Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.

Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.

Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.

The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?

Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?

There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.

That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.

Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”

Michael M Thomas Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am

In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas

Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)

Mike in Nola Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm

When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.

The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.html

Of course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.

An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.

grlampton Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).

Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.

gms777 Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.

Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.

obsvr-1 Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers

Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.

ToNYC Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.

Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.

great point you make:

rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.

Long term Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.

Mannwich Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html

philipat Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)

pintelho Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion

Long term Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.

VennData Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson

YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”

It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.

Julia Chestnut Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am

The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.

But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.

contrabandista13 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am

And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.

It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.

BuffaloBill Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am

A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.

B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.

C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”

D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”

contrabandista13 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am

The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…

Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….

Greg0658 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am

interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake

I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living

ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d

ToNYC Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am

Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.

Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am

What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)

philipat Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am

VennData Says:

“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”

IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?

Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:

November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am

Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:

November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

Abnormal Returns on Art Says:

November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am

To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

dobench craft company rip off pills work

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”

Michael M Thomas Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am

In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas

Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)

Mike in Nola Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm

When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.

The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.html

Of course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.

An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.

grlampton Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).

Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.

gms777 Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.

Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.

obsvr-1 Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers

Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.

ToNYC Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.

Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.

great point you make:

rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.

Long term Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.

Mannwich Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html

philipat Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)

pintelho Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion

Long term Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.

VennData Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson

YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”

It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.

Julia Chestnut Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am

The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.

But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.

contrabandista13 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am

And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.

It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.

BuffaloBill Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am

A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.

B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.

C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”

D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”

contrabandista13 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am

The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…

Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….

Greg0658 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am

interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake

I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living

ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d

ToNYC Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am

Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.

Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am

What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)

philipat Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am

VennData Says:

“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”

IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?

Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:

November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am

Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:

November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

Abnormal Returns on Art Says:

November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am

To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

allbench craft company rip off

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”

Michael M Thomas Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am

In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas

Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)

Mike in Nola Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm

When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.

The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.html

Of course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.

An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.

grlampton Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).

Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.

gms777 Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.

Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.

obsvr-1 Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers

Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.

ToNYC Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.

Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.

great point you make:

rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.

Long term Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.

Mannwich Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html

philipat Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)

pintelho Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion

Long term Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.

VennData Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson

YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:

November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”

It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.

Julia Chestnut Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am

The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.

But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.

contrabandista13 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am

And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.

It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.

BuffaloBill Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am

A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.

B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.

C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”

D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”

contrabandista13 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am

The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…

Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….

Greg0658 Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am

interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake

I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living

ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d

ToNYC Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am

Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.

Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am

What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)

philipat Says:

November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am

VennData Says:

“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”

IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?

Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:

November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am

Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:

November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.

Abnormal Returns on Art Says:

November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am

To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

website

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Making Easy Money

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”

Leave a Reply

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”

Leave a Reply

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”

Leave a Reply

No comments:

Post a Comment