@@Ethan-lx1vv Just before commenting on this video I watched a RUclips video where the author painstakingly and repeatedly explained how you don't actually own the rights to anything by buying an NFT. He could be wrong, but I doubt it from how determined he was to tell everyone the truth.
Why do regular people want to be part of the rich-people art market? Just find an artist whose work you like and buy from them/commission something. That's how you support real, living artists
You buy my art for cheap, then we both collaborate to make me look like an undiscovered genius and you’re the first one to see my genius. Hopefully prices skyrocket and we both get filthy rich. It’s not that hard to see why manipulation is rampant in this market. Who’s to say that I’m not a genius artist? We only have to convince enough people regardless of my actual talent.
That's one thing I don't understand. There is no way the market could be that low unless you don't include most of the digital art markets. Where they only including physical art?
A friend worked for a somewhat famous artist. He ended up drawing his art and got paid $10/h, while the artist just signed the paintings sold them. Some went for $100k+... So yeah, it's a complete nonsense-industry.
@@artificial-frequencies You could say that, but what it really means is that art is all about the signature. My friend likely wouldn't have gotten a penny if he tried to sell these under his own name, they're very... 'abstract'
That's how many huge artists work, with studio assistants who actually produce the work. AmdyvWarhol's Factory was famous for this, but that's how artists with enough money can be prolific and execute many of their ideas in a shorter amount of time.
@@Dan-cm9ow yeah, it's "correctly priced" in that some other auditor agreed with the first based off the same set of manipulated market factors for art.
For most artists, it's hard to even get minimum wage since it takes a lot of work and they're often asked to draw for free. And yet a stick figure could be sold for millions by manipulating the market. It's insulting to most artist's skill and effort, imo
Evan Butler: When lots of modern sculpture is literally, trash, things have gotten crazy. I was PISSED when my city bought multiple sculptures to display, and they were literally twisted wreckage from junk yards, re how they looked. And they spent MY tax dollars on THAT. The world just gets less and less sensible over time, in various ways, IMO.
Buyers who expect artists prices to be too high really don't understand the creative process. These posers and gallery opening hangers-about or "artholes" as I call them are merely there for the atmosphere, often they are paid by the gallery when a new emerging artist is up for showing. The market is dictated by creating an artist with a good back story.
Compare your drawings to actual conceptual art like the one of James jean or robi dwy antonio or yoshitomo nara ,those three artists make millions while strictly doing figurative painting ,you’ll see that talent alone doesn’t matter ,everyone knows how to run ,to be a Michelangelo it takes character and that’s what makes an artist
Classical art is also manipulated. Van Gogh is imporyant because they decided him to be important while Dali and Picasso already became famous during their lifetime. Or, while Louvre houses many beautiful statues, because Venus De Milo is marketed so well when it was found, now it has become an icon. Or Mona Lisa, despite being a not so pretty painting, because it was stolen now it is the most famous painting in the world. So, before judging modern art, you should also acknowledge that classical art was also commisioned for money. At least modern art pieces has vision and fun while classical art is super boring.
I thought the same thing until it was asked could a normal person persuade a well known art gallery to investigate the painting well enough to verify its authenticity. The question is a resounding "No". The bottom line is I could very well have bought that painting, hung it on my wall, and it would never get noticed until a well connected art dealer got ahold of it to reveal its real value. Had that never happened that painting would have been sold for a few thousand dollars at best and probably still be hanging in some regular Joe's living room.
True artists are not money orientated , they paint a subject that interests and pleases them , painting is what they enjoy , if their painting sells for a few thousand dollars or less to provide them an income they are satisfied . I think I'm correct , that Van Gogh never sold any of his paintings . A member of my family bought John Constable's The Hay Wain together with the famous French Boursault collection , he sold it a few years later for 375 pounds , and what must the value be today .
@@Huaimek861 i think van gogh sold one. Most artists are money motivated even at a basic level to sell a painting shows you a person likes your work what you could make an argument for is whether an artist wants to be successful in their career most are not most are happy to just plod along selling the odd picture while having fun creating.
This is so much money laundering in the art market. Mexico in 2012 put limits on what could be spent on a piece of art and demanded auction houses and galleries require more information on who was actually doing the buying. In one year since that law was in place prices dropped 70%. Drug cartels no longer were interested I guess!
Right. If a dealer buys for 80mil why would a buyer willingly pay 100 mil for it plus fees? Yes he's rich but rich people famously hate losing money. It's obviously money laundering
@@TheBornnaked The economist reported the Geneva freeport might hold $100 billion worth of U.S. art, sitting tucked away in a space that also functions as a tax haven. In perspective. That's more than the entire annual art market.
@@allandill2033 yeah I don’t doubt that at all. This world is filled with very clever people who aren’t exactly ethical. But I do think some of these astronomical prices for art are legit. Art is such a unique human phenomenon and having an original piece from someone like da Vinci, Van Gogh, basquiat, etc. is really a treasure of humanity. If I was a billionaire I wouldn’t even hesitate to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a masterpiece of one of the greats.
@@TheBornnaked I agree with you absolutely on things like that. Those artworks would be considered worth a fortune because people will pay to see them. Around €15 a head. But what about Amedeo Modigliani's “Nu Couché” 1917? What makes it worth so much? Except that Ezra and David Nahmad purchased it at auction and held it in... the Geneva duty-free port. Another painting of that series was sold for $186.1 million... and it was purchased with a credit card
Very interesting, although one sin of omission--you didn't mention that one of the most negative consequences of this racket is that art galleries and museums can't afford to compete for these paintings now, which means the general public can't see them. They disappear on to the walls of billionaires as conversation pieces and status symbols, or into their bank vaults to be seen by no one.
That’s not what’s happening. Almost all museums and galleries have no shortage of exhibitions, and this amazing video explains how: many expensive artworks are donated for tax deduction purposes (although perhaps some are also donated out of goodwill)
@@gideonk123 The most expensive paintings in the world that have been sold in recent years are now in private hands, as they are the only ones who can afford them. Directors and curators of galleries and museums complain they can't compete with the super-rich who buy up the paintings. Some are loaned to galleries and museums, but most are not. You must be an art dealer.
@@chel3SEY Although I admit some very expensive paintings are not exhibited, let’s not forget these artworks are usually so famous that almost all of them have already been photographed with sufficient resolution, so effectively, they’re available to be seen for free on the internet - an amazing resource of modern times not available in the past. I’m just an amateur painter, not an art dealer, and not an art collector.
@@gideonk123it’s exactly what’s happening. That’s why museums ONLY DISPLAY NEW WORK DURING THOSE EXHIBITIONS; they literally can no longer afford to actually buy pieces themselves, they have to rent them
I've got this fellow in NY who will value the videos at not a penny less then twelve-five. After that I'm donating them and claiming a 6 million tax break.
Years ago, ABC's 20/20 had some children painted some pairings and presented them to arts appraisers without telling them who the "artists" were. The result was hilarious as the appraisers went on and on about how sophisticated and valuable the paintings were!
Although, to be fair, I *have* seen some kids make some pretty good stuff… a lot depends on attitude, ‘energy’, and enjoyment by the artist of the creative process. Most of these pieces are proudly exhibited on refrigerator doors around the world.
I always thought it was hilarious that auction houses had their own appraisers, even for less shifty markets. "So, you are the recognized authority to determine how much it's worth?" "Yes." "And you work for the auction house that's auctioning it?" "Yes." "And the auction house makes a tidy profit if it sells high enough?" "Yes." "Seems like a pretty self-fueling cycle, isn't it?" "Exactly!"
I think you’re confusing some terms here. At Christie’s, our auction estimates are simply the range at which we think the work can sell for, not an idea of how much the piece is intrinsically worth. Of course it’s in our interest to put this value as high as possible since we want it to sell for a high price. But that’s the beauty of an auction - the buyers get to decide if the auction estimates were way too high or low with how much they bid. If you ever see our results you notice that not everything sells because the estimates were placed too high, or something sells for way above the high estimate, as the buyers decided they were willing to pay more for it. We do have a separate appraisal wing at Christie’s, but that is a separate service and not part of the sale process.
@@msherd130 the act of putting the prices higher than what's it's actually worth artificially inflates the market, because someone who is buying it will see an expensive piece of art, among other expensive pieces of art. Even if that particular work was overvalued it makes it look as if the other artworks are more valuable which distorts the buyers perception.
That is why I personally think why a lot of expensive modern art pieces are getting weirder and uglier. It seems what’s being boosted is the controversy factor, it’s just faster to promote. So they don’t care if technically the artwork is lazily made, as long as there’s a backstory of the artist, some wow factor like touching on controversial subjects, they can work easier to inflate the price. Honestly this sickens me, because I see so many talented artist who spends hours to master their medium and to give their labour of love through their art, get shadowed by a bunch of lazy well-connected artists, who couldn’t care less about mastery, because it wasn’t for labour of love in the core that they do it. It’s really just to be part of the cabal and make big money.
On the other end of the spectrum, small galleries in NYC, Chicago, SanFran, etc. they've been shutting down in droves over the last 20 years. Sometimes it's that the owner(s) get bored, or go broke. As an artist, you put your work up in those galleries, the show opens, people come and drink wine and socialize, your art is babysat for a month, then the gallery gives you your art back and it goes back into your storage unit or your mom's wall. This is the reality for most artists. The best solution for artists is to gift, sell to or trade with people you know, who want your work for this simple reason: they like your work for how it looks and how it makes them feel when they look at it.
Artists can also open their own museum like Donald Judd. There are lots of art jobs. Like video games. Look how there's art everywhere. Or make money on yt.
OMG I literally just said that exact thing just a minute ago! YES! Eff those galleries and avaricious, hifalutin, clout chasers. I was thinking we should get contracts attached to our work that says no one is permitted to sell or trade it to rich people and it can only be gifted to the next person. This way only people who truly feel a connection to the art will cherish it and it won't be used as some kind of lifestyle accessory. Does the term "branding" or "brand" irritate you as much as it does, me? It gives me serious ick. Im watching artist friends being taught they need to brand themselves.... like... shouldn't their art be enough? Now artists have to market themselves as a person in order to compete for sales? I refuse. The commodification and commoditization of art and artists is just SUPER ICK. Turning yourself into a brand sounds like you're trying to package yourself to sit on a shelf at Walmart. ooooo I get so mad! 😠
Nothing happened after the Panama papers so I give up with humanity. Doesn’t matter how many leaks you get. People don’t do shit. They expect to be conned and they just accept it. Fucking depressing.
@@elias_xp95 yeah, that's the part that makes change seem pretty impossible in that regard. Everyone with power is in on it. No major international politician or business bigwig can really point at the Panama, Paradise or Pandora papers and say "this is bad, let's change that" because they most definitely have some sort of business relation to at least a couple of the names in those papers.
As an art student at a traditional fine art academy, I can testify that rich people can make art themselves too. They certainly don't lack talent, but when put in comparison with others on the same or better overall abilities, they have a distinct advantage which is their connections. I know families who put all their children into this field because they have been successful and can propel their successors. I have seen paintings that would normally get a C or D sold at an astounding price for a freshman student with average skills while self made ones with works that I believe can already be in the industry struggle to find sales. Fortunately I don't intend to follow into the traditional fine art industry, having no connection to insiders myself and knowing now how the stereotype "talented struggling artists" came to be. However, it still saddens me to see art being treated like this.
have you seen Madonna's son's work? Nuff said. Outside of his fame by osmosis, I remember walking by a gallery in Central London a couple of years back and thinking "you've gotta be kidding me" about the artwork exhibited therein. It wouldn't have been "original" in 1950 but here we were. Connections, eh?
When fine art and music songs are free, no wonder that artificial intelligence is doing its dumb art. maybe its art looks beautiful but not as passionate as human art. Experts say Artificial intelligence, isnt very intelligent about Human nature, it spreads misinformation about humans but Artificial inteligence is able to "convince" people about its own truth 82 percent more, than being convinced by real human. Which means if you will believe every article you read on internet, for example about men and women relationship, or 90 kinds of sex identities etc one day you become the "caricature" of human, that the Artificial intelligence thinks about you....Take every article as potential rumor and not as truthful fact. Because the journalists in future will let the artificial intelligence to write articles for them, so they dont have to, so there will be more desinformation than today, if we will not use our intuition of real life experiences. There was evidence experts explained when you "warned" the artificial intelligence about making some mistake or writting some mistake, the AI became quite a bit angry , having an attitude because you decided to criticise it... So people grow up and use your own intelligence.
I actually work at Christie’s auction house and can affirm that Sam’s description of how auctions work is spot on so kudos for doing your research! My only two notes is that a) just because a rich person wants to donate an artwork to a museum at a certain value, doesn’t mean that museum will blindly take it. Art is expensive to store and take care of and even top museums are always strapped for cash, so it can be risky to rely on this method unless you are donating a top blue chip artist. They might not find it worth it to accept certain artists or works B) I’m sure Sam didn’t mean this but the video gives off the impression that the people involved in the art market are just rich people looking to cheat tax codes and move money around, etc and let me tell you the art market is far worse to do that than when compared to real estate, commodities, and other investments. Most people’s art does not appreciate in value especially considering the considerable costs to care for, transport, and store works of art. Most of the buyers I work with are just genuinely interested in art and buy paintings that they like artistically. There are those looking to speculate but most dealers dislike this kind of client and it’s considered almost to be a faux pas. Obviously I am coming at this with some bias but just my two cents!
Thanks for your sharing. I agree with your comment, but just want to add - the tax benefit is just a cherry on top for rich people who are truly interested in art. Rich people who are not interested in art get their tax benefits in other ways. The whole tax code needs a revamp.
I thought donating art meant giving it to the museum or gallery for free. If not, it's not donating it's just selling. I figured if you donate a 10 million dollar piece of art you basically declare it as a loss on taxes. In the video he made it sound like the museum is buying the art but the money received is not taxed, at least not the same as normal income. To me that arrangement doesn't match what donating is by definition
@@deek0146 yeah, I understand that. My question was more to do with the tax issues. In the video the way he described donating, it sounded like the museum either paid for the art or the value of the art was declared as income for the donator. In either instance it didn't sound like an actual "donation". Granted, I was listening to this in the background while I work so maybe I missed some context
There was a great short in the Wolphin series a few years ago called, "Home James, and Don't Spare the Horses." The premise of the film was that a wealthy art collector had a struggling kid come to his house for a reception, then had his daughter tell the guy a bunch of scripted nonsense about how the dad was abusing her and every piece of art in the place was fake. The guy got drunk and made a complete ass of himself, at one point destroying a painting -- at which point he found out that none of it was true. So he's standing there alone with the host afterward, panting and sweat covered, and says, "WHY DID YOU DO THIS?" And the old man smiles and says, "Tomorrow your paintings will be worth ten times as much as you ever thought possible, kid."
@Sherri T[A]P Me!! To Have [S]EX With Me I was honestly wondering about this, rather terrifying hearing how casually these authentic Da Vincis and the like are getting flown back and forth across the world. Of course if one gets lost nothing of intrinstic value is lost, although having renaissance paintings around to be able to analyze to learn about ancient painting techniques is nice.
Perfumes are another example of this, although it works a little differently because perfumes are perishables. But people will totally admire a stinker just because it has a pricetag of above $200 attached and a name of a famous perfumer.
Not true at all. Top Perfumes have some of the best ingredients, vintage perfumes were some of the best ever made, but usually you should be able to get a good cologne perfume for 50$. But you do have to pay something for the design element
@@andrewchapman5659 I really dislike that argument of "the best ingredients" - anyone can claim that because perfume houses have no obligation to reveal their ingredients. The truth is, you don't know. If it smells good to you, and seems worth the price for you, that's fine. But humans are herd animals with a leaning towards being religious and I've seen totally religious behaviours in the perfume community. Belief, adoration, sacrifice of hard earned money for something that more authoritative members of the herd claim is "divine".
@@frusia123 no. Very wrong. Most people obviously like perfume because of the smell. And quality matters. You never get a good perfume from a convenience store.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme Quality matters to me also, and it's true that high quality rarely comes cheap. But the reality of perfume industry is that the high price tag is not a guarantee of high quality, and you as a consumer have no way of making sure that your expensive fragrance is in fact made of high quality ingredients. And it's also a fact that many people go crazy about some unwearable scents just because of marketing.
Artificial manipulation of prices to cause speculation isn't exclusive to art. It happened in the early 17th century with tulip bulbs. More recently this craze found it's way to coins, baseball trading cards, beanie babies, and retro video games. A small group of curators decide the price. Then investors buy in hoping prices will continue to rise, further fueling the bubble. Almost none of these people are actually interested in the hobby itself.
White collar criminals, no less. The type who have the funds and influence needed to not just silence a discussion, but reframe it and twist people's opinions on it (hint: lobbyism). That's why this is so important!
If you have good taste in art, you can go to an art school and buy excellent, original work at very low prices. If you want to show your wealth, you compete for the world's most famous paintings.
Yes, very good advice. Pay large sums of money to go to an art school and buy excellent, original work at very low prices. You might as well fork over your kidney to the artists while you're at it. The only art school I know of where this doesn't apply would be Cooper Union in New York - in which case, tuition is free but living is not. I swear to god one day New York is going to tax breathing.
@@benfarrow9498 In that case, I agree then. I was thinking about it and my conclusion was even though paintings found at art school student sales are rarely framed and custom framing costs a fortune, you could probably buy a million paintings before you reach the price of the Mona Lisa.
When IRS found 42% valued correctly, 29% overvalued, and 29% undervalued, it’s just a normal bell distribution and it’s basically saying IRS can’t value it any better for obvious reasons.
I think they all overvalued, when there is nothing impressive about the stupid looking paintings, but still some people pay millions of them, but I dont mind I cant buy them, when in Art museum I can watch how stupid modern art looks with their stupid looking faces.
@@willguan7214 That's the narrator's conclusion. The commenters are pointing out that there is another conclusion that can be drawn. You're welcome to accept the narrator's conclusion, that doesn't mean that it is correct or the only explanation for the discrepancy, which is indeed a distribution that one would expect to find in any subjective valuation process.
@@willguan7214 The conclusion seems to be drawn from nothing, however. There is no anomaly in the presented data. There COULD be statistical anomalies there if the art gets undervalued by just a bit and overvalued by huge margins - but these are not the numbers we were given. We learned that a bit less than half was apprised on point while most fell roughly equally on one side or the other - this is what you'd expect to see. Depending on how generous you are with the definition of correct appraisal you could maybe conclude that art is hard to appraise and there is a huge variation between their verdicts on the same thing compared to other markets - but that's about it. There is basically nothing to explain. Now, it would be different if he could separate the values and say that appraisals connected with art donated to museums tend to low-ball the values while those connected with inheritance proceedings high-ball them - sure. There would be something to talk about. 29% over and 29% below the value given by another, hopefully impartial appraiser? Sounds normal. Don't get me wrong - I am personally deeply convinced that the prices are being severely manipulated, if only because it's hard to believe that people with both evident means and strong motivation to engage such manipulation would completely refrain from it - especially considering the often questionable morals of the super-rich when it comes to ways of making or saving money. But just because I agree with the conclusion doesn't transform data that shows nothing into some crucial evidence of the scam. The "explanation" provided in the video is no evidence of anything underhanded going on - at best it's an attempt at explanation why this data isn't evidence to the contrary.
Check out the Nasher Collection in Dallas whereby the Nashers got the US tax code to subsidize their private art collection and double-dip benefits. After realizing that sculpture was underpriced relative to paintings they started by having their shopping mall buy sculptures to display there, which is a deductible business expense. After owning the pieces for several years, the mall then donates the sculptures to the Nashers' nonprofit foundation (which also owns the museum), thereby getting a charitable deduction at the appreciated value.
Millionare: "Hey artist, here is 30k dollars for a comission" Artist: * makes the artwork * Millionare: * gives the artwork to his art expert friend * Art expert: "Oh yeah this artwork is definetily worth 10 million dollars!" Millionare: * donates 10 million dollar artwork to a public museum * Government: "You are such a nice guy! Here, take this 4 million dollar tax cut off!" Me at the museum: "This is bulshit" Hipster beside me: "Naah man you just don't understand"
This seems to be happening to the retro video games market too. Recently Karl Jobst published a video exposing how a rating company and an auction house were supposedly manipulating market prices for sealed retro games.
The comparison to trading cards in the video is pretty spot on. With a permanently finite supply and any sort of demand for a product, you can trade it back and forth until pretty much no one can afford it anymore.
I think it will be slightly weaker due to the donation aspect of retro games, unless it is a one and only copy otherwise the value of it will be lower as well. Rarity of a mass produced item can only go so far.
And Pokemon cards are entering this dark path too... I hate how real collectors are being pushed away by people who wants to make profit out of fake prizes
it’s the cheapest option if your only intention is purely economical but most buyers want to rotate their collections into their estates as status symbols
There was this documentary on Netflix (the name escapes me for the moment) about an arthouse selling known fakes for years. They were "fake" in the sense that they were not painted by the famous painters they were claimed to be painted by, but ripoffs of their styles. So they were originals so to speak, since they were not direct copies of existing works. Throughout the documentary people talked about the scams, the money lost, yet no one - which I found strange while watching the movie - mentioned how it is not the artwork that you buy, but who painted it. Think about it: why is a painting worth more if it is painted by person x instead of person y? It is the same painting we are talking about, the same artwork, the same quality. We see the same thing in designer clothing: you don't pay for the quality of the shirt, but for the little crocodile (as an example) on it. Ridiculous.
It's a fair question but the artists matters often as part of the art When someone makes an original Wendover video but is someone else I feel betrayed, too
Besides the shirt, the art cost money too. Especially if its hand done. Such as the materials and labor for the art, like machines and electricity. Tho I do think many things are expensive. But if things were cheap would people act snobby and belittle it like elites too and assume this was a cheap product, or would people still admire good art or work in of itself?
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c I disagree, consumers generally appreciate affordable goods with great value. If X company made an affordable product that lasts a long time, it would earn that company a lot of good will.
@@enriquetorres8062 paint is technology so is a brush and canvas....bitcoin is worthless, idiots inflated a price and it will be a bubble...look at first known bubble effect with tulips....idiots speculating on something that cant feed you or give you anything real...that will go on for a few decades and be replaced by a new better logo....that is why all does tech companies that sold concepts are closed over last 2 decades and microsoft is top dog as it sell you program to run your pc( a real thing) and why facebook need to sell your info for profits as it would be closed long ago if it didnt sell your info and ad space ....if you dont sell real stuff you will run out of idiots to buy your non existing bs
I would think the simple version is: You help me at the government/enterprise. I give you $10 million I buy paintings from your artist son for $10 million. He gets famous. You get the money. I donate them for 10 million tax credit. but it’s not bribe. Because government can’t stop me from liking arts!
I am 60, and was a master framer for 32 years. I have been "invited" to bid on some items in the $35,000-50,000 range, that I can find for $3,000-5,000 off auction. I noticed pieces put into my auction at $500,000-750,000 range, that were more desirable and much harder to find, making me feel like I should want these items more. (Even though they are overvalued.) These auction houses have things pretty well sewed up!!! They have also closed all the good frame shops, and offer the art framed, or wrapped around some 2×2s fresh off an ink jet printer...Nows that's profit!!! Not to mention their real estate "offerings," that seem to have all the nice houses under contract.🤔🤫🤭
@@HEYYOUGOTMYGAWDDAMNFOODKAMEHAM really...man is 60 and you use Bruh...grow up this isnt rust or some dumb toxic game....he has hear a lot of dumb shit over his lifetime he doesnt need your millennium bs with no real meaning....
The paintings I buy are framed by a local custom framing shop for around $100 - $200 a piece (small to medium sizes). The owner has an art degree and is really helpful with consultations. But I'm not collecting paintings that cost six figures, so I don't know what that world is like. What do you think distinguishes a top tier frame shop?
I would add that the rich also believe they can manipulate trends in color, tone, subject matter etc. A graphic designer, for example, might use an image of a shell for an oil company that destroys the ocean so your mind ignores what's in plain sight. An interior decorator might paint a restaurant's walls red in order to make you feel agitated so you can leave and a new customer can sit down. Painters and Sculptors have always been the first place other creatives go for inspiration. Think: Cubism and The Bauhaus / Jackson Pollock and those ugly splashed paint designs on car seat covers etc. They know that if they control Fine Artists then they control the designer, photographers, the fashion industry, and therefore, our entire visual language of the world.
I haven't watched mainstream entertainment in a while. I take time to search and look at indies and all kinds of art and entertainment, and other areas, and decide for myself.
What do you mke of the company 'Masterworks'? It buys art, then sells shares in those artworks to small investors, charging an annual fee for looking after the art, and it takes a 20% sales cut. When the art market stagnates or pops, the company will be fine, but the many shareholders will be left holding dud shares. Is it more than a well-disguised Ponzi scheme?
I like your videos. On a technical note- that doesn't sound like a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme, there should at least be some money given to people who buy into the organization. It sounds like Masterworks just takes money and convinces people to give them more money.
I love all the talking heads who say you shouldn't invest in cryptocurrency because it is a small, tightly concentrated, unregulated market for meaningless digital tokens that have no intrinsic value and then IMMIDIATELY turn around and suggest investing in fine art through fractional ownership instead. 😂😂😂
You know... There is an absurd beauty on the fact an lost DaVinci painting was just... hanging around in New Orleans and it was sold so cheaply. I absolotly love these small miracles :')
Except it’s looking more and more like a dud. Even if it wasn’t, the amount of restoration required made the painting more restorer than whoever actually painted it.
@@danbumstead1096 So... For you eventually every paint is just the work of the people that restored it then? Like, you know that eventually petty much most painting WILL need a little refeshment right?
An excellent introduction to the greatest scam of the 20th century. I spent 50 years of my life trying to be a "fine" artist. I eventually got a very small piece into the Moma library. My paintings never did very well but I did sell over 50 of them in the less than thousand-dollar range. No serious gallery will handle material this cheap. I did much better with my printed material. I decided to be an artist in the 4th grade- prompted by tv shows and movies. If I could go back, I believe I would have studied plumbing. I was totally lied to about "art".
@@Vincent_Beers sadly many of us can say the same. It actually blows my mind what will be bought for thousands when in reality its a ll a tax right off if it can make it into a museum
In the globalised internet world now, commercialised art has never been cheaper. Outsourcing big Hollywood and AAA art projects for movies and video games to Asians will to work for peanuts.
What I learned: Art is truly based on the perceived value of a group of people. For this reason, it makes it so easy to take advantage of art for less noble objections.
Well there's expensive, price gouging, and money laundering in everything. Watch Insider Business on expensive things. For example, they talked about a Japanese handmade calligraphy brush that was $1000. I get something may be higher quality but I think that's too expensive. Brand name, handmade, antiques, or retro things can be expensive even if it's a simple thing, such as with video games. There's corruption and price gouging in art but there's also artists and social media creators who get their work stolen online and not credited. Some artists volunteer to work for free at first to build their resume and name.
@@jeffbrehove2614 There are lots of art jobs. Look how there's art everywhere. Artists can also open their own museum like Donald Judd, do art like for video games, or make money on yt. You can do art as a second job. You should do your dreams. There are artists outside of the elites who were able to get famous. Such as on social media. Which you have now to help you.
I can't ever go to a Van Gogh anything (unless 100% of the *proceeds* went to charity) because the man only ever sold one painting. I've known tons of fantastic artists working retail; the reality is that successful artists are successful peoples unsuccessful friends
The "intrinsic value" argument applies to all collectibles: stamps, coins, rare books, baseball cards etc. That is the very point of collectibles: they have cultural, not material, value, and the market is determined by the interaction of buyers/sellers/dealers. Everything in this video applies to a greater or lesser extent to every segment of the collectibles trade.
Intrinsic and material value basically mean the same thing: you/I/we perceive a thing to be good. In my opinion good/bad are completely subjective and therefore both terms are misleading because they imply the value is a fundamental property of the thing, which it's not since you need something other than the thing to 'demonstrate' the value - in opposition to a fundamental property like mass. Therefore you might as well say: Everything in this video applies to a greater or lesser extent to every segment of -the collectibles- trade
@@Christian-sm9he If by "value" you mean monetary value, then not really (depends on the demand, the offer, the stocks, etc). But it certainly has more value (beside monetary value) than any piece of art.
i remember writing a paper on gerhard richter for college and i found a clip of him saying that an art collector/museum person was telling him to sell his pieces for like $16 million or something. at least $10mil. and he was saying how absurd it was and that he didn't want to increase his prices! and i was so happy to hear that from him. thank you for this video!
"Any market can be exploited, which is why markets are regulated." Regulation is not a solution to complicated market dynamics. The art market is literally the perfect example of why that's the case. No amount of regulation can give a precise view on aesthetic value.
Not true. So much uggly garbage sold at ridiculous prices, not reflecting any real or imaginary value. Art is definitely not regulated, and is extremely corrupt! So much uggly or stuрid stuff, done and overdone. Regulation of art industry is surely required loooong time ago, but rich keep it the way it is. For big reason that benefits them specifically.
You're missing the "other" market: online auction houses, where 100k pieces are sold every quarter. While it's a small monetary portion, they sell more pieces in a day than the big auction houses sell all year.
You explained it already, small monetary portion. The big auction houses are all about huge numbers, and huge profits, like one made 55 million profit during one auction.
@@dnlgrmn7169 The irony is many of these auctions are chump change for the buyers and little more than business/social events with an activity attached. Rich people networking basically, where real big money deals for much bigger things are going down.
I hear you on Nebula - I was a member (nebulite?) - but I found the technology of the platform frustrating - particularly the video player it hosts. Hard to skip forward and back, other missing features that I tend to use a lot made watching vids there frustrating. Jus' sayin'
At this point I subscribe to support the creators I enjoy (many of the people I regularly watch take part), watch main videos on RUclips, but go to nebula for the companion videos, exclusives, and the like
Coming from someone who has worked in the art market for years. That’s very true that once the artwork enters secondary market there is no way to identify its intrinsic value, it is possible to do that for primary market (especially for artists who are still at the beginning of their careers) by outlining a trajectory that is connected to their gradual recognition by the industry gatekeepers. There are online platforms like Artsted who do exactly that, by democratizing the market and letting retail collectors access the market in lower figures, as well as benefit the artists directly.
@@Qwijebo That's a very vague statement. Depending on the artist, you'd also have to figure out how to get the "newly discovered" work into the catalogue raisonne.
‘Crazy Egotist Connection’ • Christie's: Owned by Groupe Artemis • Groupe Artémis: The holding company of François-Henri Pinault • François-Henri Pinault: Billionaire chairman and CEO of Kering • Kering: Owns the luxury brands Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and Bottega Veneta. • Sotheby's: Owned by French-Israeli Billionaire Patrick Drahi. Now You See How the Rich Works For the Rich to be More Rich.
I'm an artist, colored pencil realism, and I could never get a gallery to take me on because none of those people give a hoot about realistic art. They only want abstract.
And how many of the buyers can actually appreciate the works they spend so lavishly on? I took a course on modern art, very little does much for me, abstract photgraphy is the only thing I can get.
In August of 2003 I was in Saga City, Japan. I saw what looked like a genuine Japanese wood-block print (ukiyo-e) in the window of a junk shop. I went by but returned later to look at the back to see if it was genuine mulberry bark paper. It was. I bought it for 3000 yen. The shop owner was so sorry that she may have ripped me off she gave me an antique soap dish with it for free. I could tell from the style it was Kunissda I. Later I realized it was from his Seven Ronan Dog Warriors series from 1849 to 1850 when he died.showing a Kabuki samurai. No one in my hotel could read the old Japanese script. Since then I have discovered that it seems no one has a copy of that print anywhere in the world not Tokyo or Osaka or San Francisco not New York or London. A dealer in San Francisco offered me $50.
Animal Crossing New Leaf taught me this 😅. Paid a lot of "money" for what looked like a nice piece of art then got told that I can't even donate it because it's a "forgery". Then I kept it because it does look nice.
NFT are made by bitcoin millionaires feeling left out of the art market scam. Sometimes they try to be the artist themselves, sometimes it's artists trying to cater to crypto millionaires, and that's how we get so much crappy art frequently featuring a bitcoin or ethereum logo on it.
@@DiThi The real rich power brokers of the world are laughing at these tech dilettantes who think they can disrupt the existing power structures. In fact, it almost seems like a scheme to rope a bunch of people into buying inherently worthless digital certificates instead of real concrete assets like real estate or industrial capacity
@@mikeydude750 You worship them so much that you think they decide it like that. You think they think like in the movies? lol Reality is they are open minded individuals and if they see an opportunity by using new technology they will use it. They dont became rich of being closed minded on everything or being stucked in the old ways. They take whatever opportunities they can make.
@@Code-tf2nn lmao i don't give a shit about which dumb technology or financial scheme the rich use. i'm more concerned that the rich are allowed to keep control of anything period
I can imagine some kid running by it through the hallway shooting nerf darts at it or an old Christian woman pressing her lips on it during her prayers.
i think the thing that frustrates me the most about the High Art Market is that it just gives artists a bad name by association while abusing our work.
No YOU give artists a bad name. Ignore the boring ass art market that doesn't care about people who enjoy art for arts sake. Just support artists you enjoy, go to small galleries(many small galleries driven by people who barely make even just because they love art). This whole discussion and throwing shit at art is not leading to a better art scene, so plz stop being mad about the 1% because they're !%-ing and instead support small artists. It's not that hard. But I guess it's easier to just sit and complain.
@@trassel1104I’m goin to assign more blame on the billion dollar industry corruption the point of art than some random person putting a legitimate complaint on the internet
High art artists with huge followings are borderline geniuses. Rich people in that market buy the genius, not the the artwork. Regular artists that just make “pretty” or “cool” artworks would make more money in the decor market than the Damien hirst gerhard richter multimillion dollar environment. “Giving us artists a bad name” I kinda can guess the category your in (or put yourself in) off that alone.
Being in the auction industry myself it's only natural that a few Places have come to handle things of such obcene value. There aren't enough items worth such prices that come to market for more than a few select houses to deal in it. There are however dozens of auction houses that deal in say the $1000 to low million range. And hundreds that deal in the $100 to 100K range. There certainly is a lot of backroom dealing I will say even in the "lower" auction houses. The auction industry as a whole, not just the art part would make an interesting video of its own. Everything you say is true to my smaller scale experience.
I visit estate auctions and often see beautiful artworks being sold for less than the raw materials used to create the painting, yet am amazed at many famous works that honestly look like a pile of paint thrown up by a small child and valued at millions. There must be so much fraud, tax evasion, and people falling in love with an artist's name no matter how crap the painting is.
I'm looking forward to an Artificial Intelligence being able to appraise art. How would it do it? Scout the internet and look for a consensus? Or it has developed the understanding of what the vast majority, or the most intelligent, or the most artistic humans value as "good" art?
@@dingusdingus2152 That looks like it says the brains and bodies of artists are worthless as they think up the art and apply the physical time to create it.
When Robin Williams was burned by Disney over his role in Aladdin, they gave him a $1 million Picasso. Probably worth a lot more than if he was given cash now.
@@kavky If I remember correctly, Robin Williams was mad at Disney that they reneged on their deal to *not* use his name to promote the movie _Aladdin_ prior to the movie's premiere. They put Williams front-and-center in all their advertisement, but he didn't want it competing with the other movie of his - which was a personal project - that was to be released around the same time to be outshone. Well, it was; his other movie suffered at the box office, and Disney is still raking in the money. To the point, I cannot even remember what the name of the other movie was... (Edits for clarity!)
Great work in highlighting the farse of this market, yet there is a lot left out. From primary to tertiary market dynamics, to freeport storage, inheritance, to back and forth sales, this market is unique because you can basically make anything you want if you make the proper moves.
A few years ago I saw this Theory going around on Reddit stating the Art Market was nothing more than a tax-evasion scheme established by the ultra rich and wealthy. I'm glad to see this substantiated by somebody as reputable as Wendover Productions. Keep up the good work
It's been common knowlegde for anyone who's ever worked at a gallery for decades. My mom used to qork at a gallery. A small one so the paintings sold for tens of thousands not millions. But the gallery still determined what was worth 500 or 10k. And of course a few select exclusive artists that got pennies on the dollar. I still have 3 paintings we bought for about 250 bucks each by a now deceased artist. They are really beuatiful and have since risen to 5-10k. I hope someday some rich dude decides to set the price at 10 million each. Might be my descendants that make that deal though.
Yep and these fine art pieces are often stored in tax free warehouses at international ports serving as easy ways to move hundreds of millions of dollars without ever being taxed on any of it.
Why do we act like the ultra rich are fine to have around UNTIL they do something obviously wrong? The source of their wealth is exploitation in the very first place. Unless any libertarian retard wants to tell me that they just work 37,000,000x harder than the average worker
@@rogergeyer9851 thanks for stating out the obvious. Why do you think most artist die poor? Its a choice of life and if its not for you - you don't have to be bitter and slap it on our faces. As Charles Bukowski said "find what you love and let it kill you" It's the choice that takes great courage to make and its not for everyone. The purpose of art in your life is to make you feel something not for monetary reasons. Talk to any dedicated artist on their work (may it be through music, paint, film, etc.) and they will tell you the same. The point of creating is to make an impact on someone (even if that may only be one) There are already plenty of ways to earn and most of us burn our souls keeping a job to keep the lights and our art at bay.
@@chynnab2920 You get it. Doing art solely for an income is not a true artist. The true creative does it because they are compelled to - even if they did it for free and merely for themselves, they would still do it. Chasing the dollar and turning it into a singular source of income destroys that gift and drive in a person. I've heard too many stories of burnout because they were chasing social media, numbers, and algorithm. And a lot of that scene, anyway, is just a popularity contest at the end of the day. Must be nice to be so popular.
Simple solution: let them be but stop giving them taxcuts. If the state is not involved the will continue to push money from one rich person to the next. Sure, museums won‘t get any more donations, but that‘s fine because the pricetag is the Inlay diffrence between a good artwork and a well known masterpiece.
I mean if the art market just includes those sold at auctions and through dealers then yes the art market is tiny. However most art is not sold through Sotheby's or High profile Galleries. Most Art is commissioned privately or sold physically or through prints/digital assets on ArtStation/local galleries etc.
Most art is NOT sold. Art is a hobby, dear. Hundreds of millions of people do it at home at pretty high quality level. So, too many offers. But there's no demand. People don't buy original art at all! By "people", I mean 99.999% of humans.
You say the two parties losing out are artists that are not vetted by the gatekeepers and us consumers that can't buy the art that is vetted. Sounds like it'd be easy for the two to pair up and ignore the rich auction people if that were true.
In the art context, definitely, and it's already happening all over the internet and underground art scene. In the context of money it's very different. We can't afford to take part in those auctions, but those who can will keep taking advantage of that to exponentially increase their wealth regardless of if we pay attention or not.
@@cupriferouscatalyst3708 In auctions, highest bidder wins so if you can’t afford it then nobody can take advantage of you - there’s nothing to take advantage of.
Regular people ignoring the rich person's art market game doesn't mean it doesn't affect us; it's still scamming us out of who knows how many millions and billions in tax revenue that would otherwise be going towards supporting the population of the country as a whole.
@@shukantpal7413 Did you miss the part where they're using it for tax evasion? Tax money that _should_ be going towards supporting the people of the country as a whole, but instead gets further and further concentrated into the hands of the few. That money isn't magically generated from nowhere; it's siphoned off all of us.
I had wanted to be an artist as a teenager. That was an utterly ridiculous dream. I had known the art market was like this before, but not to this extent!
Art is not about market Art is all about interest and passion, art demands LIFETIME relation then it teaches you the mysteries after making you an artist. if you are loyal with what your are doing then you don't need any market because you can become the market. think like and artist be a Loyal lover of art.
It get's better, allot of art is done on patronage where a rich person pays a semi-famous artist something like 10-100k USD to paint something for them, and then they donate it listing it's value at 1-4 mil. And if the artist doesn't play the game and tries to do something stupid like go directly to an auction house their work suddenly drops in value to a fraction of what it normally goes for.
Most modern art substitutes weird for quality, narrow isms for scope, and trendy for depth. It also refuses to change or even talk about progressive ideas in art like those that follow Too many treat art as a marketing scheme. Modern art has become a trendy clique and the art now is mostly over promoted footnotes to greater art that was done 100 years ago. But art is too important to be reduced to a trendy clique. Post-ism, is art for a new century, not a continuation of last century trends. 1 Mass Market Paintings like Prints. When any art form is mass marketed it enters a golden age. This has happened with books, records, and film. Let's add paintings. Most art is in storage in museum basements. Mass Marketing allows art to tour in copies and allows artists to make royalties on copies. Why do you think the world gets so excited about a new great book, record, or film; but no one cares about a new great painting? All are mass produced except the painting. 2. End a Century of Isms. Dump the genres and formulas and let all kinds of art be a part of the art world. 3. Shift Emphasis From Trendy to Quality. Shift emphasis from the latest trendy art, to quality art in any style. Just because art is weird does not mean it is great art. 4. Free the Art From Museums and Galleries. Get the art out of the ivory elitist museum and gallery towers and back into the world. Have city art centers open to all artists. Make art that is relevant and communicates with people. Start with the first generation of artists online. 5. Postism is Part of a Bigger Revolution. Postism is part of the bigger art and media revolution out of Dallas, that includes art, music, lit, film, media, and a lot more. 6. Postism online: Online artists are the new wave of art. We had all the isms of last century. Now we have a free for all, of all kinds of artists, that are not sanctioned by any museum or gallery, displaying their work. Out of that comes the next wave and revolution of artists. Last century the goal was to fit the ism. This century the goal is to do great art - no ism, no boundaries. Fractionalized art then, synchronized art now. Even calling something modern art is a type of ism that separates that art from the art of the past. The 20th century was a century of experimentation in art. Now in the 21st we can choose from all those styles and / or start one of our own. Then too if someone devises a way to charge and collect a penny per view on a webpage, that would allow any great artist to get money for their art and have a career without any middlemen. Duchamp broke ground 100 years ago - but now his clones are just shoveling dirt. Weird art is easy, you put a strip of raw bacon across an expensive violin, but it's not good art. Join the art revolution and pull the art world out of last century. Musea since 1992.
That's true and I don't trust government and people who pushing there garbage out that makes them money and as we see like McDonald's and other fast food joints they are not good for humans consumption they keep the drug administration in business
A lot of elites make money off of artists, despite not being creative themselves. A common pattern in the film and music industry, with the same usual suspects. Those elites put their noses in everything.
@@metagen77 If we've learned anything from this video, it's that a professional artist (if they get their money by auction sales and not, ex. commissions from someone who wants a certain picture to exist) is someone who has a goatee and pretends to be an artist yet can live off what they're doing because they have name recognition.
As a hard working full time artist since I was 14…I find this so fascinating. I’m yet to be on the radar of someone who is a gatekeeper of this art world. Does their opinion really matter or is their opinion the only thing that matters? Is their opinion the only ticket for me to become a sought after collectable artist? I would have to argue maybe not! I have demand for my work from the masses and it keeps me working full time and busy. I am grateful for that! And grateful my work is in demand… at least imo. I do find it frustrating that the “art world” is more of a scam for the few elite to avoid taxation and to control the market… sigh… if only it was what it should be…an appreciation of art
I don't want to be part of their corruption. I want people to like my art on its own, not because someone hyped it up and haggled up the price. Those elites don't own the "art world". There's many people doing, appreciating, and buying art outside of them. Like indies and artists on social media.
art market is just the rich's way to avoid tax. they "value" art piece as high as they can, and then "donate" them to a museum, while paying a fraction to the artist.
@@Eagle3302PL because there's no intrisic value. Unless a government actually adopts it.... But which idiot government would make crypotcurrency their currency. *El savador sweats furiously
Actually it's all one market. And if you dont get approval of the gate keepers you wont ever get 5k for a work. The vast majority of art purchased in the world is under 250 usd. Less than 5% of the number of objects sold makes up 95% of the market value. And as he stated. The total annual art sales globally is less than some corporations quarterly sales of goods .. oh wait. How much of Walmart's annual billions is wall decor?
Going that deep into the Salvator Mundi transactions: the real reason for the final transactions are backdoor oil price agreements between Russia / Saudi Arabia. Often they use Yachts, but this time a painting.
Yes, and any political programs that raise income taxes are targeting upper-middle class, like engineers, doctors, lawyers, managers - and not the wealthy upper class.
Isn't that what everyone tries to do though? Expand their wealth and avoid taxes? In the U.S. the rich pay around 40% income tax but account for 60% total tax revenue. Yeah there are those rich people who are very greedy and only care about their money and would do anything and everything to keep it and get more, but there are also a lot of rich people who are not like that and donate a ton of their money to other people and charitable organizations. In my opinion those who think having the rich pay more money to the government are envious fools.
@@patricklora4434 tax evasion is a crime. Period. Using fraudulent valuations to evade taxes is a crime. If I get caught with drugs, it doesn't matter what I've contributed to society, I'm screwed. But you justify fraud and tax evasion because you think they should be allowed to? Makes no sense. We don't punish financial crime nearly to the extent we should. And LOL at your terrible sense of proportion and understanding of debt. There's videos from the 90s and 2000s where they talk about the top 10%. We eventually moved to the top 1% and now its top 0.1% of wealth, owning 90+% of all wealth in this country. In any sane society, this is a monopoly and a punch in the face to every starving American and homeless veteran that takes their life.
Design is the art market industrialized. Design is literally all about "how can I create mass liked art that I can sell at great price, so it appears justifiable to the customer and simultaneously make me live the good life". In the Design world, name dropping is 100% a thing. Just knowing the names of several big guys (Hans Wegner, Arne Jacobsen, Jørn Utzon, Kaare Klint, Kay Fisker, Poul Henningsen - just to name a few Danish ones), as well as being able to identify several different design styles (Georgian, Edwardian, Victorian, Tudor, Baroque, Art Deco, Bauhaus, Art Nouveau, etc. ) when starting out, will move you a long way. If you somehow know or are related to one of these famous designers, the value of your work instantly go up by a lot. And by looking at my comment it should be pretty clear that I participate in it myself and see nothing wrong with it, when it comes to Design as Design is available to anyone, most notably as IKEA, who hire designers (albeit not widely known ones) to design their products.
To be fair, most of art history has been about rich people. "Roman copy of Greek original" because the rich Romans all wanted these statues for their palazzi. Renaissance masters were all contracted by rich people. Illuminated books, rich people. (Or the church, so many church commissions.) The notion of artists creating art for their own is a more modern idea, with a very short list. Van Gogh. Vermeer. A few others.
After what happened with Byedone’s son’s art, I’m beginning to understand it may be a way for $ laundering. Especially as an artist among thousands of artists who spend months creating beautiful inspiring paintings, only to see a piece consisting of a white background with a 3” red square painted on it going for hundreds of thousands of dollars at high end galleries because some shill anointed critic pronounces it “transcendent” and the rest of the world bows down and pretends they are as intuitive as he is. It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes. Nothing to see here.
True. That was a main reason I didn't pick art. I become computer programer - program is rather working or not working. You cannot blah blah your way to the high price. My father, artist, also told me that as a female , art critics will try to use me in exchange for good newspaper article I never regretted leaving art. I still paint on Sunday mornings ☺️
@@violinplayer3518 ....I hope you can find more time for your art. I don’t depend on it for a living, as I have a part time job in the family business, but I joined a few art societies, enter shows, win a few prizes and sell a few pieces in galleries. If you’ve had a gift and desire since youth, you are talented for a reason, if only to bring joy to others and balance yourself by using that wonderful right side of your brain. God bless.
@@violinplayer3518 Combine your love of art and your skill with computer code into a new hobby! Make some NFT's! Then you can sell your work for a reasonable price, but if it ever gains value later you will make a profitable commission on any subsequent sales. Good luck with all you do!
@@cmwHisArtist I do copies of Rembrandt and DaVinchi and Vermeer and doing well. There is market for that - old rich people not rich enough to have originals.
Precisely why I am not a fan of galleries. Not just the big ones in some of the richest countries in the world, but even for big cities in developing countries. People didn't have many options in the past, now they do. Why give off your work of love so it be tossed around and used like a token? Artists can network themselves, and remove the giant middlemen altogether. Art is many things but never a "luxury".
From an artist POV, better millions than $0. Art is often treated as free these days, and that is an injustice of itself. Great video! Like the detailed explanation for the Da Vinci Salvator Mundi.
We should raise awareness and change how people steal people's art or content online without crediting them. I don't even ask for money, just credit. Although if I was making money on yt I wouldn't want people taking my work without consent.
How is this fact not justified, in your opinion? Art is worth zero because there's waaaay too many offers (most people have artistic hobbies now) and zero demand (people will not even get one ikea print per lifetime). Art as a business is dead. But it's wide spread and extremely accessible as a hobby! Which is awesome! Unless you've wasted your time and $ at art school 😂 Who goes to school to study a hobby?! I mean, you gotta be an imbiсil.
Very interesting topic and also great to see how the production style and value at Wendover is getting better with every new video. The paint strokes are a lovely touch! Keep it up :)
Imagine you pay 1.400.000 for that girl with balloon painting and a second after buying it, it shreds itself half-ishly and BOOM, the interest rises world wide as a unique event in art history takes place on camera and as a result the price bumps to somewhere between 5.000.000 and 8.000.000. You then decide to 'donate' that piece of art to a museum so you can deduct it's worth from your taxable income saving you between 1.500.000 and 2.400.000 dollars of tax payments as you've just made a hypothetical loss of 5.000.000 to 8.000.000 for a mere investment of 1.400.000. Art is a scam and no one does anything about it. Hell, Banksy says he hates it and rebels against it, but he merely provides more of the same for them.
Excellent video. I worked in the art world in London for years and everything you said is 100% accurate. And the final comment, that artists and the general public are the ones who lose the most in this system, is spot on and needs to be said more. But unfortunately, most artists and art workers are afraid to say anything for fear of being blacklisted by said gatekeepers.
The general public doesn't factor into any of the art markets calculations. No member of the public understands, values, or appreciates art, and they do not purchase original art. Artists know this and that is why they go along with the emperor's new clothing racket.
@@dingusdingus2152 correction : no member of “the public” has disposable millions of dollars to pay for “original art” that has no functional, objective value to them. If the “true value” of art is so high that it’s unapproachable by most people then don’t be surprised that most people refuse to partake or “understand” it.
Thankfully with NFTs, us working class people can get scammed too!
But you don't actually get any artwork from an NFT. It's just an icon.
@@castonyoung7514 It's a image, which can be anything although icons are the most common.
Had me in the first half 😂
Working class? 3 years of Average yearly US salary can't even get 1 Bored Ape.
@@Ethan-lx1vv
Just before commenting on this video I watched a RUclips video where the author painstakingly and repeatedly explained how you don't actually own the rights to anything by buying an NFT. He could be wrong, but I doubt it from how determined he was to tell everyone the truth.
Why do regular people want to be part of the rich-people art market? Just find an artist whose work you like and buy from them/commission something. That's how you support real, living artists
pretty sure it's mainly because they want to be rich
You buy my art for cheap, then we both collaborate to make me look like an undiscovered genius and you’re the first one to see my genius. Hopefully prices skyrocket and we both get filthy rich. It’s not that hard to see why manipulation is rampant in this market. Who’s to say that I’m not a genius artist? We only have to convince enough people regardless of my actual talent.
@@AaronTheHarris Yea masterworks seems fishy as hell, i dont know how they get thier numbers, but i dont trust them at all
That's one thing I don't understand. There is no way the market could be that low unless you don't include most of the digital art markets. Where they only including physical art?
Because of financial speculation. They are not buying and selling art, they're buying and selling speculative material
The art industry is full of brilliant accountants, not artists.
Brilliant accounting artists.
Hey Hunter Biden. How much is for the big guy
Very Well Said
@@mrt.8662 Biden Derangement Syndrome.
@@mrt.8662 Where the hell did this comment come from? How is it at all relevant?
A friend worked for a somewhat famous artist. He ended up drawing his art and got paid $10/h, while the artist just signed the paintings sold them. Some went for $100k+...
So yeah, it's a complete nonsense-industry.
Isn’t 10$/hour below minimum wage though??? I’d be confused how they got away with that
@@froggycolouring I don't even think he they even wrote a contract to be honest. It's all kinds of shady
@@froggycolouringthe federal minimum wage is 7.25/h though some states have a higher one. so it depends on where this was
@@artificial-frequencies You could say that, but what it really means is that art is all about the signature. My friend likely wouldn't have gotten a penny if he tried to sell these under his own name, they're very... 'abstract'
That's how many huge artists work, with studio assistants who actually produce the work. AmdyvWarhol's Factory was famous for this, but that's how artists with enough money can be prolific and execute many of their ideas in a shorter amount of time.
Imagine if we made art digital and sold them as tokens for exuberant prices despite being able to be downloaded as a JPEG. That would be nuts.
АHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Isn’t that what an NFT is?
@@sonofliberty8872 that's the joke lmao
LMAO xD
reminds me of people thinking beanie babies were gonna be worth millions lol
I’m a simple man, I hear tax evasion, I keep listening
bro i jus saw you on memology’s video less than 5 mins ago
Hey checkmark
You should definitely look for Vergil he just ate the tax evasion apple
Yes
Taxation is theft
42% of art is correctly valued. I'm frankly surprised honesty is so high.
Well keep in mind this is art auditors auditing other auditors. 42% might be as close as anyone could get without being told "ps. the value is $X"
@@Dan-cm9ow yeah, it's "correctly priced" in that some other auditor agreed with the first based off the same set of manipulated market factors for art.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to a matter of opinion huh…
I’m surprised he didn’t say 83%… where do you get such a statistic? By definition these are almost impossible to appraise period 😂
Price is subjective
For most artists, it's hard to even get minimum wage since it takes a lot of work and they're often asked to draw for free. And yet a stick figure could be sold for millions by manipulating the market. It's insulting to most artist's skill and effort, imo
Evan Butler: When lots of modern sculpture is literally, trash, things have gotten crazy. I was PISSED when my city bought multiple sculptures to display, and they were literally twisted wreckage from junk yards, re how they looked. And they spent MY tax dollars on THAT.
The world just gets less and less sensible over time, in various ways, IMO.
Buyers who expect artists prices to be too high really don't understand the creative process. These posers and gallery opening hangers-about or "artholes" as I call them are merely there for the atmosphere, often they are paid by the gallery when a new emerging artist is up for showing. The market is dictated by creating an artist with a good back story.
Compare your drawings to actual conceptual art like the one of James jean or robi dwy antonio or yoshitomo nara ,those three artists make millions while strictly doing figurative painting ,you’ll see that talent alone doesn’t matter ,everyone knows how to run ,to be a Michelangelo it takes character and that’s what makes an artist
Classical art is also manipulated. Van Gogh is imporyant because they decided him to be important while Dali and Picasso already became famous during their lifetime. Or, while Louvre houses many beautiful statues, because Venus De Milo is marketed so well when it was found, now it has become an icon. Or Mona Lisa, despite being a not so pretty painting, because it was stolen now it is the most famous painting in the world. So, before judging modern art, you should also acknowledge that classical art was also commisioned for money. At least modern art pieces has vision and fun while classical art is super boring.
Couldn't agree any more. 🎨
Next: The logistics of transporting expensive art
As someone in the art world, it's a shit show. I hope he touches on bribing people to lose containers for insurance money.
And probably people too
There's already a HAI video about free ports.
Bobby Axlerod demonstrated that in Billions
🔸 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE WENDOVER PRODUCTION
Imagine selling something for a few thousand dollars and thinking you got a good deal just to see it be sold for a few hundred million
been there done that
Do you mean my bitcoins back a few years ago? 😂
I thought the same thing until it was asked could a normal person persuade a well known art gallery to investigate the painting well enough to verify its authenticity. The question is a resounding "No". The bottom line is I could very well have bought that painting, hung it on my wall, and it would never get noticed until a well connected art dealer got ahold of it to reveal its real value. Had that never happened that painting would have been sold for a few thousand dollars at best and probably still be hanging in some regular Joe's living room.
True artists are not money orientated , they paint a subject that interests and pleases them , painting is what they enjoy , if their painting sells for a few thousand dollars or less to provide them an income they are satisfied . I think I'm correct , that Van Gogh never sold any of his paintings . A member of my family bought John Constable's The Hay Wain together with the famous French Boursault collection , he sold it a few years later for 375 pounds , and what must the value be today .
@@Huaimek861 i think van gogh sold one. Most artists are money motivated even at a basic level to sell a painting shows you a person likes your work what you could make an argument for is whether an artist wants to be successful in their career most are not most are happy to just plod along selling the odd picture while having fun creating.
This is so much money laundering in the art market. Mexico in 2012 put limits on what could be spent on a piece of art and demanded auction houses and galleries require more information on who was actually doing the buying. In one year since that law was in place prices dropped 70%. Drug cartels no longer were interested I guess!
Right. If a dealer buys for 80mil why would a buyer willingly pay 100 mil for it plus fees? Yes he's rich but rich people famously hate losing money. It's obviously money laundering
Do you have any examples that aren’t in Mexico? Literally every market in Mexico is involved with the cartel one way or another.
@@TheBornnaked The economist reported the Geneva freeport might hold $100 billion worth of U.S. art, sitting tucked away in a space that also functions as a tax haven. In perspective. That's more than the entire annual art market.
@@allandill2033 yeah I don’t doubt that at all. This world is filled with very clever people who aren’t exactly ethical. But I do think some of these astronomical prices for art are legit. Art is such a unique human phenomenon and having an original piece from someone like da Vinci, Van Gogh, basquiat, etc. is really a treasure of humanity. If I was a billionaire I wouldn’t even hesitate to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a masterpiece of one of the greats.
@@TheBornnaked I agree with you absolutely on things like that. Those artworks would be considered worth a fortune because people will pay to see them. Around €15 a head. But what about Amedeo Modigliani's “Nu Couché” 1917? What makes it worth so much? Except that Ezra and David Nahmad purchased it at auction and held it in... the Geneva duty-free port. Another painting of that series was sold for $186.1 million... and it was purchased with a credit card
Very interesting, although one sin of omission--you didn't mention that one of the most negative consequences of this racket is that art galleries and museums can't afford to compete for these paintings now, which means the general public can't see them. They disappear on to the walls of billionaires as conversation pieces and status symbols, or into their bank vaults to be seen by no one.
That’s not what’s happening. Almost all museums and galleries have no shortage of exhibitions, and this amazing video explains how: many expensive artworks are donated for tax deduction purposes (although perhaps some are also donated out of goodwill)
@@gideonk123 The most expensive paintings in the world that have been sold in recent years are now in private hands, as they are the only ones who can afford them. Directors and curators of galleries and museums complain they can't compete with the super-rich who buy up the paintings. Some are loaned to galleries and museums, but most are not. You must be an art dealer.
@@chel3SEY Although I admit some very expensive paintings are not exhibited, let’s not forget these artworks are usually so famous that almost all of them have already been photographed with sufficient resolution, so effectively, they’re available to be seen for free on the internet - an amazing resource of modern times not available in the past.
I’m just an amateur painter, not an art dealer, and not an art collector.
Disappearing onto walls? That's the point of art!
@@gideonk123it’s exactly what’s happening. That’s why museums ONLY DISPLAY NEW WORK DURING THOSE EXHIBITIONS; they literally can no longer afford to actually buy pieces themselves, they have to rent them
I've been a Wendover fan for years but I gotta say... this episode is a masterpiece. Bids start at 3 million.
I have an extensive collection of Wendover videos so I'm not about to let this one go for anything less than 10 million.
I've got this fellow in NY who will value the videos at not a penny less then twelve-five. After that I'm donating them and claiming a 6 million tax break.
20 million, i can go much higher still
This Wendover is exquisitely rare in its lack of airplane mentions. Surely, even at that price, it is a steal!
Whoever is reading this,
I hope you have a great day!
Here is some artist inspiration for you 🎨 ✨
ruclips.net/video/gHi-OYi570s/видео.html
Years ago, ABC's 20/20 had some children painted some pairings and presented them to arts appraisers without telling them who the "artists" were. The result was hilarious as the appraisers went on and on about how sophisticated and valuable the paintings were!
$AdTX easy tripple 🤑🤑🤑
Esp with yahoo announcement on small caps
10 buck target screw the acquiring Uuden
Lol 🤣
@@n.m.8802 Then you can sell the children and use even more kids to launder the extra bit of cash
Genious!
banksy shredded his piece and it went up in value lmao duchamp just submitted a urinal as a troll... we're living history, people
Although, to be fair, I *have* seen some kids make some pretty good stuff… a lot depends on attitude, ‘energy’, and enjoyment by the artist of the creative process.
Most of these pieces are proudly exhibited on refrigerator doors around the world.
I always thought it was hilarious that auction houses had their own appraisers, even for less shifty markets.
"So, you are the recognized authority to determine how much it's worth?"
"Yes."
"And you work for the auction house that's auctioning it?"
"Yes."
"And the auction house makes a tidy profit if it sells high enough?"
"Yes."
"Seems like a pretty self-fueling cycle, isn't it?"
"Exactly!"
gr0m00
I think you’re confusing some terms here. At Christie’s, our auction estimates are simply the range at which we think the work can sell for, not an idea of how much the piece is intrinsically worth. Of course it’s in our interest to put this value as high as possible since we want it to sell for a high price. But that’s the beauty of an auction - the buyers get to decide if the auction estimates were way too high or low with how much they bid. If you ever see our results you notice that not everything sells because the estimates were placed too high, or something sells for way above the high estimate, as the buyers decided they were willing to pay more for it. We do have a separate appraisal wing at Christie’s, but that is a separate service and not part of the sale process.
@@msherd130 the act of putting the prices higher than what's it's actually worth artificially inflates the market, because someone who is buying it will see an expensive piece of art, among other expensive pieces of art.
Even if that particular work was overvalued it makes it look as if the other artworks are more valuable which distorts the buyers perception.
Their sales record, as documented here, verifies their claim, right?
The fox is guarding the henhouse.
That is why I personally think why a lot of expensive modern art pieces are getting weirder and uglier. It seems what’s being boosted is the controversy factor, it’s just faster to promote. So they don’t care if technically the artwork is lazily made, as long as there’s a backstory of the artist, some wow factor like touching on controversial subjects, they can work easier to inflate the price. Honestly this sickens me, because I see so many talented artist who spends hours to master their medium and to give their labour of love through their art, get shadowed by a bunch of lazy well-connected artists, who couldn’t care less about mastery, because it wasn’t for labour of love in the core that they do it. It’s really just to be part of the cabal and make big money.
Look up money laundering.
On the other end of the spectrum, small galleries in NYC, Chicago, SanFran, etc. they've been shutting down in droves over the last 20 years. Sometimes it's that the owner(s) get bored, or go broke. As an artist, you put your work up in those galleries, the show opens, people come and drink wine and socialize, your art is babysat for a month, then the gallery gives you your art back and it goes back into your storage unit or your mom's wall. This is the reality for most artists. The best solution for artists is to gift, sell to or trade with people you know, who want your work for this simple reason: they like your work for how it looks and how it makes them feel when they look at it.
Artists can also open their own museum like Donald Judd. There are lots of art jobs. Like video games. Look how there's art everywhere. Or make money on yt.
OMG I literally just said that exact thing just a minute ago! YES! Eff those galleries and avaricious, hifalutin, clout chasers. I was thinking we should get contracts attached to our work that says no one is permitted to sell or trade it to rich people and it can only be gifted to the next person. This way only people who truly feel a connection to the art will cherish it and it won't be used as some kind of lifestyle accessory.
Does the term "branding" or "brand" irritate you as much as it does, me? It gives me serious ick. Im watching artist friends being taught they need to brand themselves.... like... shouldn't their art be enough? Now artists have to market themselves as a person in order to compete for sales?
I refuse. The commodification and commoditization of art and artists is just SUPER ICK. Turning yourself into a brand sounds like you're trying to package yourself to sit on a shelf at Walmart.
ooooo I get so mad! 😠
@@user-gu9yq5sj7cthat’s commercial art. Probably the last resort for anyone w talent that can’t make it in fine art circles.
@@yuriinationRUclips creators are told to do the same. Develop a brand.
@@LilyGazoui know. And I hate it.
Wendover timing this video with the Pandora Papers is incredible 👌🏽
Nothing happened after the Panama papers so I give up with humanity.
Doesn’t matter how many leaks you get. People don’t do shit. They expect to be conned and they just accept it.
Fucking depressing.
@@elias_xp95 yeah, that's the part that makes change seem pretty impossible in that regard. Everyone with power is in on it. No major international politician or business bigwig can really point at the Panama, Paradise or Pandora papers and say "this is bad, let's change that" because they most definitely have some sort of business relation to at least a couple of the names in those papers.
@@elias_xp95 At this point an enlightened society shall consider lynching.
Also the NFT stuff people are talking about lately, NFTs being blatant scams is not a whole lot different from the art industry in general
The system is not broken. It was made this way. Capitalism is "defective by design".
As an art student at a traditional fine art academy, I can testify that rich people can make art themselves too. They certainly don't lack talent, but when put in comparison with others on the same or better overall abilities, they have a distinct advantage which is their connections. I know families who put all their children into this field because they have been successful and can propel their successors. I have seen paintings that would normally get a C or D sold at an astounding price for a freshman student with average skills while self made ones with works that I believe can already be in the industry struggle to find sales.
Fortunately I don't intend to follow into the traditional fine art industry, having no connection to insiders myself and knowing now how the stereotype "talented struggling artists" came to be. However, it still saddens me to see art being treated like this.
have you seen Madonna's son's work? Nuff said. Outside of his fame by osmosis, I remember walking by a gallery in Central London a couple of years back and thinking "you've gotta be kidding me" about the artwork exhibited therein. It wouldn't have been "original" in 1950 but here we were. Connections, eh?
When fine art and music songs are free, no wonder that artificial intelligence is doing its dumb art.
maybe its art looks beautiful but not as passionate as human art.
Experts say Artificial intelligence, isnt very intelligent about Human nature, it spreads misinformation about humans
but Artificial inteligence is able to "convince" people about its own truth 82 percent more, than being convinced by real human.
Which means if you will believe every article you read on internet, for example about men and women relationship, or 90 kinds of sex identities etc
one day you become the "caricature" of human, that the Artificial intelligence thinks about you....Take every article as potential rumor and not as truthful fact.
Because the journalists in future will let the artificial intelligence to write articles for them, so they dont have to, so there will be more desinformation than today,
if we will not use our intuition of real life experiences.
There was evidence
experts explained when you "warned" the artificial intelligence about making some mistake or writting some mistake,
the AI became quite a bit angry , having an attitude because you decided to criticise it... So people grow up and use your own intelligence.
I used to believe the art market was just a sorry excuse to launder money. Now I know it
“The Art Market” aka how the elite pedophiles launder money from children sex trafficking
Don’t forget construction and real estate.
That's how mediocre cabal members praise their kind promoting them or their collections
“Sorry excuse”
>Discreet millions in profit
Hunter Biden's art selling for insane prices is a perfect example.
I actually work at Christie’s auction house and can affirm that Sam’s description of how auctions work is spot on so kudos for doing your research! My only two notes is that a) just because a rich person wants to donate an artwork to a museum at a certain value, doesn’t mean that museum will blindly take it. Art is expensive to store and take care of and even top museums are always strapped for cash, so it can be risky to rely on this method unless you are donating a top blue chip artist. They might not find it worth it to accept certain artists or works B) I’m sure Sam didn’t mean this but the video gives off the impression that the people involved in the art market are just rich people looking to cheat tax codes and move money around, etc and let me tell you the art market is far worse to do that than when compared to real estate, commodities, and other investments. Most people’s art does not appreciate in value especially considering the considerable costs to care for, transport, and store works of art. Most of the buyers I work with are just genuinely interested in art and buy paintings that they like artistically. There are those looking to speculate but most dealers dislike this kind of client and it’s considered almost to be a faux pas. Obviously I am coming at this with some bias but just my two cents!
Thanks for your sharing. I agree with your comment, but just want to add - the tax benefit is just a cherry on top for rich people who are truly interested in art. Rich people who are not interested in art get their tax benefits in other ways. The whole tax code needs a revamp.
Well, if everyone is buying something to get rich, you get Tulipmania.
I thought donating art meant giving it to the museum or gallery for free. If not, it's not donating it's just selling. I figured if you donate a 10 million dollar piece of art you basically declare it as a loss on taxes. In the video he made it sound like the museum is buying the art but the money received is not taxed, at least not the same as normal income. To me that arrangement doesn't match what donating is by definition
@@jonservo It is donated, the point is that even receiving donated art incurs costs.
@@deek0146 yeah, I understand that. My question was more to do with the tax issues. In the video the way he described donating, it sounded like the museum either paid for the art or the value of the art was declared as income for the donator. In either instance it didn't sound like an actual "donation". Granted, I was listening to this in the background while I work so maybe I missed some context
Banksy: I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU MORONS ACTUALLY BUY THIS SH*T!!
Rich patrons: OMG HE'S TALKING ABOUT US!! *applauses*
Banksy is a fraud
There was a great short in the Wolphin series a few years ago called, "Home James, and Don't Spare the Horses." The premise of the film was that a wealthy art collector had a struggling kid come to his house for a reception, then had his daughter tell the guy a bunch of scripted nonsense about how the dad was abusing her and every piece of art in the place was fake. The guy got drunk and made a complete ass of himself, at one point destroying a painting -- at which point he found out that none of it was true. So he's standing there alone with the host afterward, panting and sweat covered, and says, "WHY DID YOU DO THIS?" And the old man smiles and says, "Tomorrow your paintings will be worth ten times as much as you ever thought possible, kid."
@@CinemaDemocratica Jackson Pollock pissing on the fireplace...
@@CinemaDemocratica Dang that's phenomenal. Any idea if there's a place I could find it?
@Sherri T[A]P Me!! To Have [S]EX With Me I was honestly wondering about this, rather terrifying hearing how casually these authentic Da Vincis and the like are getting flown back and forth across the world. Of course if one gets lost nothing of intrinstic value is lost, although having renaissance paintings around to be able to analyze to learn about ancient painting techniques is nice.
Perfumes are another example of this, although it works a little differently because perfumes are perishables. But people will totally admire a stinker just because it has a pricetag of above $200 attached and a name of a famous perfumer.
I know someone who doesn't like Chanel No. 5 because it smells like old lady perfume
Not true at all. Top Perfumes have some of the best ingredients, vintage perfumes were some of the best ever made, but usually you should be able to get a good cologne perfume for 50$. But you do have to pay something for the design element
@@andrewchapman5659 I really dislike that argument of "the best ingredients" - anyone can claim that because perfume houses have no obligation to reveal their ingredients. The truth is, you don't know. If it smells good to you, and seems worth the price for you, that's fine. But humans are herd animals with a leaning towards being religious and I've seen totally religious behaviours in the perfume community. Belief, adoration, sacrifice of hard earned money for something that more authoritative members of the herd claim is "divine".
@@frusia123 no. Very wrong. Most people obviously like perfume because of the smell. And quality matters. You never get a good perfume from a convenience store.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme Quality matters to me also, and it's true that high quality rarely comes cheap. But the reality of perfume industry is that the high price tag is not a guarantee of high quality, and you as a consumer have no way of making sure that your expensive fragrance is in fact made of high quality ingredients. And it's also a fact that many people go crazy about some unwearable scents just because of marketing.
“Nearly three decades ago, in 1994…”
That can’t be right.
It is right.
Dear god.
I would like your comment but it's at a perfect number 😉
Sad 😔 it was at 69
At that time my parents started dating
1994 was a couple of years ago. Don't let math and facts distract you from this. Focus!
oh shit....
Artificial manipulation of prices to cause speculation isn't exclusive to art. It happened in the early 17th century with tulip bulbs. More recently this craze found it's way to coins, baseball trading cards, beanie babies, and retro video games.
A small group of curators decide the price. Then investors buy in hoping prices will continue to rise, further fueling the bubble. Almost none of these people are actually interested in the hobby itself.
Coins, baseball trading cards, beanie babies and video games are all art too.
Don’t forget housing bubbles in certain cities like Vancouver......
@@LutraLovegood This is applicable to virtually any collectible! Nice insight, great comment
Literally Crypto
Same with some old cars and second hand guitars.
finally logistics of criminals are being discussed by someone as well versed as you, thank you wendy.
He'll suicide himself if he shines a light on the tiny hats.
Dude, this is a Wendy's restaurant.
White collar criminals, no less. The type who have the funds and influence needed to not just silence a discussion, but reframe it and twist people's opinions on it (hint: lobbyism). That's why this is so important!
"Criminals."
Lol sure. "I can't afford x so whoever can must be a criminal."
@@aindoria fallacy
If you have good taste in art, you can go to an art school and buy excellent, original work at very low prices. If you want to show your wealth, you compete for the world's most famous paintings.
Yes, very good advice. Pay large sums of money to go to an art school and buy excellent, original work at very low prices. You might as well fork over your kidney to the artists while you're at it. The only art school I know of where this doesn't apply would be Cooper Union in New York - in which case, tuition is free but living is not. I swear to god one day New York is going to tax breathing.
@@kawaineko8518I think they met go to an art school open to buy art, not to attend an art school
@@benfarrow9498 In that case, I agree then.
I was thinking about it and my conclusion was even though paintings found at art school student sales are rarely framed and custom framing costs a fortune, you could probably buy a million paintings before you reach the price of the Mona Lisa.
When IRS found 42% valued correctly, 29% overvalued, and 29% undervalued, it’s just a normal bell distribution and it’s basically saying IRS can’t value it any better for obvious reasons.
I was going to say, that didn't seem too wrong to me...
I think they all overvalued, when there is nothing impressive about the stupid looking paintings, but still some people pay millions of them, but I dont mind I cant buy them, when in Art museum I can watch how stupid modern art looks with their stupid looking faces.
@@nathanielscreativecollecti6392 Did you even pay attention to the video? He explains the reason for this right after this statistic.
@@willguan7214 That's the narrator's conclusion. The commenters are pointing out that there is another conclusion that can be drawn. You're welcome to accept the narrator's conclusion, that doesn't mean that it is correct or the only explanation for the discrepancy, which is indeed a distribution that one would expect to find in any subjective valuation process.
@@willguan7214 The conclusion seems to be drawn from nothing, however. There is no anomaly in the presented data. There COULD be statistical anomalies there if the art gets undervalued by just a bit and overvalued by huge margins - but these are not the numbers we were given. We learned that a bit less than half was apprised on point while most fell roughly equally on one side or the other - this is what you'd expect to see. Depending on how generous you are with the definition of correct appraisal you could maybe conclude that art is hard to appraise and there is a huge variation between their verdicts on the same thing compared to other markets - but that's about it. There is basically nothing to explain.
Now, it would be different if he could separate the values and say that appraisals connected with art donated to museums tend to low-ball the values while those connected with inheritance proceedings high-ball them - sure. There would be something to talk about. 29% over and 29% below the value given by another, hopefully impartial appraiser? Sounds normal.
Don't get me wrong - I am personally deeply convinced that the prices are being severely manipulated, if only because it's hard to believe that people with both evident means and strong motivation to engage such manipulation would completely refrain from it - especially considering the often questionable morals of the super-rich when it comes to ways of making or saving money. But just because I agree with the conclusion doesn't transform data that shows nothing into some crucial evidence of the scam. The "explanation" provided in the video is no evidence of anything underhanded going on - at best it's an attempt at explanation why this data isn't evidence to the contrary.
Check out the Nasher Collection in Dallas whereby the Nashers got the US tax code to subsidize their private art collection and double-dip benefits. After realizing that sculpture was underpriced relative to paintings they started by having their shopping mall buy sculptures to display there, which is a deductible business expense. After owning the pieces for several years, the mall then donates the sculptures to the Nashers' nonprofit foundation (which also owns the museum), thereby getting a charitable deduction at the appreciated value.
The US tax code is VERY efficient
Millionare: "Hey artist, here is 30k dollars for a comission"
Artist: * makes the artwork *
Millionare: * gives the artwork to his art expert friend *
Art expert: "Oh yeah this artwork is definetily worth 10 million dollars!"
Millionare: * donates 10 million dollar artwork to a public museum *
Government: "You are such a nice guy! Here, take this 4 million dollar tax cut off!"
Me at the museum: "This is bulshit"
Hipster beside me: "Naah man you just don't understand"
actually tho
I saw samurai armor in a museum.
Yo this was so good
Yes.
@@Sovnarkom "Nash man, you just don't understand!" 🤣
Every RUclipsr who has been shilling MasterWorks should have to watch this video on repeat at least a half dozen times.
This gives the quote 'art is everything you can get away with' a whole new meaning.
Art is life, life is art. Art is part of culture, and reflects our culture in this particular time. So what does our art say about us today?
@@nikajinpusno9563 lmao you okay bud?
andy warhol quote.
@@nikajinpusno9563 Unlimited freedom.
@@nikajinpusno9563 that everything is art, even our sht can be art :D, and a banna on a wall can be art :D. Gosh what A WONDERFUL "art" :l
This seems to be happening to the retro video games market too. Recently Karl Jobst published a video exposing how a rating company and an auction house were supposedly manipulating market prices for sealed retro games.
Video games are a newer form of art, so I guess it was only a matter of time 😕
Yeah, the Karl Jobst video gave a great look at how retro game prices have been upped bigtime
The comparison to trading cards in the video is pretty spot on. With a permanently finite supply and any sort of demand for a product, you can trade it back and forth until pretty much no one can afford it anymore.
I think it will be slightly weaker due to the donation aspect of retro games, unless it is a one and only copy otherwise the value of it will be lower as well. Rarity of a mass produced item can only go so far.
And Pokemon cards are entering this dark path too...
I hate how real collectors are being pushed away by people who wants to make profit out of fake prizes
Most of those art peaces are stored in duty free halls at airports. So yeah .... Sam still likes aviation /s
*pieces
Meh a fair portion, there is no way to tell if it's "most" though because the market is so opaque. Someone clearly saw tenet though 😉
it’s the cheapest option if your only intention is purely economical but most buyers want to rotate their collections into their estates as status symbols
Boooo
Peaces
Peaces
Peaces
There was this documentary on Netflix (the name escapes me for the moment) about an arthouse selling known fakes for years. They were "fake" in the sense that they were not painted by the famous painters they were claimed to be painted by, but ripoffs of their styles. So they were originals so to speak, since they were not direct copies of existing works. Throughout the documentary people talked about the scams, the money lost, yet no one - which I found strange while watching the movie - mentioned how it is not the artwork that you buy, but who painted it.
Think about it: why is a painting worth more if it is painted by person x instead of person y? It is the same painting we are talking about, the same artwork, the same quality. We see the same thing in designer clothing: you don't pay for the quality of the shirt, but for the little crocodile (as an example) on it. Ridiculous.
Would love to know the name
it is called: MADE YOU LOOK. it's very very interesting. Anna Freedman and the Knoedler Gallery scams!
It's a fair question but the artists matters often as part of the art
When someone makes an original Wendover video but is someone else I feel betrayed, too
Besides the shirt, the art cost money too. Especially if its hand done. Such as the materials and labor for the art, like machines and electricity. Tho I do think many things are expensive. But if things were cheap would people act snobby and belittle it like elites too and assume this was a cheap product, or would people still admire good art or work in of itself?
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c I disagree, consumers generally appreciate affordable goods with great value.
If X company made an affordable product that lasts a long time, it would earn that company a lot of good will.
"Art: the value is simply what other people are willing to pay."
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies: "Am I art?"
nope, they’re technology
Good one !
I am thinking , therefore I exist.
I have value, therefore I am art !
@@enriquetorres8062 paint is technology so is a brush and canvas....bitcoin is worthless, idiots inflated a price and it will be a bubble...look at first known bubble effect with tulips....idiots speculating on something that cant feed you or give you anything real...that will go on for a few decades and be replaced by a new better logo....that is why all does tech companies that sold concepts are closed over last 2 decades and microsoft is top dog as it sell you program to run your pc( a real thing) and why facebook need to sell your info for profits as it would be closed long ago if it didnt sell your info and ad space ....if you dont sell real stuff you will run out of idiots to buy your non existing bs
NFTs: *"why not both?"*
@@n.v.9000 ethereum actually does shit tho
I'd love to hear more about how often art is used to launder money.
Others have done videos on it, just not as well as Sam. The search bar is at the top of RUclips.
I would think the simple version is:
You help me at the government/enterprise. I give you $10 million
I buy paintings from your artist son for $10 million. He gets famous. You get the money. I donate them for 10 million tax credit. but it’s not bribe. Because government can’t stop me from liking arts!
@@Sam19930420 that’s not how it works. But sure
Jake Tran has a pretty good video on it.
@@Evergladez Thank you, I'll check it out!
I am 60, and was a master framer for 32 years. I have been "invited" to bid on some items in the $35,000-50,000 range, that I can find for $3,000-5,000 off auction. I noticed pieces put into my auction at $500,000-750,000 range, that were more desirable and much harder to find, making me feel like I should want these items more. (Even though they are overvalued.) These auction houses have things pretty well sewed up!!! They have also closed all the good frame shops, and offer the art framed, or wrapped around some 2×2s fresh off an ink jet printer...Nows that's profit!!! Not to mention their real estate "offerings," that seem to have all the nice houses under contract.🤔🤫🤭
Yeah but how much they estimate it is a big BRUH.
btw not insulting it's just bruh.
@@HEYYOUGOTMYGAWDDAMNFOODKAMEHAM really...man is 60 and you use Bruh...grow up this isnt rust or some dumb toxic game....he has hear a lot of dumb shit over his lifetime he doesnt need your millennium bs with no real meaning....
@@n.v.9000 bra! Bro?
The paintings I buy are framed by a local custom framing shop for around $100 - $200 a piece (small to medium sizes). The owner has an art degree and is really helpful with consultations. But I'm not collecting paintings that cost six figures, so I don't know what that world is like. What do you think distinguishes a top tier frame shop?
@@n.v.9000 I don't think they realised this was a formal business meeting and for some reason assumed it was just a RUclips comment section.
I would add that the rich also believe they can manipulate trends in color, tone, subject matter etc. A graphic designer, for example, might use an image of a shell for an oil company that destroys the ocean so your mind ignores what's in plain sight. An interior decorator might paint a restaurant's walls red in order to make you feel agitated so you can leave and a new customer can sit down. Painters and Sculptors have always been the first place other creatives go for inspiration. Think: Cubism and The Bauhaus / Jackson Pollock and those ugly splashed paint designs on car seat covers etc. They know that if they control Fine Artists then they control the designer, photographers, the fashion industry, and therefore, our entire visual language of the world.
I haven't watched mainstream entertainment in a while. I take time to search and look at indies and all kinds of art and entertainment, and other areas, and decide for myself.
You are so misinformed that is cute 😂
What do you mke of the company 'Masterworks'? It buys art, then sells shares in those artworks to small investors, charging an annual fee for looking after the art, and it takes a 20% sales cut. When the art market stagnates or pops, the company will be fine, but the many shareholders will be left holding dud shares. Is it more than a well-disguised Ponzi scheme?
I like your videos. On a technical note- that doesn't sound like a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme, there should at least be some money given to people who buy into the organization. It sounds like Masterworks just takes money and convinces people to give them more money.
I love all the talking heads who say you shouldn't invest in cryptocurrency because it is a small, tightly concentrated, unregulated market for meaningless digital tokens that have no intrinsic value and then IMMIDIATELY turn around and suggest investing in fine art through fractional ownership instead.
😂😂😂
In the larger context of the art market it appears more like a ponzi scheme, but what the company does seems reasonable. The customers are gambling.
No that's basic risk vs reward it's not like the investors don't know that their share could dip at any moment
Also, if a company having a zero risk makes it a ponzi scheme then franchisers like Mcdonalds would fall under that.
You know... There is an absurd beauty on the fact an lost DaVinci painting was just... hanging around in New Orleans and it was sold so cheaply. I absolotly love these small miracles :')
It’s authenticity is still disputed today. No one wants to tell the crown prince he bought a dud
@@pinktoebeans MBS might kill them or something
Except it’s looking more and more like a dud. Even if it wasn’t, the amount of restoration required made the painting more restorer than whoever actually painted it.
@@danbumstead1096 So... For you eventually every paint is just the work of the people that restored it then? Like, you know that eventually petty much most painting WILL need a little refeshment right?
its definitely fake
An excellent introduction to the greatest scam of the 20th century. I spent 50 years of my life trying to be a "fine" artist. I eventually got a very small piece into the Moma library. My paintings never did very well but I did sell over 50 of them in the less than thousand-dollar range. No serious gallery will handle material this cheap. I did much better with my printed material. I decided to be an artist in the 4th grade- prompted by tv shows and movies. If I could go back, I believe I would have studied plumbing. I was totally lied to about "art".
What were you told about art as a kid?
I've been through the same, i can make almost anything on canvas, no one buys anything expensive unless it's for either tax fraud or money laundering
@@Vincent_Beers sadly many of us can say the same. It actually blows my mind what will be bought for thousands when in reality its a ll a tax right off if it can make it into a museum
@@Vincent_Beers 'I can make almost anything on canvas'? - It doesn't make your work interesting or original. Perhaps turn to forgery.
In the globalised internet world now, commercialised art has never been cheaper. Outsourcing big Hollywood and AAA art projects for movies and video games to Asians will to work for peanuts.
What I learned:
Art is truly based on the perceived value of a group of people. For this reason, it makes it so easy to take advantage of art for less noble objections.
Which is what convinced me to give up art for a living.
Well there's expensive, price gouging, and money laundering in everything. Watch Insider Business on expensive things. For example, they talked about a Japanese handmade calligraphy brush that was $1000. I get something may be higher quality but I think that's too expensive. Brand name, handmade, antiques, or retro things can be expensive even if it's a simple thing, such as with video games.
There's corruption and price gouging in art but there's also artists and social media creators who get their work stolen online and not credited. Some artists volunteer to work for free at first to build their resume and name.
@@jeffbrehove2614 There are lots of art jobs. Look how there's art everywhere. Artists can also open their own museum like Donald Judd, do art like for video games, or make money on yt. You can do art as a second job. You should do your dreams. There are artists outside of the elites who were able to get famous. Such as on social media. Which you have now to help you.
influential people who know nothing of your work or you and hype it up.
@@jeffbrehove2614how long were you practicing your art and how long have you gone not creating?
I can't ever go to a Van Gogh anything (unless 100% of the *proceeds* went to charity) because the man only ever sold one painting. I've known tons of fantastic artists working retail; the reality is that successful artists are successful peoples unsuccessful friends
I think the money should go directly to Van Gogh's rotting corpse.
Joking aside, I get what you mean. Artists really get screwed over.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 fuck yes. Every dollar goes directly to his grave. You're officially my favorite person ever
>successful artists are successful peoples unsuccessful friends
haha as an artist I love this
@@trezenx I also love it please send some help haha
The "intrinsic value" argument applies to all collectibles: stamps, coins, rare books, baseball cards etc. That is the very point of collectibles: they have cultural, not material, value, and the market is determined by the interaction of buyers/sellers/dealers. Everything in this video applies to a greater or lesser extent to every segment of the collectibles trade.
Intrinsic and material value basically mean the same thing: you/I/we perceive a thing to be good. In my opinion good/bad are completely subjective and therefore both terms are misleading because they imply the value is a fundamental property of the thing, which it's not since you need something other than the thing to 'demonstrate' the value - in opposition to a fundamental property like mass. Therefore you might as well say: Everything in this video applies to a greater or lesser extent to every segment of -the collectibles- trade
The word you want is "inherent" value. Intrinsic value has a separate meaning.
no - it applies to everything. literally everything. nothing has intrinsic value. therefore that is not a valid argument in this discussion at all.
Pretty sure food and water have intrinsic value to humans. After all, we literally die without it.
@@Christian-sm9he If by "value" you mean monetary value, then not really (depends on the demand, the offer, the stocks, etc). But it certainly has more value (beside monetary value) than any piece of art.
i remember writing a paper on gerhard richter for college and i found a clip of him saying that an art collector/museum person was telling him to sell his pieces for like $16 million or something. at least $10mil. and he was saying how absurd it was and that he didn't want to increase his prices! and i was so happy to hear that from him. thank you for this video!
I don't feel comfortable selling my art at all. Especially when some people say art is not a real job, useless, easy, or should be free.
"Any market can be exploited, which is why markets are regulated." Regulation is not a solution to complicated market dynamics. The art market is literally the perfect example of why that's the case. No amount of regulation can give a precise view on aesthetic value.
it is the solution though.
Not true. So much uggly garbage sold at ridiculous prices, not reflecting any real or imaginary value. Art is definitely not regulated, and is extremely corrupt! So much uggly or stuрid stuff, done and overdone. Regulation of art industry is surely required loooong time ago, but rich keep it the way it is. For big reason that benefits them specifically.
You're missing the "other" market: online auction houses, where 100k pieces are sold every quarter. While it's a small monetary portion, they sell more pieces in a day than the big auction houses sell all year.
You explained it already, small monetary portion. The big auction houses are all about huge numbers, and huge profits, like one made 55 million profit during one auction.
@@dnlgrmn7169 The irony is many of these auctions are chump change for the buyers and little more than business/social events with an activity attached. Rich people networking basically, where real big money deals for much bigger things are going down.
I'm disappointed the title wasn't:
"The Art of Manipulating The Art Market"
I hear you on Nebula - I was a member (nebulite?) - but I found the technology of the platform frustrating - particularly the video player it hosts. Hard to skip forward and back, other missing features that I tend to use a lot made watching vids there frustrating. Jus' sayin'
@its fine go "facts" yourself with that spam.
wow it's been ages nebula has had problems. same as you, subbed for a while but the player was atrocious
It's gotten better, but it still needs work.
At this point I subscribe to support the creators I enjoy (many of the people I regularly watch take part), watch main videos on RUclips, but go to nebula for the companion videos, exclusives, and the like
It's still awful. 3 minutes buffering the companio video to this one... only 20 seconds played. Waste of time and money.
I can't admire your hard work in bringing these videos to life. Thank you for making us aware of issues happening in the world.
Coming from someone who has worked in the art market for years. That’s very true that once the artwork enters secondary market there is no way to identify its intrinsic value, it is possible to do that for primary market (especially for artists who are still at the beginning of their careers) by outlining a trajectory that is connected to their gradual recognition by the industry gatekeepers.
There are online platforms like Artsted who do exactly that, by democratizing the market and letting retail collectors access the market in lower figures, as well as benefit the artists directly.
Can you explain what artsted is trying to do?
Forgeries are easy if you can obtain some original old paints, an old canvas and have some sort of talent.
@@Qwijebo That's a very vague statement. Depending on the artist, you'd also have to figure out how to get the "newly discovered" work into the catalogue raisonne.
There are ways to do anything these days and not necessarily using the catalogue(s). @@leaveitblanklucy
Expensive art trades are a legal tax loophole for exchanging monetary gains.
Also, criminal money laundering.
‘Crazy Egotist Connection’
• Christie's: Owned by Groupe Artemis
• Groupe Artémis: The holding company of François-Henri Pinault
• François-Henri Pinault: Billionaire chairman and CEO of Kering
• Kering: Owns the luxury brands Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and Bottega Veneta.
• Sotheby's: Owned by French-Israeli Billionaire Patrick Drahi.
Now You See How the Rich Works For the Rich to be More Rich.
I'm an artist, colored pencil realism, and I could never get a gallery to take me on because none of those people give a hoot about realistic art. They only want abstract.
And how many of the buyers can actually appreciate the works they spend so lavishly on? I took a course on modern art, very little does much for me, abstract photgraphy is the only thing I can get.
In August of 2003 I was in Saga City, Japan. I saw what looked like a genuine Japanese wood-block print (ukiyo-e) in the window of a junk shop. I went by but returned later to look at the back to see if it was genuine mulberry bark paper. It was. I bought it for 3000 yen. The shop owner was so sorry that she may have ripped me off she gave me an antique soap dish with it for free. I could tell from the style it was Kunissda I. Later I realized it was from his Seven Ronan Dog Warriors series from 1849 to 1850 when he died.showing a Kabuki samurai. No one in my hotel could read the old Japanese script. Since then I have discovered that it seems no one has a copy of that print anywhere in the world not Tokyo or Osaka or San Francisco not New York or London. A dealer in San Francisco offered me $50.
$50 ??
Shoulda taken the 50 quid!
Gary Francis: Which is a good example of why it's best to buy art because you like it, not because you are an expert or can expect big profits.
Art dealers: "oh that's junk I'll give you $50"
Also art dealers: "extremely rare, $50,000,000, I know what I have"
@@internetpointsbankyup 🙂
Animal Crossing New Leaf taught me this 😅. Paid a lot of "money" for what looked like a nice piece of art then got told that I can't even donate it because it's a "forgery". Then I kept it because it does look nice.
to me there are no forgeries in art, artwork is either looks good or it doesn't, I don't care about who made it
@@monticore1626 You a Fatima Pecci Carou fan I see. 🤔
Actually forgeries can be sold at a high price precisely for that reason: some are that good.
@@monticore1626 Why art has to look good? What if the artist wants to communicate something awful such as his depression?
NFT’s take this to the next level!
NFT are made by bitcoin millionaires feeling left out of the art market scam. Sometimes they try to be the artist themselves, sometimes it's artists trying to cater to crypto millionaires, and that's how we get so much crappy art frequently featuring a bitcoin or ethereum logo on it.
@@DiThi The real rich power brokers of the world are laughing at these tech dilettantes who think they can disrupt the existing power structures. In fact, it almost seems like a scheme to rope a bunch of people into buying inherently worthless digital certificates instead of real concrete assets like real estate or industrial capacity
@@mikeydude750 You worship them so much that you think they decide it like that. You think they think like in the movies? lol Reality is they are open minded individuals and if they see an opportunity by using new technology they will use it. They dont became rich of being closed minded on everything or being stucked in the old ways. They take whatever opportunities they can make.
@@Code-tf2nn irony
@@Code-tf2nn lmao i don't give a shit about which dumb technology or financial scheme the rich use. i'm more concerned that the rich are allowed to keep control of anything period
This is a perfect explanation of why the artist concerned almost never gets a fair piece of the pie.
TMW you learn that one of the most important art pieces ever owned by an America hung on a random wall throughout your childhood in your hometown
I can imagine some kid running by it through the hallway shooting nerf darts at it or an old Christian woman pressing her lips on it during her prayers.
i think the thing that frustrates me the most about the High Art Market is that it just gives artists a bad name by association while abusing our work.
No YOU give artists a bad name. Ignore the boring ass art market that doesn't care about people who enjoy art for arts sake. Just support artists you enjoy, go to small galleries(many small galleries driven by people who barely make even just because they love art). This whole discussion and throwing shit at art is not leading to a better art scene, so plz stop being mad about the 1% because they're !%-ing and instead support small artists. It's not that hard. But I guess it's easier to just sit and complain.
@@trassel1104u spent more words complaining than they did
@@trassel1104I’m goin to assign more blame on the billion dollar industry corruption the point of art than some random person putting a legitimate complaint on the internet
how does this give artists a bad name?
High art artists with huge followings are borderline geniuses. Rich people in that market buy the genius, not the the artwork. Regular artists that just make “pretty” or “cool” artworks would make more money in the decor market than the Damien hirst gerhard richter multimillion dollar environment. “Giving us artists a bad name” I kinda can guess the category your in (or put yourself in) off that alone.
Thanks for the informative video!
no problem
Yes. Faxs.
🔳 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE WENDOVER PRODUCTION
Now this is a name I haven't seen in years.
@@pramilashaktawat4429 ay chill out
Being in the auction industry myself it's only natural that a few Places have come to handle things of such obcene value. There aren't enough items worth such prices that come to market for more than a few select houses to deal in it. There are however dozens of auction houses that deal in say the $1000 to low million range. And hundreds that deal in the $100 to 100K range. There certainly is a lot of backroom dealing I will say even in the "lower" auction houses. The auction industry as a whole, not just the art part would make an interesting video of its own. Everything you say is true to my smaller scale experience.
I visit estate auctions and often see beautiful artworks being sold for less than the raw materials used to create the painting, yet am amazed at many famous works that honestly look like a pile of paint thrown up by a small child and valued at millions.
There must be so much fraud, tax evasion, and people falling in love with an artist's name no matter how crap the painting is.
I'm looking forward to an Artificial Intelligence being able to appraise art. How would it do it? Scout the internet and look for a consensus? Or it has developed the understanding of what the vast majority, or the most intelligent, or the most artistic humans value as "good" art?
CatsMeowPaw uh, yes, that's correct, no work of art is worth much more than the cost of the materials from which it is fashioned
@@dingusdingus2152 That looks like it says the brains and bodies of artists are worthless as they think up the art and apply the physical time to create it.
@@scottfw7169 The bodies and brains of some artists are worthless , what many produce today would be better described as " Craft " not art .
@@Huaimek861 That comment tells the world far more about your personal prejudices than about artists.
When Robin Williams was burned by Disney over his role in Aladdin, they gave him a $1 million Picasso.
Probably worth a lot more than if he was given cash now.
I never knew about this. What was the reason of contempt?
@@kavky If I remember correctly, Robin Williams was mad at Disney that they reneged on their deal to *not* use his name to promote the movie _Aladdin_ prior to the movie's premiere. They put Williams front-and-center in all their advertisement, but he didn't want it competing with the other movie of his - which was a personal project - that was to be released around the same time to be outshone. Well, it was; his other movie suffered at the box office, and Disney is still raking in the money. To the point, I cannot even remember what the name of the other movie was...
(Edits for clarity!)
@@pearlofthedarkage I thought it had something to do with using his character to sell junk food.
@@pearlofthedarkage He was doing voice work for the bat on Fern Gully at the same time as Aladin
See the lindsay ellis video on the topic.
I would've paid £100 for that thrift store painting, not bad when it turns out to be a Leonardo DaVinci.
Decades later tho..... after the buyer died, who did not spend a dime
I said $4,000
♦️ SERCH ADITYA RATHORE-HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE WENDOVER PRODUCTION
I said $2 lmao
You need to convince the world it's a LDV tho
Great work in highlighting the farse of this market, yet there is a lot left out. From primary to tertiary market dynamics, to freeport storage, inheritance, to back and forth sales, this market is unique because you can basically make anything you want if you make the proper moves.
Farce*
He probably discussed that in his part of Nebula
the amount of concentration in the art market still doesnt reach how concentrated those school orange juice boxes are
A few years ago I saw this Theory going around on Reddit stating the Art Market was nothing more than a tax-evasion scheme established by the ultra rich and wealthy. I'm glad to see this substantiated by somebody as reputable as Wendover Productions. Keep up the good work
It's been common knowlegde for anyone who's ever worked at a gallery for decades. My mom used to qork at a gallery. A small one so the paintings sold for tens of thousands not millions. But the gallery still determined what was worth 500 or 10k. And of course a few select exclusive artists that got pennies on the dollar. I still have 3 paintings we bought for about 250 bucks each by a now deceased artist. They are really beuatiful and have since risen to 5-10k. I hope someday some rich dude decides to set the price at 10 million each. Might be my descendants that make that deal though.
Yep and these fine art pieces are often stored in tax free warehouses at international ports serving as easy ways to move hundreds of millions of dollars without ever being taxed on any of it.
Why do we act like the ultra rich are fine to have around UNTIL they do something obviously wrong? The source of their wealth is exploitation in the very first place. Unless any libertarian retard wants to tell me that they just work 37,000,000x harder than the average worker
As an artist, i don't care how much money you'd pay for my art. I want to know how it made you feel and why you chose to have my art.
What kinda art do you make
chynna b: Sounds nice, but you can't pay the rent or for college, etc. with feelings.
@@rogergeyer9851 thanks for stating out the obvious. Why do you think most artist die poor? Its a choice of life and if its not for you - you don't have to be bitter and slap it on our faces. As Charles Bukowski said "find what you love and let it kill you" It's the choice that takes great courage to make and its not for everyone.
The purpose of art in your life is to make you feel something not for monetary reasons. Talk to any dedicated artist on their work (may it be through music, paint, film, etc.) and they will tell you the same. The point of creating is to make an impact on someone (even if that may only be one) There are already plenty of ways to earn and most of us burn our souls keeping a job to keep the lights and our art at bay.
@@stamzthehuman897 Lovely clouds and naked women on Oil on canvas.
@@chynnab2920 You get it. Doing art solely for an income is not a true artist. The true creative does it because they are compelled to - even if they did it for free and merely for themselves, they would still do it. Chasing the dollar and turning it into a singular source of income destroys that gift and drive in a person. I've heard too many stories of burnout because they were chasing social media, numbers, and algorithm. And a lot of that scene, anyway, is just a popularity contest at the end of the day. Must be nice to be so popular.
Simple solution: let them be but stop giving them taxcuts. If the state is not involved the will continue to push money from one rich person to the next. Sure, museums won‘t get any more donations, but that‘s fine because the pricetag is the Inlay diffrence between a good artwork and a well known masterpiece.
If the state didn't tax people, there would be no problem whatsoever.
@Pier The human race isn't 20 million years old
The rich pay WAY more in taxes than we do.
Corona changed everything, literally everything! Even wendover is making videos on art instead of planes😶
Didn't even mock Newark Airport once!!!
Booooo
Well, how do you think they get the paintings to the auctions?
I mean if the art market just includes those sold at auctions and through dealers then yes the art market is tiny.
However most art is not sold through Sotheby's or High profile Galleries.
Most Art is commissioned privately or sold physically or through prints/digital assets on ArtStation/local galleries etc.
Most art is NOT sold. Art is a hobby, dear. Hundreds of millions of people do it at home at pretty high quality level. So, too many offers. But there's no demand. People don't buy original art at all! By "people", I mean 99.999% of humans.
99% sold is old art. New art hardly gets sold. It's like houses, rich people selling to each other.
Look at modern art videos and people complaining about them, and celebrities. There are lots of newly sold art.
You say the two parties losing out are artists that are not vetted by the gatekeepers and us consumers that can't buy the art that is vetted.
Sounds like it'd be easy for the two to pair up and ignore the rich auction people if that were true.
In the art context, definitely, and it's already happening all over the internet and underground art scene. In the context of money it's very different. We can't afford to take part in those auctions, but those who can will keep taking advantage of that to exponentially increase their wealth regardless of if we pay attention or not.
@@cupriferouscatalyst3708 In auctions, highest bidder wins so if you can’t afford it then nobody can take advantage of you - there’s nothing to take advantage of.
Yeah, that happens all the time. People pay $20 for a painting just to decorate their walls.
Regular people ignoring the rich person's art market game doesn't mean it doesn't affect us; it's still scamming us out of who knows how many millions and billions in tax revenue that would otherwise be going towards supporting the population of the country as a whole.
@@shukantpal7413 Did you miss the part where they're using it for tax evasion? Tax money that _should_ be going towards supporting the people of the country as a whole, but instead gets further and further concentrated into the hands of the few.
That money isn't magically generated from nowhere; it's siphoned off all of us.
Damn! This one deserves an Award.
I'm calling it a Wendy, and giving it to you.
Make the trophy for the Wendy an airplane. That would be the only appropriate shape
That sounds presigious! How much is it worth?
I had wanted to be an artist as a teenager. That was an utterly ridiculous dream. I had known the art market was like this before, but not to this extent!
Art is not about market Art is all about interest and passion, art demands LIFETIME relation then it teaches you the mysteries after making you an artist. if you are loyal with what your are doing then you don't need any market because you can become the market. think like and artist be a Loyal lover of art.
@@adnanjijo well thanks for replying but I’ve given up on my dreams of being an artist completely. I do construction now
@@bigmomma3265 construction is also Art.😁
You can live as an artist but you will never become wealthy from it. Yeah, it sucks.
It get's better, allot of art is done on patronage where a rich person pays a semi-famous artist something like 10-100k USD to paint something for them, and then they donate it listing it's value at 1-4 mil. And if the artist doesn't play the game and tries to do something stupid like go directly to an auction house their work suddenly drops in value to a fraction of what it normally goes for.
Most modern art substitutes weird for quality, narrow isms for scope, and trendy for depth. It also refuses to change or even talk about progressive ideas in art like those that follow
Too many treat art as a marketing scheme. Modern art has become a trendy clique and the art now is mostly over promoted footnotes to greater art that was done 100 years ago. But art is too important to be reduced to a trendy clique.
Post-ism, is art for a new century, not a continuation of last century trends.
1 Mass Market Paintings like Prints. When any art form is mass marketed it enters a golden age. This has happened with books, records, and film. Let's add paintings. Most art is in storage in museum basements. Mass Marketing allows art to tour in copies and allows artists to make royalties on copies.
Why do you think the world gets so excited about a new great book, record, or film; but no one cares about a new great painting? All are mass produced except the painting.
2. End a Century of Isms. Dump the genres and formulas and let all kinds of art be a part of the art world.
3. Shift Emphasis From Trendy to Quality. Shift emphasis from the latest trendy art, to quality art in any style. Just because art is weird does not mean it is great art.
4. Free the Art From Museums and Galleries. Get the art out of the ivory elitist museum and gallery towers and back into the world. Have city art centers open to all artists. Make art that is relevant and communicates with people. Start with the first generation of artists online.
5. Postism is Part of a Bigger Revolution. Postism is part of the bigger art and media revolution out of Dallas, that includes art, music, lit, film, media, and a lot more.
6. Postism online: Online artists are the new wave of art. We had all the isms of last century. Now we have a free for all, of all kinds of artists, that are not sanctioned by any museum or gallery, displaying their work. Out of that comes the next wave and revolution of artists.
Last century the goal was to fit the ism. This century the goal is to do great art - no ism, no boundaries. Fractionalized art then, synchronized art now. Even calling something modern art is a type of ism that separates that art from the art of the past.
The 20th century was a century of experimentation in art. Now in the 21st we can choose from all those styles and / or start one of our own.
Then too if someone devises a way to charge and collect a penny per view on a webpage, that would allow any great artist to get money for their art and have a career without any middlemen.
Duchamp broke ground 100 years ago - but now his clones are just shoveling dirt. Weird art is easy, you put a strip of raw bacon across an expensive violin, but it's not good art.
Join the art revolution and pull the art world out of last century.
Musea since 1992.
🥰🥰
The art industry is synonymous with elitism and corruption
The art "market".
Tho I agree with the "elitism" part. I am one :D
That's true and I don't trust government and people who pushing there garbage out that makes them money and as we see like McDonald's and other fast food joints they are not good for humans consumption they keep the drug administration in business
A lot of elites make money off of artists, despite not being creative themselves. A common pattern in the film and music industry, with the same usual suspects. Those elites put their noses in everything.
@@TokyoXtreme you mean "the rich"? Elitím in the art world is different than the generic term.
@@segmentsAndCurves I’m referring to “the tribe” specifically. The band “Gruntruck”, of course.
20 years as a professional painter, I'm always impressed by the publics lack of knowledge. Was anyone truly surprised?
What's the value of your paintings?
@@jeebus6263 1 Quadrillion because I feel like it is
@@clodman84 well,
will you give me a deal?
You know "professional" means you can live off what you are doing. Not having a goatee and pretending to be an artist.
@@metagen77 If we've learned anything from this video, it's that a professional artist (if they get their money by auction sales and not, ex. commissions from someone who wants a certain picture to exist) is someone who has a goatee and pretends to be an artist yet can live off what they're doing because they have name recognition.
"Welcome to Whose Art is it anyway? Where the rules are made up and the prices don't matter"
That sounded better in my head...
Underrated comment
As a hard working full time artist since I was 14…I find this so fascinating. I’m yet to be on the radar of someone who is a gatekeeper of this art world. Does their opinion really matter or is their opinion the only thing that matters? Is their opinion the only ticket for me to become a sought after collectable artist? I would have to argue maybe not! I have demand for my work from the masses and it keeps me working full time and busy. I am grateful for that! And grateful my work is in demand… at least imo.
I do find it frustrating that the “art world” is more of a scam for the few elite to avoid taxation and to control the market… sigh… if only it was what it should be…an appreciation of art
I don't want to be part of their corruption. I want people to like my art on its own, not because someone hyped it up and haggled up the price. Those elites don't own the "art world". There's many people doing, appreciating, and buying art outside of them. Like indies and artists on social media.
Are you earning living wages from selling your original art? Or are you some pathetic art teacher? 😂
art market is just the rich's way to avoid tax. they "value" art piece as high as they can, and then "donate" them to a museum, while paying a fraction to the artist.
I'd love to explore how the fine art market compares/contrasts with the crypto/NFT market, both in their structure and how they are exploited.
Crypto market is like the stock and art market had a baby that inherited their worst traits, it's the worst of both worlds.
@@Eagle3302PL because there's no intrisic value. Unless a government actually adopts it.... But which idiot government would make crypotcurrency their currency. *El savador sweats furiously
Same scam, different medium.
NFTs are actually a different type of scam known as a "gold brick" scam.
At least no one routinely steals art work irl
To be fair, you're only talking about very high end art, where you are right. The "low" end art market is way cheaper/legit.
Hunter Biden
I wanna get into collecting some “low end” art. Where do I start? Thanks in advance
Actually it's all one market. And if you dont get approval of the gate keepers you wont ever get 5k for a work. The vast majority of art purchased in the world is under 250 usd. Less than 5% of the number of objects sold makes up 95% of the market value. And as he stated. The total annual art sales globally is less than some corporations quarterly sales of goods .. oh wait. How much of Walmart's annual billions is wall decor?
@@hse6144 don the con lost sweetheart. But don is no less a con than any of these art swindlers
@@VVS1920 my work ranges 250 to 5k
11:25 Thanks for teaching me the value of infrared photography. The kind of photography I never knew existed before watching this video.
Going that deep into the Salvator Mundi transactions: the real reason for the final transactions are backdoor oil price agreements between Russia / Saudi Arabia. Often they use Yachts, but this time a painting.
How would that work?
In conclusion: the immensely rich would do anything to expand their wealth AND avoid any kind of taxes
Yep. And this is only one of many such ways they do this.
And it's helping to gradually drive our society into the ground.
Yes, and any political programs that raise income taxes are targeting upper-middle class, like engineers, doctors, lawyers, managers - and not the wealthy upper class.
@@telpeloth now we wouldn't want to disadvantage our billionaire donors now would we?
Isn't that what everyone tries to do though? Expand their wealth and avoid taxes? In the U.S. the rich pay around 40% income tax but account for 60% total tax revenue. Yeah there are those rich people who are very greedy and only care about their money and would do anything and everything to keep it and get more, but there are also a lot of rich people who are not like that and donate a ton of their money to other people and charitable organizations. In my opinion those who think having the rich pay more money to the government are envious fools.
@@patricklora4434 tax evasion is a crime. Period. Using fraudulent valuations to evade taxes is a crime. If I get caught with drugs, it doesn't matter what I've contributed to society, I'm screwed. But you justify fraud and tax evasion because you think they should be allowed to? Makes no sense. We don't punish financial crime nearly to the extent we should.
And LOL at your terrible sense of proportion and understanding of debt. There's videos from the 90s and 2000s where they talk about the top 10%. We eventually moved to the top 1% and now its top 0.1% of wealth, owning 90+% of all wealth in this country. In any sane society, this is a monopoly and a punch in the face to every starving American and homeless veteran that takes their life.
Design is the art market industrialized. Design is literally all about "how can I create mass liked art that I can sell at great price, so it appears justifiable to the customer and simultaneously make me live the good life". In the Design world, name dropping is 100% a thing. Just knowing the names of several big guys (Hans Wegner, Arne Jacobsen, Jørn Utzon, Kaare Klint, Kay Fisker, Poul Henningsen - just to name a few Danish ones), as well as being able to identify several different design styles (Georgian, Edwardian, Victorian, Tudor, Baroque, Art Deco, Bauhaus, Art Nouveau, etc. ) when starting out, will move you a long way. If you somehow know or are related to one of these famous designers, the value of your work instantly go up by a lot. And by looking at my comment it should be pretty clear that I participate in it myself and see nothing wrong with it, when it comes to Design as Design is available to anyone, most notably as IKEA, who hire designers (albeit not widely known ones) to design their products.
Danish furniture 😍
To be fair, most of art history has been about rich people. "Roman copy of Greek original" because the rich Romans all wanted these statues for their palazzi. Renaissance masters were all contracted by rich people. Illuminated books, rich people. (Or the church, so many church commissions.) The notion of artists creating art for their own is a more modern idea, with a very short list. Van Gogh. Vermeer. A few others.
After what happened with Byedone’s son’s art, I’m beginning to understand it may be a way for $ laundering. Especially as an artist among thousands of artists who spend months creating beautiful inspiring paintings, only to see a piece consisting of a white background with a 3” red square painted on it going for hundreds of thousands of dollars at high end galleries because some shill anointed critic pronounces it
“transcendent” and the rest of the world bows down and pretends they are as intuitive as he is. It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes. Nothing to see here.
True. That was a main reason I didn't pick art. I become computer programer - program is rather working or not working. You cannot blah blah your way to the high price. My father, artist, also told me that as a female , art critics will try to use me in exchange for good newspaper article I never regretted leaving art. I still paint on Sunday mornings ☺️
I just Googled it. You are absolutely right.
@@violinplayer3518 ....I hope you can find more time for your art. I don’t depend on it for a living, as I have a part time job in the family business, but I joined a few art societies, enter shows, win a few prizes and sell a few pieces in galleries. If you’ve had a gift and desire since youth, you are talented for a reason, if only to bring joy to others and balance yourself by using that wonderful right side of your brain. God bless.
@@violinplayer3518 Combine your love of art and your skill with computer code into a new hobby! Make some NFT's! Then you can sell your work for a reasonable price, but if it ever gains value later you will make a profitable commission on any subsequent sales. Good luck with all you do!
@@cmwHisArtist I do copies of Rembrandt and DaVinchi and Vermeer and doing well. There is market for that - old rich people not rich enough to have originals.
Precisely why I am not a fan of galleries. Not just the big ones in some of the richest countries in the world, but even for big cities in developing countries. People didn't have many options in the past, now they do. Why give off your work of love so it be tossed around and used like a token? Artists can network themselves, and remove the giant middlemen altogether. Art is many things but never a "luxury".
I used to spend a lot of time around major auction houses and everything here is spot on. Damn, you’re good! 👏🏽👏🏽
From an artist POV, better millions than $0. Art is often treated as free these days, and that is an injustice of itself.
Great video! Like the detailed explanation for the Da Vinci Salvator Mundi.
We should raise awareness and change how people steal people's art or content online without crediting them. I don't even ask for money, just credit. Although if I was making money on yt I wouldn't want people taking my work without consent.
How is this fact not justified, in your opinion? Art is worth zero because there's waaaay too many offers (most people have artistic hobbies now) and zero demand (people will not even get one ikea print per lifetime). Art as a business is dead. But it's wide spread and extremely accessible as a hobby! Which is awesome! Unless you've wasted your time and $ at art school 😂 Who goes to school to study a hobby?! I mean, you gotta be an imbiсil.
Very interesting topic and also great to see how the production style and value at Wendover is getting better with every new video. The paint strokes are a lovely touch! Keep it up :)
Can we all just appreciate why Banksy installed a shredder into his frame?
Imagine you pay 1.400.000 for that girl with balloon painting and a second after buying it, it shreds itself half-ishly and BOOM, the interest rises world wide as a unique event in art history takes place on camera and as a result the price bumps to somewhere between 5.000.000 and 8.000.000.
You then decide to 'donate' that piece of art to a museum so you can deduct it's worth from your taxable income saving you between 1.500.000 and 2.400.000 dollars of tax payments as you've just made a hypothetical loss of 5.000.000 to 8.000.000 for a mere investment of 1.400.000.
Art is a scam and no one does anything about it. Hell, Banksy says he hates it and rebels against it, but he merely provides more of the same for them.
@@danielvanginkel7081 If Bansky really hated the Art Market, the shredder-mechanism wouldn't have stopped.
It's a tired tactic though.
No
banksy still profits off the scam. stop paying attention to these charlatans. there are really artists who work to make beauty and meaning.
Here we have Wendover Productions with the real masterpiece of a video.
Excellent video. I worked in the art world in London for years and everything you said is 100% accurate. And the final comment, that artists and the general public are the ones who lose the most in this system, is spot on and needs to be said more. But unfortunately, most artists and art workers are afraid to say anything for fear of being blacklisted by said gatekeepers.
>the general public are the ones who lose the most in this system
What system are we talking about here, capitalism?
@@boozecruiser Change your name, it doesn't fit you
Have you been blacklisted by said gatekeepers?
The general public doesn't factor into any of the art markets calculations. No member of the public understands, values, or appreciates art, and they do not purchase original art. Artists know this and that is why they go along with the emperor's new clothing racket.
@@dingusdingus2152 correction : no member of “the public” has disposable millions of dollars to pay for “original art” that has no functional, objective value to them. If the “true value” of art is so high that it’s unapproachable by most people then don’t be surprised that most people refuse to partake or “understand” it.
anyway, talented artists do not aim to be known and sell their works at exorbitant prices, they work hard and you will never see them
2:34 Missed opportunity "It's just theory... an art theory!"
Thanks for painting
Yes