is an appreciating asset.
- gustavo_duarte 17y ago
  I think skmurphy understands the theory behind fractional art ownership but is simply skeptical such a market exists in practice. Is there an established market for shared art ownership (besides fractional donations for tax purposes)? If not, then I think there's a more direct and simple lesson from the failure: if there's no existing market for your idea, the most likely reason is that people don't want to buy it or use it. Thus you better have solid evidence there really exists unmet demand, probably via experiments in the earliest stages of the venture.
- skmurphy 17y ago
  There are firms that rotate paintings/photographs through corporate lobbies but retain title to the collection (it may also be for sale). There are many "loan" arrangements. I am not aware of "fractional ownership" arrangements: I think one of the key challenges may be "fractional sale."
catch23 17y ago
Their idea reminded me of Paul Graham's initial idea of selling art over the internet (before Viaweb). The only difference with Paul's idea and theirs involved the partial ownership bit.
Ennis 17y ago
I actually think it's a good idea. I don't know about fantastic or if it would make much money but I can see potential in it. I don't think they had the right team for it. I did not see much creativity or innovation going on here. It's a very difficult proposition to sell someone something that they can't keep. They should have tried other methods. Maybe allowing towns to pool money together to get pricey famous art to spend a year in their museums? Or allowing anyone online to purchase a fraction of art in Iraq so that it is protected from looting - it can be toured worldwide and returned to the country when it can actually be protected. I can keep going. But they apparently chose not to.

abossy 17y ago

Agreed. While reading through the article, it feels like an over-analysis of what is really a no-brainer: a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in a bad economy. Sure, many great ideas probably seem absurd initially, but that's more the reason to minimize burn rate and increase longevity (which isn't evident from the 9-month number they cite).

brett1211 17y ago

Hi- People already physically share their art with other people and institutions over the course of the year, think of all art in museums that is "on loan" from private collections. Fractional ownership would enable art investors to diversify their portfolios and would reduce the entry point for investors in the space. Also, unlike planes, art is an appreciating asset.

gustavo_duarte 17y ago
I think skmurphy understands the theory behind fractional art ownership but is simply skeptical such a market exists in practice. Is there an established market for shared art ownership (besides fractional donations for tax purposes)? If not, then I think there's a more direct and simple lesson from the failure: if there's no existing market for your idea, the most likely reason is that people don't want to buy it or use it. Thus you better have solid evidence there really exists unmet demand, probably via experiments in the earliest stages of the venture.
skmurphy 17y ago
There are firms that rotate paintings/photographs through corporate lobbies but retain title to the collection (it may also be for sale). There are many "loan" arrangements. I am not aware of "fractional ownership" arrangements: I think one of the key challenges may be "fractional sale."

catch23 17y ago

Their idea reminded me of Paul Graham's initial idea of selling art over the internet (before Viaweb). The only difference with Paul's idea and theirs involved the partial ownership bit.

Ennis 17y ago

I actually think it's a good idea. I don't know about fantastic or if it would make much money but I can see potential in it. I don't think they had the right team for it. I did not see much creativity or innovation going on here. It's a very difficult proposition to sell someone something that they can't keep. They should have tried other methods. Maybe allowing towns to pool money together to get pricey famous art to spend a year in their museums? Or allowing anyone online to purchase a fraction of art in Iraq so that it is protected from looting - it can be toured worldwide and returned to the country when it can actually be protected. I can keep going. But they apparently chose not to.