« New of the Ick | Main | Those damned capitalists! »
July 17, 2008
The auctioneer says 'buy, it'll go up 20% a year!'
Auctions on cruise ships? Who knew?
When most people think of art auctions, they think of Christie’s or Sotheby’s in New York or London, not a cruise ship. But over the last two decades, auctioning “fine art” on cruises, often to first-time bidders who have never met a reserve or inspected a provenance, has become big business.Which leads to unhappy first-time auction winners:
“It was very upsetting,” Mr. Maldonado said. “I’m not mad about spending $73,000. I’m mad about spending $73,000 for works that I was told are worth more than $100,000 and are probably worth $10,000, if they’re even real.”Of course, even I, ignorant medievalist that I am, have been telling students for years not to buy Dalí prints because they're widely faked.
But read the whole thing - it's quite a good story!
via Tyler Cowen, whose price point without research is $1500. I have a simpler formula - cruises are for suckers.
Posted by CrankyProfessor at July 17, 2008 7:19 AM
Comments
The article raises questions about a couple of aspects of art that it leaves unmentioned.
One; what of the widespread, sensationalized misunderstandings about the monetary value of art? It's a thing I run into with my students all the time. In the midst of a slide show:
Student, "I just don't understand how something like that could be worth millions of dollars."
Me, "Um, actually, THAT one was made by a colleague of mine last year, it's in storage at his studio now, no one's ever paid anything for it. I'm showing it to you because I think it's interesting. I want you to THINK about IT."
Somehow, a mythology about the expensiveness of art precludes many people's understanding of everything else about an art work.
Two; what of the idea that "art" and "culture" can improve a person through something akin to osmosis without any engagement or active processes on the part of the viewer? If you're not willing or capable of making that effort, or if you do and you don't find anything, what makes you think that an art work is particularly good? (On the converse, if you don't or can't make that effort, don't assume there's nothing in there - your kid most likely could not have made it.)
Ironically, there seems to be a widespread acceptance that the expressive content or "genius" of an artwork is somehow beyond the grasp of a normal audience that runs parallel to another widespread acceptance that a lot of art is either moronic or insane. In both cases, I think the culprit is a lack of effort, too much passivity on the part of the audience.
One thing about Picasso's late work, other than that prints from that period aren't worth nearly what the article recounts them being auctioned for, is that they are widely regarded as having astonishingly little artistic merit. (That and there are TONS of them.) It's like Picasso just stopped caring. To each their own and if you do like them, I'm no one to tell you better. But, the high sale prices capitalize on an implicit "genius" based on the artist's name/past work. And, I'm going to guess that many buyers grabbed onto those concepts and readily accepted that the work must be "powerful" (or something) without bothering to stop for a moment and ask if they themselves actually find any personal resonance with an image. A good, dishonest salesman may have even used their insecurity about art to convince them they did personally respond to some "genius" in it. But, if you're not knowledgeable as an investor-level buyer, if you're basically just going to hang the picture in your house, why buy something unless you're really going to enjoy spending time looking at it? If you're buying something for you're personal appreciation, why pay more than you think that relationship is worth?
Posted by: meteechart at July 17, 2008 12:41 PM