Interesting video. Whenever I've seen private mid to high end art collections, the owners have always been primarily interested in two things: investment value and bragging rights. Not necessarily in that order, but what it basically seems to come down to is hoarding for the sake of one's own ego. I'm sure there's exceptions, but I have yet to experience them.
Whenever there is some controversy regarding photography and art, I find out that many people tend to believe the stereotypes which originate in popular culture. As you said, the media do not cover art, do not explain the art world. Or actually, they do, in their art sections, which tend to have limited readership. That stereotype tends to be that people buy art because it's great, because they are sophisticated, cultured and whatnots. I remember that kitsch landscape sold recently and the buzz around it, many people commenting on that alleged sale wouldn't understand why it was improbable or at least shady. So yes, it's true that many people do not understand the investment part of the art market. Good video and well explained.
When people say " build your name" which sadly is the case in the art world, something is terrible wrong. It should really be about whats beeing produced, not who made it. As you say Ted, its a big business and its the collectors who in many situations dont have a clue about art who put the price tags on the work.
Artist Life works 1969 to 2018 of Master Duffy. over 500 fine art works 100 museum quality and size. 10 masterworks better that classics. Sale All $200 Million with guarantees of value $300 million by 2022. Text or call me . buy Art works individually just send best offer. 507 530 9310 Wood Lake Farm site 4 BR 2,000 sq ft 7 acre 3 out buildings /electric, 3 without /E Beautiful place, 2,000 hardwoods, new furnace 2018. New Roof 2019 Buyer check your Bank qualifying for loan . solid 1889 home, redone in the 80"s. 2019 electric fuse boxes and heating upgraded 2019 .Wild life becomes part of the every day.
Thanks for covering this topic Ted. It raises the question of how does one create fine art work for the market? Where does copyright fit in this scenario? I think that this is a subject for further discussion.
thank you Ted for educating us photographers on the Art Of Photography... from ideas to subject matter, through the glass/camera to the media, from negatives/images to prints, from presenting/showing/selling prints to the buyers/dealers and beyond ... much appreciated!
There are 7 billion people on earth. Unfortunately not all can be famous, however everyone can be selfless. But today, people just seem selfish. Every now and again you run across someone with open eyes, sorta what keeps me going. Keep capturing your moments friends, let's make tomorrow shine.
I'll be the first to admit my naiveté about the fine art world and its inner workings but thanks Ted for this highly educational video. This make the story we have here in Canada a little more clear. A collector had bought a collection of Annie Leibovitz's works, had donated it to the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia and was looking to use it as a tax loophole. Apparently the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia board of directors smelled something fishy, got the collection appraised and their appraiser thought the original appraisal submitted by the collector was too high. Needless to say the collection now rests in the bowels of the art gallery and will not be shown to the public without Annie signing off on the exhibit. In short ["The gallery was dealt a crushing blow this week when a federal board refused to grant the collection a certification of cultural significance, which comes with important tax incentives for donors." ~ gleaned from a Global News article.] Unscrupulous dealings or what? I'm sure it's a much more complicated tangled web of deceit that even appears on the media.
I'm interested to know.... Is the value of artwork guaranteed to exponentially increase once displayed in a museum? Does the opposite ever occur? Another comment by @Keith Doucet suggests there are appraisals completed before the artwork is displayed which provide cultural significance accreditations for the work etc.. Is this the only stage of appraisal/ valuing by art experts? If not, who is involved during the further stages. Are the prices purely dictated by the collectors from there on or is some other form of curating conducted past this point? From the video, seems as though it's just the collectors? If that's the case, sounds like a joke of an industry and not appealing at all to me. I suppose wherever large amounts of money are concerned the waters always get murky.
Yep, it's definitely treated as just another asset class. By the time you have the kind of wealth that you're willing to drop a few million on a piece of art, the overall investment focus is on preserving wealth more than it is making more money. Somebody who owns a regional business, for example, will have a difficult time selling to international investors if they find themselves in a situation where they need to, whereas an art piece is relatively easy to transport. I didn't know about the front running, but it certainly makes sense.
Ted Forbes Great Video!!!!!! I have to say that I believe that this is one of the most interesting episodes in a very thought provoking way and that I have no idea at all about some of the questions that you posed. I really appreciate you explaining this because I had no idea about the things that you brought out in the piece. In general, IP is tough and one of the bigger things underpinning IP and copyright is the first sale doctrine. Changing that, would create havoc with a huge number of industries. e.g. used book stores. The trouble with artists has always been finding a way to make a living. Since the Church is not funding Art in the same way as it did in the past and public support of art is low at least in the US and the number of commissioned art works is pretty low at least in photography. Low end portraits and weddings will always be around. However, commissioned true fine art projects are rare. This leads me back personally to, you do art because it is a compulsion because you can't help but do art because it is your way of existing in this world. If you can make a bit of money doing it, great, if you can make a living doing it you are probably both talented and exceedingly lucky.
Making a living off of art is more than just talent and luck although those are important. The key ingredient is marketing skills and a business knack. If you know how to build your name and get your work in front of the right channels and how to play that game then you put yourself in a position to be succesful. Is it guaranteed? No. Is there still a level of luck involved? Of course there is. But knowing how to play the marketing and business game of art increases your odds of getting lucky.
This has been the case since the crash in 2008. Art, wine, classic cars etc. have all grown exponentially as investors are still nervous of the traditional markets
I first came across the complexities of the high end art market in Steve Martin's wonderful novel, "An Object of Beauty". This video made me think of it again, and the elaborate balancing act between funding the arts through patronage and profiting from art via savvy investments. A truly thought provoking subject and video.
Nice clip. It means a lot for me. You know, I'm a university student and I just started making my own artworks. I think fine art market is really hard to get into, but I hope I could show and sell my works to the audience someday. Keep making awesome videos!
Ted, thank you so much for this video. I've always been interested in how these people work and I think you've done a very great job of being objective in this video. Thanks again!
Money and Art never make a good mix. That's a shame that artists cannot take a share of the increased value of their work when art pieces are resold... That's a standard in Music, where even DJs have to pay royalties when they use samples from other artists.
Great talk Ted, as always. This is tricky because the asset holds a tangible value beyond the investment value. Like buying an antique car vs. 30k shares of Apple. It's easy to say you regulate the stock market because nobody is sitting at home enjoying the list of stocks in their portfolio in the same way someone could be with a painting or an old car. It's hard to create solid rules which would separate those who collect for the love of the work vs. purely financial reasons as well since both types of collections could range from one piece to hundreds or more. I do appreciate the Droit de suite rules and wonder if the US will ever follow suite. Unfortunately, although many artists are very business savvy, many are not and lobbying for such laws just doesn't happen. I would love to hear you dive deeper on the lower end art world Ted. I enjoyed that previous talk and have listened to some others talk about breaking into that world, finding galleries that are a good fit, building a resume, etc. and I'd love to hear your take on these types of topics. It's a conversation or lecture that could easily span multiple videos. Perhaps some interviews with folks that represent a spectrum of types of Gallerists. Thanks for all of your work. I really enjoy and have learned from it.
I wonder if the collector's who are paying 90K a piece for Richard Prince's Instagram works honestly think it's an investment. Do you think these 'mediocre' works will go up in value over time? At least Struth and others produced exceptional work.
David Rothschild That's my point David - it doesn't matter. And I guarantee you its an investment. I'm not standing up for Prince - I though the work was lazy and trivial, but that's how big a name he is and how well collected he is.
David Rothschild They're paying for the name as much as anything else. The fact that it was heavily pubicised also helps, especially without a formal market in place, as is the case with art. It's also an anti-theft mechanism- anybody who takes something that is that well known is going to have difficulty selling it above board, whereas gold, jewellery, or cash is far more liquid and attractive for thieves.
David Rothschild They don't have to like the work themselves. Being it a work these collectors assume, not incorrectly, that some people think is art and like (without actually knowing much, if anything, about art), they know they will be able to have profit with it. They may even dislike the work, but simply invest in it because they know it with bring them profit. They can also advertise the work, instigating the price to increase. People may find it 'polemic' and buy it simply for such reasons, and then others follow, creating a trend for such 'mediocre' work and increasing its value economically. Just like any other product out there, that you see in TV commercials and advertisements, a market can be created for something unnecessary and futile such as those works. One could argue that by talking about such topic we give it attention, an attention it doesn't deserve. Perhaps, for such works, it'd be best to just ignore them, not waste the time and effort in saying it is bad, but instead spend time and effort in talking about good works, good artists, those who deserve the attention, which, for example, is what Ted is doing in this channel and with Contrast. It's a strictly business vision. They don't care about its quality, the ethical questions behind it, they are simply looking for profit and know it will bring them.
I recently learned how hard it is to make videos like this [making my own]. Good work Ted, thanks for what you do. There is a highlight behind you but I more than happily ignore it considering the preparation, production quality, brevity and concise speaking manner. Thanks for the videos.
Jay Leno has a fantastic collection of cars and motorcycles. This is something he is knowledgeable of and enjoys. I can imagine he has seen a considerable appreciation. Now that's a great way to put your fortune to work.
It may also be worth noting that these unsavoury business deals can originate from the artist as well. In the movie "Exit through the gift shop" it has been speculated that the artist "Mr. Brainwash" was a hype machine created by the artist Banksy as a social experiment to flip the art world on it's head. Whatever the intended outcome, the resulting consequence was mediocre work being sold for outrageous amounts of money. And once investors have invested money their interest is no longer about good art, but instead it's about protecting their investment. In this case we all know the "art" is not of high quality but people are still willing to pay lots of money for it. The artist, the dealers, and the collectors are all guilty of knowingly trying to make a quick buck on half-assed art.
Oh how I'd love to have a high end gallery pick up my work and sell it on my behalf for tens of thousands a pop. Three sales a month and I'm a happy guy. I'd even do free promo work for them if they were generating that volume of sales! Of course, it would have to be first class travel and hotel rooms, as well as lots of glad-handing buyers in 5* eateries all over the world. Such a hard life, but then, if someones going to do it, that someone may as well be me?
A San Diego gallery offered beautiful lithographs of some fine art paintings by "Dr Seuss." All the original paintings were owned by his wife, who wasn't selling. The gallery wanted five thousand each for the lithographs, which were expensively framed and matted. Years later, I learned they didn't have any value, because the artist hadn't authorized them.
The Art of Photography A photographer friend of mine told me the single greatest thing Ansel Adams ever did was to stop making prints. Hey you get to work a lot less and make a whole lot more.
I only wish my "Guidance Counselor" in High School 40 years ago had told me all this....I wouldn't have bothered to go to Art School (RISD)...I would have listened to my Father and become a Dentist or gone to Harvard Business School instead...LOL
Artist Life works 1969 to 2018 of Master Duffy. over 500 fine art works 100 museum quality and size. 10 masterworks better that classics. Sale All $200 Million with guarantees of value $300 million by 2022. Text or call me . buy Art works individually just send best offer. 507 530 9310 Wood Lake Farm site 4 BR 2,000 sq ft 7 acre 3 out buildings /electric, 3 without /E Beautiful place, 2,000 hardwoods, new furnace 2018. New Roof 2019 Buyer check your Bank qualifying for loan . solid 1889 home, redone in the 80"s. 2019 electric fuse boxes and heating upgraded 2019 .Wild life becomes part of the every day.
Great VDO. As are all you produce. Just 1 Qx. In min. 10:38 you mention a case in CA wherein a 1st Sale case was ruled unconstitutional. What is ther legal case reference on that case? Just for a bit of research. TY for all you do. Kjiersten
The Art of Photography on this high end market this prints are unique print for that photo? I mean is that considered the "original" art piece, or is it seen as one of many? I know that Ansel Adams was adviced to limit the number of reprints of his photographs to increase hteir value. Do the artist/photographer keep a record of how many prits he has done and is any information regarding numbering being transmitted to the buyer? Sorry for the long question.
I personally don't have a problem with the "insider trading" charge. Even though I put the term in quotes, that is an accurate description of what is happening. I just feel that art did not start out as an "investment" opportunity and if that's all you are looking for then you deserve having to pay an artificially high price. Yes, a few friends of the museum or whatever institution might have gotten an insider tip to buy a particular artist early on and made off with a few of the better pieces at a lower price. However, I can't imagine this being in the institution's best interest or at least not as their ultimate goal. Their goal is to make those high dollar sales when the demand has been artificially inflated. "Real" collectors who are just fans of the artform do not separate no-name artists from recognizable artists. If they come across a great piece at some small town crafts festival they will buy it just as quickly as the more famous stuff. I love the story of the Vogel's who started buying minimalist art before it really was a thing. Of course, they had connections and who knows if they were tipped off early on.
James Taylor the Vogel's have a great story. You have to remember though that collecting in their day wasn't the high-dollar affair that it is now. And yes - they collected because they loved art. Very rare to say the least.
The market is so crazy! So the pieces or work has to go up. If your work doesn't go up then your career is finished. I also hear about galleries not paying the artists full amount. There good MFA schools like Yale and UCLA that did nothing. I personally know street artists like Retna and now his work is blue-chip.
Very interesting topic and thanks for your thoughts. I'd be interested to know your thoughts in how to get into this market as an art photographer especially for the film photographers. I find it hard to market my work although I exhibit and try to share as much as I can in social media. I hope dying is not my best chance of getting discovered. Thanks again. Greetings from Australia
Greed is not only the rich man's sin but also that of the common man. Some decades back, here in Canada, people were led to think that they could do legalize business by buying artworks from galleries (or intermediates) for charity's sake (in an unusual manner). Maybe these were grey zoned legal opportunities at first, but if that was the case the IRS caught up with the scam. People were buying artworks from galleries at the cost price and in return they receive an overestimated written evaluation of the work. It was that evaluation's number that people filled in the donation part of their Internal Revenue as the amount that was given to the charity association (which I guess went along with the scheme). This scheme might well have been going on for years within the rich men's circle, but the transitional access to the middle-class men probably prompt the IRS to intervene. Most of these artworks were done by unknowns or promising newcomers. Some may have gotten a short-lived fame while others got their names on the map. I don't know how that compares the US laws or other part of the world. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are evaluators, auctioneers, and insurance companies that voluntarily overvalues artworks so as to create new (and fake) high-end markets. Thanks Ted for this wonderful episode. I would like to see more of these "behind the scenes" enlightening viewpoints.
I'm interested to know.... Is the value of artwork guaranteed to exponentially increase once displayed in a museum? Does the opposite ever occur? Another comment by @Keith Doucet suggests there are appraisals completed before the artwork is displayed which provide cultural significance accreditations for the work etc.. Is this the only stage of appraisal/ valuing by art experts? If not, who is involved during the further stages. Are the prices purely dictated by the collectors from there on or is some other form of curating conducted past this point? From the video, seems as though it's just the collectors? If that's the case, sounds like a joke of an industry and not appealing at all to me. I suppose wherever large amounts of money are concerned the waters always get murky.
I'm certainly no Richard Prince. I do regularly sell my work. I do limited editions (of 5 per edition) and will occasionally make a second or third edition. Each print is numbered and signed and the purchaser gets a document with information about the materials, date of creation and date of printing. My work goes for $225 to $375 and I have no qualms about selling a "proof" and labeling it as such for under $100.. I try to be scrupulously honest with my "collectors." It is my experience that if you want to make money as a "buyer" or an artists, you must trade in and on "names." Why else would (recent) Tracy Emmins or Damien Hurst pieces be so valuable (expensive)? If people ask me, I tell them,"never buy works on paper no matter what the signature looks like and If you want to speculate on a piece of art, Ill give you my psychiatrists card. She has some good medication for that."
Global sales for photography account for 2% of the totals for any given year. The average price being $12,000. Yes Peter Lik bumped up the average a bit. While the interest in the other 98% of the paintings, silk screens and sculpture makes interesting conversation. It has what to do with photography, sales of photography or the future of photography? Photography is the moral compass of the art world? Don’t play if you don’t want to. 2% of the market tells me we weren’t invited to play in their sandbox to begin with. Photography would be better off to blaze its own trail instead riding the coattails of big brother.
Tammany Hall called insider trading honest graft. I guess it would be the same with insider buying but there would seem to be more risk with art even if you had inside knowledge. We can't regulate everything we will end up regulating who can take a panorama, it is all getting way too regulated in almost everything, including speech.
Well insiders do call it THE ART GAME for a reason. Its almost as if the wealthy and affluent get to determine what "real art is" because they can buy and sell if for high prices. If you question the quality of the art, they will always go back to "what is art anyways" or "you just don't get it" arguments. Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol proved that that you could be either a very bad artist (Pollock) or bad but almost approaching mediocre (Warhol) and be successful. Two kooky dudes with cool sounding names and big marketing teams behind them. The fact that their terrible art has sold for so much has help create the modern fine art market today. The art community (either us online or art historians or museum directors) needs to call out these practices more. But we won't because museums will lose money, art historians tend to stay neutral and artists themselves secretly want to be the next great artist. If Pollack, Warhol and Prince can play the art game why can't I? So the modern fine art market continues. I just wish they would stop calling it fine art.
Well, art community sounds like cloak and daggers. I'm Photojournalist selling my working to magazines and newspapers. My rights always on my mind. The business of art is over my head. But, I find your report very interested, I want to see more. Thanks.
I imagine experienced collectors/investors know that its not only about the artist. You also begin following other collectors who you know have these sorts of insider connections. In other words, if you see mega-millionaire mr. Joe Schmo start making a move on a particular artist, it "might" be a good market signal to buy that artist as well. Similar behavior is observed in the stock market as brokers will watch what investments someone like Warren Buffet makes and will incorporate this into their market analysis. I wouldn't make this kind of thing the sole criteria of my investment decisions but it is definitely something worth paying attention to.
I am no artist, but to me, free market means free market. Enough with regulation already. Seems to me if someone with more money than brains is willing to pay a fortune for a photograph (or what ever) let them. Sometimes I suppose an artist may get screwed but if said artist can sell anything at any price he or she is ahead of the game given the number of "starving artists" out there now.
tobroken1965 But this is the point; these are investors who buy photographs with the expectation of a return. They either know the market or a specific section of that market and that means they understand the trends. They are not fools. Art is an investment, like any other investment and the outcome is speculative. Hedge fund manager Steven A. Cohen, whatever his faults, is a very wealthy man by any measure. Why would he throw his money away on work by Andy Warhol or Damian Hirst? He wouldn't. He expects a return if he sells. He expects his investments to grow in value. He diversifies his investment portfolio and because of his own gravitas, eventually, his earlier investments grow further in value. It's just about being market savvy. Others follow him and the market continues to grow. If you want to invest in art - and it's really only for those who have the money to do it - you find an artist or a section of the market which 1) you like, 2) has intrinsic value (goes beyond being just pretty pictures) and 3) has room for growth (is somewhat undervalued). If you can nail those, you're in. Photography, as the Latin root of the name implies, is painting with light. The only difference between this and painting at this level is that the brush is usually a camera (unless you're someone like Waleed Beshty or James Welling).
A true investor doesn't need to like the art, and neither does the art need to have intrinsic value. The only parameter of any importance is the potential for becoming sellable for more money as time goes.
The book There is No F in ART exposes what he's talking about here and treats it with sheer irreverence - how cultural appreciation is bought, is the best art the most expensive, when does art become ART? Some very clever images too on Instagram @nofinart
What do you think of George Lucas and what he is going through to build his art museum for his collection? Spending almost $750m of his own money, even to do so?
Interesting video. Whenever I've seen private mid to high end art collections, the owners have always been primarily interested in two things: investment value and bragging rights. Not necessarily in that order, but what it basically seems to come down to is hoarding for the sake of one's own ego. I'm sure there's exceptions, but I have yet to experience them.
Whenever there is some controversy regarding photography and art, I find out that many people tend to believe the stereotypes which originate in popular culture. As you said, the media do not cover art, do not explain the art world. Or actually, they do, in their art sections, which tend to have limited readership.
That stereotype tends to be that people buy art because it's great, because they are sophisticated, cultured and whatnots. I remember that kitsch landscape sold recently and the buzz around it, many people commenting on that alleged sale wouldn't understand why it was improbable or at least shady. So yes, it's true that many people do not understand the investment part of the art market.
Good video and well explained.
When people say " build your name" which sadly is the case in the art world, something is terrible wrong. It should really be about whats beeing produced, not who made it. As you say Ted, its a big business and its the collectors who in many situations dont have a clue about art who put the price tags on the work.
Artist Life works 1969 to 2018 of Master Duffy. over 500 fine art works 100 museum quality and size. 10 masterworks better that classics. Sale All $200 Million with guarantees of value $300 million by 2022. Text or call me . buy Art works individually just send best offer.
507 530 9310
Wood Lake Farm site 4 BR 2,000 sq ft 7 acre 3 out buildings /electric, 3 without /E Beautiful place, 2,000 hardwoods, new furnace 2018. New Roof 2019 Buyer check your Bank qualifying for loan . solid 1889 home, redone in the 80"s. 2019 electric fuse boxes and heating upgraded 2019 .Wild life becomes part of the every day.
Thanks for covering this topic Ted. It raises the question of how does one create fine art work for the market? Where does copyright fit in this scenario? I think that this is a subject for further discussion.
thank you Ted for educating us photographers on the Art Of Photography... from ideas to subject matter, through the glass/camera to the media, from negatives/images to prints, from presenting/showing/selling prints to the buyers/dealers and beyond ... much appreciated!
There are 7 billion people on earth. Unfortunately not all can be famous, however everyone can be selfless. But today, people just seem selfish. Every now and again you run across someone with open eyes, sorta what keeps me going. Keep capturing your moments friends, let's make tomorrow shine.
I'll be the first to admit my naiveté about the fine art world and its inner workings but thanks Ted for this highly educational video. This make the story we have here in Canada a little more clear. A collector had bought a collection of Annie Leibovitz's works, had donated it to the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia and was looking to use it as a tax loophole. Apparently the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia board of directors smelled something fishy, got the collection appraised and their appraiser thought the original appraisal submitted by the collector was too high. Needless to say the collection now rests in the bowels of the art gallery and will not be shown to the public without Annie signing off on the exhibit. In short ["The gallery was dealt a crushing blow this week when a federal board refused to grant the collection a certification of cultural significance, which comes with important tax incentives for donors." ~ gleaned from a Global News article.] Unscrupulous dealings or what?
I'm sure it's a much more complicated tangled web of deceit that even appears on the media.
I'm interested to know.... Is the value of artwork guaranteed to exponentially increase once displayed in a museum? Does the opposite ever occur? Another comment by @Keith Doucet suggests there are appraisals completed before the artwork is displayed which provide cultural significance accreditations for the work etc.. Is this the only stage of appraisal/ valuing by art experts? If not, who is involved during the further stages. Are the prices purely dictated by the collectors from there on or is some other form of curating conducted past this point?
From the video, seems as though it's just the collectors? If that's the case, sounds like a joke of an industry and not appealing at all to me. I suppose wherever large amounts of money are concerned the waters always get murky.
Yep, it's definitely treated as just another asset class. By the time you have the kind of wealth that you're willing to drop a few million on a piece of art, the overall investment focus is on preserving wealth more than it is making more money. Somebody who owns a regional business, for example, will have a difficult time selling to international investors if they find themselves in a situation where they need to, whereas an art piece is relatively easy to transport.
I didn't know about the front running, but it certainly makes sense.
Ted Forbes Great Video!!!!!!
I have to say that I believe that this is one of the most interesting episodes in a very thought provoking way and that I have no idea at all about some of the questions that you posed. I really appreciate you explaining this because I had no idea about the things that you brought out in the piece.
In general, IP is tough and one of the bigger things underpinning IP and copyright is the first sale doctrine. Changing that, would create havoc with a huge number of industries. e.g. used book stores. The trouble with artists has always been finding a way to make a living. Since the Church is not funding Art in the same way as it did in the past and public support of art is low at least in the US and the number of commissioned art works is pretty low at least in photography. Low end portraits and weddings will always be around. However, commissioned true fine art projects are rare.
This leads me back personally to, you do art because it is a compulsion because you can't help but do art because it is your way of existing in this world. If you can make a bit of money doing it, great, if you can make a living doing it you are probably both talented and exceedingly lucky.
Thanks Ben Woodard
Ben Woodard I
Making a living off of art is more than just talent and luck although those are important. The key ingredient is marketing skills and a business knack. If you know how to build your name and get your work in front of the right channels and how to play that game then you put yourself in a position to be succesful. Is it guaranteed? No. Is there still a level of luck involved? Of course there is. But knowing how to play the marketing and business game of art increases your odds of getting lucky.
This has been the case since the crash in 2008. Art, wine, classic cars etc. have all grown exponentially as investors are still nervous of the traditional markets
I first came across the complexities of the high end art market in Steve Martin's wonderful novel, "An Object of Beauty". This video made me think of it again, and the elaborate balancing act between funding the arts through patronage and profiting from art via savvy investments. A truly thought provoking subject and video.
Nice clip. It means a lot for me.
You know, I'm a university student and I just started making my own artworks. I think fine art market is really hard to get into, but I hope I could show and sell my works to the audience someday.
Keep making awesome videos!
Ted, thank you so much for this video. I've always been interested in how these people work and I think you've done a very great job of being objective in this video. Thanks again!
This is #1 topic for me at the moment, but I think, you barely scratched the surface. Looking forward to seeing new videos covering this topic!!!!
Money and Art never make a good mix.
That's a shame that artists cannot take a share of the increased value of their work when art pieces are resold... That's a standard in Music, where even DJs have to pay royalties when they use samples from other artists.
Great talk Ted, as always. This is tricky because the asset holds a tangible value beyond the investment value. Like buying an antique car vs. 30k shares of Apple. It's easy to say you regulate the stock market because nobody is sitting at home enjoying the list of stocks in their portfolio in the same way someone could be with a painting or an old car. It's hard to create solid rules which would separate those who collect for the love of the work vs. purely financial reasons as well since both types of collections could range from one piece to hundreds or more. I do appreciate the Droit de suite rules and wonder if the US will ever follow suite. Unfortunately, although many artists are very business savvy, many are not and lobbying for such laws just doesn't happen.
I would love to hear you dive deeper on the lower end art world Ted. I enjoyed that previous talk and have listened to some others talk about breaking into that world, finding galleries that are a good fit, building a resume, etc. and I'd love to hear your take on these types of topics. It's a conversation or lecture that could easily span multiple videos. Perhaps some interviews with folks that represent a spectrum of types of Gallerists.
Thanks for all of your work. I really enjoy and have learned from it.
I wonder if the collector's who are paying 90K a piece for Richard Prince's Instagram works honestly think it's an investment. Do you think these 'mediocre' works will go up in value over time? At least Struth and others produced exceptional work.
David Rothschild That's my point David - it doesn't matter. And I guarantee you its an investment. I'm not standing up for Prince - I though the work was lazy and trivial, but that's how big a name he is and how well collected he is.
David Rothschild They're paying for the name as much as anything else. The fact that it was heavily pubicised also helps, especially without a formal market in place, as is the case with art.
It's also an anti-theft mechanism- anybody who takes something that is that well known is going to have difficulty selling it above board, whereas gold, jewellery, or cash is far more liquid and attractive for thieves.
David Rothschild They don't have to like the work themselves.
Being it a work these collectors assume, not incorrectly, that some people think is art and like (without actually knowing much, if anything, about art), they know they will be able to have profit with it. They may even dislike the work, but simply invest in it because they know it with bring them profit. They can also advertise the work, instigating the price to increase. People may find it 'polemic' and buy it simply for such reasons, and then others follow, creating a trend for such 'mediocre' work and increasing its value economically.
Just like any other product out there, that you see in TV commercials and advertisements, a market can be created for something unnecessary and futile such as those works.
One could argue that by talking about such topic we give it attention, an attention it doesn't deserve. Perhaps, for such works, it'd be best to just ignore them, not waste the time and effort in saying it is bad, but instead spend time and effort in talking about good works, good artists, those who deserve the attention, which, for example, is what Ted is doing in this channel and with Contrast.
It's a strictly business vision. They don't care about its quality, the ethical questions behind it, they are simply looking for profit and know it will bring them.
I recently learned how hard it is to make videos like this [making my own]. Good work Ted, thanks for what you do. There is a highlight behind you but I more than happily ignore it considering the preparation, production quality, brevity and concise speaking manner. Thanks for the videos.
***** The art world is the way it is so that *anyone* can succeed.
"Take that sentence however you want it" - is also a hint to the art world.
Jay Leno has a fantastic collection of cars and motorcycles. This is something he is knowledgeable of and enjoys. I can imagine he has seen a considerable appreciation. Now that's a great way to put your fortune to work.
In order for an object to exist as art there has to be communication. Greed is the end of art. Neither greed or art will likely end.
It may also be worth noting that these unsavoury business deals can originate from the artist as well. In the movie "Exit through the gift shop" it has been speculated that the artist "Mr. Brainwash" was a hype machine created by the artist Banksy as a social experiment to flip the art world on it's head. Whatever the intended outcome, the resulting consequence was mediocre work being sold for outrageous amounts of money. And once investors have invested money their interest is no longer about good art, but instead it's about protecting their investment. In this case we all know the "art" is not of high quality but people are still willing to pay lots of money for it. The artist, the dealers, and the collectors are all guilty of knowingly trying to make a quick buck on half-assed art.
This is a terrific example! I came away from that movie thinking Brainwash was Banksy.
Oh how I'd love to have a high end gallery pick up my work and sell it on my behalf for tens of thousands a pop. Three sales a month and I'm a happy guy. I'd even do free promo work for them if they were generating that volume of sales! Of course, it would have to be first class travel and hotel rooms, as well as lots of glad-handing buyers in 5* eateries all over the world. Such a hard life, but then, if someones going to do it, that someone may as well be me?
I like that you did this video in one take. Kudos.
Very interesting... I know different countries have different laws, but I never thought about any laws that prohibit making money after first sale...
A San Diego gallery offered beautiful lithographs of some fine art paintings by "Dr Seuss." All the original paintings were owned by his wife, who wasn't selling. The gallery wanted five thousand each for the lithographs, which were expensively framed and matted. Years later, I learned they didn't have any value, because the artist hadn't authorized them.
A museum almost never sells their art, so is a artist has lots of work in museums, their work becomes worth more.
Good to shed some light on this. Thanks!
I like where you are going with AOP Ted!
I was wondering how many prints do people make for fine art photography? Certainly the more prints you make the less they're worth?
Glenners basically. Lots of factors go in - certainly scarcity, how they're printed, what the work is, artist's name… this all factors in.
The Art of Photography There were exceptions though. For example Helmut Newton, who, if I remember rightly, didn't sell limited editions.
The Art of Photography A photographer friend of mine told me the single greatest thing Ansel Adams ever did was to stop making prints. Hey you get to work a lot less and make a whole lot more.
I only wish my "Guidance Counselor" in High School 40 years ago had told me all this....I wouldn't have bothered to go to Art School (RISD)...I would have listened to my Father and become a Dentist or gone to Harvard Business School instead...LOL
Artist Life works 1969 to 2018 of Master Duffy. over 500 fine art works 100 museum quality and size. 10 masterworks better that classics. Sale All $200 Million with guarantees of value $300 million by 2022. Text or call me . buy Art works individually just send best offer.
507 530 9310
Wood Lake Farm site 4 BR 2,000 sq ft 7 acre 3 out buildings /electric, 3 without /E Beautiful place, 2,000 hardwoods, new furnace 2018. New Roof 2019 Buyer check your Bank qualifying for loan . solid 1889 home, redone in the 80"s. 2019 electric fuse boxes and heating upgraded 2019 .Wild life becomes part of the every day.
Great VDO. As are all you produce. Just 1 Qx. In min. 10:38 you mention a case in CA wherein a 1st Sale case was ruled unconstitutional. What is ther legal case reference on that case? Just for a bit of research. TY for all you do. Kjiersten
The Art of Photography on this high end market this prints are unique print for that photo? I mean is that considered the "original" art piece, or is it seen as one of many? I know that Ansel Adams was adviced to limit the number of reprints of his photographs to increase hteir value. Do the artist/photographer keep a record of how many prits he has done and is any information regarding numbering being transmitted to the buyer? Sorry for the long question.
I personally don't have a problem with the "insider trading" charge. Even though I put the term in quotes, that is an accurate description of what is happening. I just feel that art did not start out as an "investment" opportunity and if that's all you are looking for then you deserve having to pay an artificially high price. Yes, a few friends of the museum or whatever institution might have gotten an insider tip to buy a particular artist early on and made off with a few of the better pieces at a lower price. However, I can't imagine this being in the institution's best interest or at least not as their ultimate goal. Their goal is to make those high dollar sales when the demand has been artificially inflated. "Real" collectors who are just fans of the artform do not separate no-name artists from recognizable artists. If they come across a great piece at some small town crafts festival they will buy it just as quickly as the more famous stuff. I love the story of the Vogel's who started buying minimalist art before it really was a thing. Of course, they had connections and who knows if they were tipped off early on.
James Taylor the Vogel's have a great story. You have to remember though that collecting in their day wasn't the high-dollar affair that it is now. And yes - they collected because they loved art. Very rare to say the least.
Very informative
Thanks for raising these issues!
Really hope that you will write a blog about it other than making a video
Great vid as always
The market is so crazy! So the pieces or work has to go up. If your work doesn't go up then your career is finished. I also hear about galleries not paying the artists full amount. There good MFA schools like Yale and UCLA that did nothing. I personally know street artists like Retna and now his work is blue-chip.
Very informative Ted. Thank you
Hi Ted, it would be very appreciated if You could maybe talk about the bromoil process. Greetings from beautiful LA.
thanks for all the info, I like all videos
where did you get info about Europe market you mention in 10:19 ? Iam from Eastern Europ and first time hear such thing.
Very interesting topic and thanks for your thoughts. I'd be interested to know your thoughts in how to get into this market as an art photographer especially for the film photographers. I find it hard to market my work although I exhibit and try to share as much as I can in social media. I hope dying is not my best chance of getting discovered. Thanks again. Greetings from Australia
Thanks, your video is a first in my attempt in learning about art investment.
Thank you, yes. Informative.👍
Very interesting topic!
Can you please do a video on how to break into photojournalism.
Informational as usual Ted, and sadly not that surprising. V
Greed is not only the rich man's sin but also that of the common man.
Some decades back, here in Canada, people were led to think that they could do legalize business by buying artworks from galleries (or intermediates) for charity's sake (in an unusual manner). Maybe these were grey zoned legal opportunities at first, but if that was the case the IRS caught up with the scam.
People were buying artworks from galleries at the cost price and in return they receive an overestimated written evaluation of the work. It was that evaluation's number that people filled in the donation part of their Internal Revenue as the amount that was given to the charity association (which I guess went along with the scheme).
This scheme might well have been going on for years within the rich men's circle, but the transitional access to the middle-class men probably prompt the IRS to intervene.
Most of these artworks were done by unknowns or promising newcomers. Some may have gotten a short-lived fame while others got their names on the map.
I don't know how that compares the US laws or other part of the world. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are evaluators, auctioneers, and insurance companies that voluntarily overvalues artworks so as to create new (and fake) high-end markets.
Thanks Ted for this wonderful episode. I would like to see more of these "behind the scenes" enlightening viewpoints.
Really insightful would like to see a more comprehensive video though!!!
I'm interested to know.... Is the value of artwork guaranteed to exponentially increase once displayed in a museum? Does the opposite ever occur? Another comment by @Keith Doucet suggests there are appraisals completed before the artwork is displayed which provide cultural significance accreditations for the work etc.. Is this the only stage of appraisal/ valuing by art experts? If not, who is involved during the further stages. Are the prices purely dictated by the collectors from there on or is some other form of curating conducted past this point?
From the video, seems as though it's just the collectors? If that's the case, sounds like a joke of an industry and not appealing at all to me. I suppose wherever large amounts of money are concerned the waters always get murky.
I'm certainly no Richard Prince. I do regularly sell my work. I do limited editions (of 5 per edition) and will occasionally make a second or third edition. Each print is numbered and signed and the purchaser gets a document with information about the materials, date of creation and date of printing. My work goes for $225 to $375 and I have no qualms about selling a "proof" and labeling it as such for under $100.. I try to be scrupulously honest with my "collectors."
It is my experience that if you want to make money as a "buyer" or an artists, you must trade in and on "names." Why else would (recent) Tracy Emmins or Damien Hurst pieces be so valuable (expensive)? If people ask me, I tell them,"never buy works on paper no matter what the signature looks like and If you want to speculate on a piece of art, Ill give you my psychiatrists card. She has some good medication for that."
Really interesting. Thanks Ted.
I once heard that some people use Art for money laundering...
Amazing!
Global sales for photography account for 2% of the totals for any given year. The average price being $12,000. Yes Peter Lik bumped up the average a bit. While the interest in the other 98% of the paintings, silk screens and sculpture makes interesting conversation. It has what to do with photography, sales of photography or the future of photography? Photography is the moral compass of the art world? Don’t play if you don’t want to. 2% of the market tells me we weren’t invited to play in their sandbox to begin with. Photography would be better off to blaze its own trail instead riding the coattails of big brother.
Tammany Hall called insider trading honest graft. I guess it would be the same with insider buying but there would seem to be more risk with art even if you had inside knowledge. We can't regulate everything we will end up regulating who can take a panorama, it is all getting way too regulated in almost everything, including speech.
Well insiders do call it THE ART GAME for a reason. Its almost as if the wealthy and affluent get to determine what "real art is" because they can buy and sell if for high prices. If you question the quality of the art, they will always go back to "what is art anyways" or "you just don't get it" arguments. Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol proved that that you could be either a very bad artist (Pollock) or bad but almost approaching mediocre (Warhol) and be successful. Two kooky dudes with cool sounding names and big marketing teams behind them. The fact that their terrible art has sold for so much has help create the modern fine art market today. The art community (either us online or art historians or museum directors) needs to call out these practices more. But we won't because museums will lose money, art historians tend to stay neutral and artists themselves secretly want to be the next great artist. If Pollack, Warhol and Prince can play the art game why can't I? So the modern fine art market continues. I just wish they would stop calling it fine art.
Shooting blanks , best not waste film ... for that matter , effort .
Well, art community sounds like cloak and daggers. I'm Photojournalist selling my working to magazines and newspapers. My rights always on my mind. The business of art is over my head. But, I find your report very interested, I want to see more. Thanks.
I imagine experienced collectors/investors know that its not only about the artist. You also begin following other collectors who you know have these sorts of insider connections. In other words, if you see mega-millionaire mr. Joe Schmo start making a move on a particular artist, it "might" be a good market signal to buy that artist as well. Similar behavior is observed in the stock market as brokers will watch what investments someone like Warren Buffet makes and will incorporate this into their market analysis. I wouldn't make this kind of thing the sole criteria of my investment decisions but it is definitely something worth paying attention to.
I need to move to France.
you speak very well. please dont become a politician.
I am no artist, but to me, free market means free market. Enough with regulation already. Seems to me if someone with more money than brains is willing to pay a fortune for a photograph (or what ever) let them. Sometimes I suppose an artist may get screwed but if said artist can sell anything at any price he or she is ahead of the game given the number of "starving artists" out there now.
tobroken1965 But this is the point; these are investors who buy photographs with the expectation of a return. They either know the market or a specific section of that market and that means they understand the trends. They are not fools. Art is an investment, like any other investment and the outcome is speculative. Hedge fund manager Steven A. Cohen, whatever his faults, is a very wealthy man by any measure. Why would he throw his money away on work by Andy Warhol or Damian Hirst? He wouldn't. He expects a return if he sells. He expects his investments to grow in value. He diversifies his investment portfolio and because of his own gravitas, eventually, his earlier investments grow further in value. It's just about being market savvy. Others follow him and the market continues to grow.
If you want to invest in art - and it's really only for those who have the money to do it - you find an artist or a section of the market which 1) you like, 2) has intrinsic value (goes beyond being just pretty pictures) and 3) has room for growth (is somewhat undervalued). If you can nail those, you're in. Photography, as the Latin root of the name implies, is painting with light. The only difference between this and painting at this level is that the brush is usually a camera (unless you're someone like Waleed Beshty or James Welling).
A true investor doesn't need to like the art, and neither does the art need to have intrinsic value. The only parameter of any importance is the potential for becoming sellable for more money as time goes.
Could you maybe if you coulds do a Tumblr blog??? that would be interesting/
velvet buzzsaw
The book There is No F in ART exposes what he's talking about here and treats it with sheer irreverence - how cultural appreciation is bought, is the best art the most expensive, when does art become ART? Some very clever images too on Instagram @nofinart
Did my comment/question get deleted?
John Mason WEIRD! I just replied to you!
The Art of Photography John - you left it on the Fine Art video it says…
John Mason Thisi one? -> ruclips.net/video/MK1odjmE5hg/видео.html&lc=z13xsxhxbmviznt4b04cfvdhpsq0tfrrrrc0k
The Art of Photography It is weird, not showing here. Oh well, got your reply, thanks as always for your insight.
I am seriously considering just faking my own death. Maybe my value would go up....
Europe or France? it's a big difference ;) 10:20
Tor Ivan Boine The legal aspects of this topic are really difficult to tackle. Anyway, I appreciate the approach. Great episode.
What do you think of George Lucas and what he is going through to build his art museum for his collection? Spending almost $750m of his own money, even to do so?
Lucas is collecting for passion, not as an investment. Hats off to him.
So art market is not about art at all
I think art is as manipulated as the stock exchange
Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno send their regards.