If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsweek)   The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 71
    More: Silly, Blake Gopnik, Damien Hirst, gay icons, total sales, fundamental structure, Jeff Koons  
•       •       •

3242 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2012 at 12:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-10 08:22:45 AM
this is why we can't raise taxes on them by even a penny.*

*this is what republicans actually believe.
 
2012-12-10 08:32:32 AM
Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.
 
2012-12-10 08:36:41 AM

Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.


Only if they get a tax deduction.
 
2012-12-10 08:46:49 AM
When this bubble pops, will they ask for a bailout?
 
2012-12-10 08:51:07 AM

dj_bigbird: When this bubble pops, will they ask for a bailout?


You can bet he loss will trickle down to their future ex-employees.
 
2012-12-10 09:04:22 AM
i.imgur.com

fartte
 
2012-12-10 09:34:00 AM
Cool. My work, "Ass Cheeks on Canvas", may fetch a pretty penny...
 
2012-12-10 10:12:54 AM
But the rich just hide all that money in off shore accounts and in their mattresses. How dare they spend money and generate taxable activity! We must raise taxes on art to discourage this behavior!!
 
2012-12-10 10:17:35 AM

UberDave: Cool. My work, "Ass Cheeks on Canvas", may fetch a pretty penny...


Hah! That's so pre-2010...the avant-garde now are doing works like "Balls Dipping on Homeless Guy"
 
2012-12-10 10:19:23 AM
I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.
 
2012-12-10 10:26:34 AM
Quick, somebody let Jeff Koons know! And ... and that broken plate guy!
 
2012-12-10 10:47:01 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But the rich just hide all that money in off shore accounts and in their mattresses. How dare they spend money and generate taxable activity! We must raise taxes on art to discourage this behavior!!


Some of them purposely use art to hide their money. If they want to liquidate, they sell some pieces.

This is not really a bubble. No tulips here.
 
2012-12-10 12:20:02 PM

FishyFred: No tulips here.


www.bond-bubble.com

those who fail to study history...
 
2012-12-10 12:48:52 PM

FlashHarry: FishyFred: No tulips here.



those who fail to study history...


The same graph can be used for bitcoin value.
 
2012-12-10 12:49:00 PM
SO let the bubble burst. There are two consequences. 1) Some artists must surely be profitting from this. They will suffer from a sudden drop in the value of their work. 2) Some previously high-end art might become relatively affordable to the common man.
 
2012-12-10 12:52:45 PM
Soon, they are going to lock out all the artists and demand an agreement that protects them from each other.
 
2012-12-10 12:52:46 PM

FlashHarry: this is why we can't raise taxes on them by even a penny.*

*this is what republicans actually believe.


Well after they spend $34 million on a painting no one will care about in 10 years, how do you expect them to give us those sweet sweet (minimum wage, no benefits) jobs if we make them pay taxes too?

Papa John's pizza might even have to go up 12 cents to cover our ingratitude.
 
2012-12-10 12:53:59 PM
So nothing has changed since Tom Wolfe wrote "The Painted Word" in '75.

And if you ever want to get someone in the "arts community" in an uproar, just mention that book to them.
 
2012-12-10 12:55:03 PM

ManateeGag: I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.


Art dealers, appraisers, auctioneers, insurers, packing and shipping staffers, frame makers, installers, security specialists... lotta jobs supported by extravagant consumption.

If your career plan is, "follow the money," you could do worse than chasing the 1%.
 
2012-12-10 12:56:51 PM

FlashHarry: this is why we can't raise taxes on them by even a penny.*

*this is what republicans actually believe.


This is what Democrats actually believe Republicans believe.
 
2012-12-10 12:57:04 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-12-10 12:57:23 PM
I have some art I'd like to sell them.
 
2012-12-10 12:59:23 PM
"The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.
 
2012-12-10 01:00:44 PM
Um Tax shelter.

1. Buy "art" for exorbitant price.
2. buy domicile in place with lax tax rules
3. Move some household goods including "art" to new place
4. sell art to someone else that needs to move a large amount of money around.
5. Keep all the money and now money is moved (laundered)
6. Profit
 
2012-12-10 01:00:48 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/08/02/russian-artist-pain ts-wit_n_667850.html

NSFW (sorry, mobile device)

Breast art. Not as hot as you think it's going to be.

Still, boobies.
 
2012-12-10 01:01:42 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: dj_bigbird: When this bubble pops, will they ask for a bailout?

You can bet he loss will trickle down to their future ex-employees.


So are you saying the trickle down theory is valid?
 
2012-12-10 01:03:03 PM

cgraves67: SO let the bubble burst. There are two consequences. 1) Some artists must surely be profitting from this.


Nope. The only ones profiting from this are the gallery owners. The artist doesn't get paid again every time the work changes hands, at least not in the US - they only get half (or less) of the first sale. If an artist sells a painting for $10k, and 10 years later it goes for $1M at auction, the artist gets jack shiat from that sale (unless there's a contract that says otherwise). The artist does benefit indirectly, both from reputation as well as sales of reproductions of the work. When you buy a painting (or statue, or photographic print), you're just buying the physical artifact, not the copyright to the work (again, unless there's a contract that says otherwise).

I'm given to understand that it does work a little differently in the EU and that artists do get some compensation in that situation, but I'm not familiar with the details.
 
2012-12-10 01:03:39 PM
lifedisconnected.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-10 01:04:12 PM

megarian: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/08/02/russian-artist-pai n ts-wit_n_667850.html

NSFW (sorry, mobile device)

Breast art. Not as hot as you think it's going to be.

Still, boobies.


I was disappointed greatly by your link.

Greatly.

As in a fat woman's boobs.

Fat

Woman's

Boobs.
 
2012-12-10 01:05:33 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: megarian: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/08/02/russian-artist-pai n ts-wit_n_667850.html

NSFW (sorry, mobile device)

Breast art. Not as hot as you think it's going to be.

Still, boobies.

I was disappointed greatly by your link.

Greatly.

As in a fat woman's boobs.

Fat

Woman's

Boobs.


Bahahaha

I bet that paint is mixed with under-boob sweat.
 
2012-12-10 01:05:36 PM

ChipNASA: [lifedisconnected.files.wordpress.com image 640x333]


Is that Sasha Grey?
 
2012-12-10 01:07:52 PM
This is kind of like beanie babies for the wealthy.
 
2012-12-10 01:08:10 PM
Aren't is a terrible investment. Except for unquestioned masterpieces, the appraised value is way more than what you're going to get at sale, and if you sell it through a dealer or auction house -- which you pretty much have to do so you can connect with the maxim number of potential buyers -- they're going to take a huge cut of the sale.
 
2012-12-10 01:08:56 PM

Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.


You think anyone will want to see this art in 40 years?

Galleries are a product of the age before mass-duplication of art. If you lived in the 16th century, the only way to see amazing, beautiful things was to go to a cathedral or an art gallery. Today, we have television and cinema transmitting art to us. You want to see the greatest art of the 21st century? Go and see Skyfall or The Dark Knight Rises. I'll bet Roger Deakins earns far more being a DP than most gallery artists do for putting a farking dot on a canvas.
 
2012-12-10 01:10:31 PM
Is this trickle down in action?
 
2012-12-10 01:10:45 PM

Bullseyed: "The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.


Hundreds? So tens of millions of dollars can only support a couple hundred people? Doesn't seem like it'll "trickle down" from there. It's basically still being amassed at the top and staying there.
 
2012-12-10 01:14:20 PM

big pig peaches: This is kind of like beanie babies for the wealthy.


think of it like tulips or dot com companies
 
2012-12-10 01:19:25 PM

farkeruk: Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.

You think anyone will want to see this art in 40 years?

Galleries are a product of the age before mass-duplication of art. If you lived in the 16th century, the only way to see amazing, beautiful things was to go to a cathedral or an art gallery. Today, we have television and cinema transmitting art to us. You want to see the greatest art of the 21st century? Go and see Skyfall or The Dark Knight Rises. I'll bet Roger Deakins earns far more being a DP than most gallery artists do for putting a farking dot on a canvas.


Uhh, I like to visit a good art museum every now and again. Not sure why they'd become obsolete.
 
2012-12-10 01:22:10 PM

mrlewish: Um Tax shelter.

1. Buy "art" for exorbitant price.
2. buy domicile in place with lax tax rules
3. Move some household goods including "art" to new place
4. sell art to someone else that needs to move a large amount of money around.
5. Keep all the money and now money is moved (laundered)
6. Profit


Nailed it.

That, with additional elements of being a dick-measuring contest among the rich and a textbook example of the bigger fool fallacy
 
2012-12-10 01:22:22 PM

clyph: cgraves67: SO let the bubble burst. There are two consequences. 1) Some artists must surely be profitting from this.

Nope. The only ones profiting from this are the gallery owners. The artist doesn't get paid again every time the work changes hands, at least not in the US - they only get half (or less) of the first sale. If an artist sells a painting for $10k, and 10 years later it goes for $1M at auction, the artist gets jack shiat from that sale (unless there's a contract that says otherwise). The artist does benefit indirectly, both from reputation as well as sales of reproductions of the work. When you buy a painting (or statue, or photographic print), you're just buying the physical artifact, not the copyright to the work (again, unless there's a contract that says otherwise).

I'm given to understand that it does work a little differently in the EU and that artists do get some compensation in that situation, but I'm not familiar with the details.


All true, however when the artist's work becomes popular, he or she may get commisioned to create something for a wealthy client and may be compensated fairly well.
 
2012-12-10 01:24:01 PM
My kids can crank out 20 or 30 artworks per day. Maybe I should open a gallery.
 
2012-12-10 01:27:24 PM
A big part of this is huge number of nouveau riche mainland Chinese (corrupt party officials, company owners) who are buying up everything they can get their hands on to show off their wealth. And they have no taste at all, even by art standards. They'd buy black velvet Elvises and crying clowns as long as it was listed as fine art in a catalog. So as long as you have this inexhaustible source of indiscriminate buyers it's hard to see things changing for a while.
 
2012-12-10 01:30:32 PM

Pitabred: Bullseyed: "The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.

Hundreds? So tens of millions of dollars can only support a couple hundred people? Doesn't seem like it'll "trickle down" from there. It's basically still being amassed at the top and staying there.


Yeah, hundreds. You can't expect leftists like artists and movie stars to share their money. The just hoard it and tell you you're a bad person for not donating to AIDs or Haiti or something.
 
2012-12-10 01:31:15 PM

Cybernetic: My kids can crank out 20 or 30 artworks per day. Maybe I should open a gallery.


Starving artist sale! Buy a framed, sofa-sized oil painting for only $49.99!
 
2012-12-10 01:31:45 PM
In certain markets all it takes to make a contempory artists work worthless is for Charles Saatchi to wake up on the wrong side of bed and dump his stock of that artist for a dollar a piece, as he has done before. This probably holds most true for Damien Hirst, one of Saatchi's most prominent creations. That should tell you all you need to know about the staying power of these art values.

BarkingUnicorn: ManateeGag: I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.

Art dealers, appraisers, auctioneers, insurers, packing and shipping staffers, frame makers, installers, security specialists... lotta jobs supported by extravagant consumption.

If your career plan is, "follow the money," you could do worse than chasing the 1%.


A lot of the top jobs (Galleries, curators, dealers, appraisers and so on) are very hard to break into without having parents who have good friends in the art world and can financially support you in London or New York for several years of unpaid internships.
 
2012-12-10 01:33:56 PM
Dunno about you, but I am running to buy some crayolas this afternoon after work.
 
2012-12-10 01:48:14 PM
[grabs quill, ink and parchment; brushes out mutton-chops, fixes monocle, sips brandy]

*baaruhemm*

"Dear Sirs:

I am vexed - considerably vexed! - at the blantant 'run-up' on the prices of artwork among by the Gentlemen Class. While I appreciate the need to keep the appearance of the summer and winter manors up to par, this rampant behaviour simply must stop before all social order of the Empire breaks down. Have any of my fellows considered the risk of what such an outflow of wealth to the Lower Classes might result in? These 'artists' are a notoriously decadent and fickle lot and their patronage should be kept within decent boundaries lest they gain notions above their stations. While supporting artwork that serves to enhance the Dominions of Her Majefty is a capital idea, we of the better side of society must not let our enthusiasm get the better of our humours.

Sincerely,
William J. Starchshirt, Esq."
 
2012-12-10 01:50:38 PM
federicodecalifornia.files.wordpress.com

How's the velvet segment doing? Is it keeping up?

/is it the next bubble? A resurgence is over-due. lol
 
2012-12-10 01:56:00 PM
Well they are gonna need to have something in their homes for us poors to loot since they are hiding their money.
 
2012-12-10 01:58:12 PM

Cybernetic: My kids can crank out 20 or 30 artworks per day. Maybe I should open a gallery.


or a Windows 8 Tablet
www.sensubrush.com
 
2012-12-10 02:05:26 PM

Bullseyed: Pitabred: Bullseyed: "The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.

Hundreds? So tens of millions of dollars can only support a couple hundred people? Doesn't seem like it'll "trickle down" from there. It's basically still being amassed at the top and staying there.

Yeah, hundreds. You can't expect leftists like artists and movie stars to share their money. The just hoard it and tell you you're a bad person for not donating to AIDs or Haiti or something.


You can't expect someone to take you seriously when you use phrases like "leftists".

Trickle down is a failed theory, promulgated by the people who make their money off of it, and those gullible enough to think that it still works. This is not job creation, it doesn't help the economy in any meaningful way, not relative to the amount of money that's flowing through it. But I'm guessing that facts won't change your opinion. Horse and sparrow economics is just that, a load of horse shiat.
 
2012-12-10 02:06:54 PM
I've CORNERED THE MARKET!!
shatterhand007.com
 
2012-12-10 02:07:20 PM
This something i can absolutely support. Art is not a natural resource or something necessary to sustain life, so by driving the prices up they are not depriving nayone else of the essentials of life by pricing them out of reach, but they ARE putting thier money back into the commerce stream, and , as a bonus, some of it is going back to artists. And while Art they may not be essential for life,it is a vital engine of culture and creativity, so artists being able to make our culture better AND eat is a good thing in my book.

And if the bibble bursts? no one else get hurt except for the people who inflated it int he first place (unlike say, real estate)
 
2012-12-10 02:08:41 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: In certain markets all it takes to make a contempory artists work worthless is for Charles Saatchi to wake up on the wrong side of bed and dump his stock of that artist for a dollar a piece, as he has done before. This probably holds most true for Damien Hirst, one of Saatchi's most prominent creations. That should tell you all you need to know about the staying power of these art values.


Hirst's "works" started jumping the shark earlier this fall.

If both Hirst and Madonna were to be exiled to a desert isle somewhere, the world would be a better place.
 
2012-12-10 02:13:47 PM
www.piersidegallery.com

icommunity.files.wordpress.com

(I actually like Thomas Kinkade's stuff though.)
 
2012-12-10 02:15:41 PM
What else are the hideously rich supposed to do with their money? Stuff their mattresses with it?

But still, the obvious solution is to raise tax rates on the rich. That way, the government can fund more works of art.
 
2012-12-10 02:27:01 PM

farkeruk: Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.

You think anyone will want to see this art in 40 years?

Galleries are a product of the age before mass-duplication of art. If you lived in the 16th century, the only way to see amazing, beautiful things was to go to a cathedral or an art gallery. Today, we have television and cinema transmitting art to us. You want to see the greatest art of the 21st century? Go and see Skyfall or The Dark Knight Rises. I'll bet Roger Deakins earns far more being a DP than most gallery artists do for putting a farking dot on a canvas.


Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.

Nevertheless, art regardless of the era of creation belongs in museums for all to see, not for the extremely wealthy to hoard.
 
2012-12-10 02:27:57 PM
I'm on my way back from Art Basel/Art Miami 2012, so I'm getting a kick out of this thread.

/worked at Flood the Art Market, though, not a buyer
//#FtAM
 
2012-12-10 02:43:12 PM
The artists are. By golly their christmas will be bright.
 
2012-12-10 03:48:29 PM

rebelyell2006: Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.


That's because paint was pinnacle of artistic creation when Monet, Rembrant and Michaelangelo were doing it. If Stanley Kubrick had been alive 500 years ago he'd have been a painter, and Gauguin would be directing movies today.

Look at the rise of cinema and the decline of art. After Picasso, Hopper and Rockwell, you don't have much painting that's worth bothering with. It's either a farking dot on a canvas or some conceptual shiat.
 
2012-12-10 04:10:54 PM

farkeruk: rebelyell2006: Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.

That's because paint was pinnacle of artistic creation when Monet, Rembrant and Michaelangelo were doing it. If Stanley Kubrick had been alive 500 years ago he'd have been a painter, and Gauguin would be directing movies today.

Look at the rise of cinema and the decline of art. After Picasso, Hopper and Rockwell, you don't have much painting that's worth bothering with. It's either a farking dot on a canvas or some conceptual shiat.


"Stop liking what I don't like" isn't a basis for establishing the contents of an art museum. Just because you don't consider it to be art doesn't automatically make it non-art.
 
2012-12-10 05:17:40 PM

ManateeGag: I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.


The dirty truth is the super rich are really just very inefficient consumers. The buy a lot over priced and inefficiently created goods and services. The poor are also inefficient consumers because they are forced by necessity to buy crap.
 
2012-12-10 05:55:19 PM

rebelyell2006: farkeruk: rebelyell2006: Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.

That's because paint was pinnacle of artistic creation when Monet, Rembrant and Michaelangelo were doing it. If Stanley Kubrick had been alive 500 years ago he'd have been a painter, and Gauguin would be directing movies today.

Look at the rise of cinema and the decline of art. After Picasso, Hopper and Rockwell, you don't have much painting that's worth bothering with. It's either a farking dot on a canvas or some conceptual shiat.

"Stop liking what I don't like" isn't a basis for establishing the contents of an art museum. Just because you don't consider it to be art doesn't automatically make it non-art.


hooper and sesame??
 
2012-12-10 06:26:25 PM
then we should take all their money!
 
2012-12-10 08:36:06 PM
So?

Someone want to tell me whose fathersticking business it is where people spend their money?

I know many Farkers who gladly spend $100 or more for a little bag of schwag which cost ten cents---or less---to produce, and then as soon as they have done so, burn it in a pipe and destroy it.

I know many more who will spend $50+ on a bottle of whiskey which cost $1.00 to manufacture, only to drink it, and then turn it into piss, all so they can vomit or feel miserable the next day.

Logical? Not very, but we do it anyway.
 
2012-12-10 10:34:00 PM

olddinosaur: So?

Someone want to tell me whose fathersticking business it is where people spend their money?

I know many Farkers who gladly spend $100 or more for a little bag of schwag which cost ten cents---or less---to produce, and then as soon as they have done so, burn it in a pipe and destroy it.

I know many more who will spend $50+ on a bottle of whiskey which cost $1.00 to manufacture, only to drink it, and then turn it into piss, all so they can vomit or feel miserable the next day.

Logical? Not very, but we do it anyway.


Yeah? Well, I know some people who spend a significant fraction of what they make on food, even though it'll just end up as shiat and they'll be hungry again next week! What a bunch of tards, amirite????
 
2012-12-10 10:38:23 PM

rebelyell2006: "Stop liking what I don't like" isn't a basis for establishing the contents of an art museum. Just because you don't consider it to be art doesn't automatically make it non-art.


Yes it does!

scottberkun.com
 
2012-12-11 12:01:55 AM
I bet that there is a direct correlation between lowering taxes on the rich and a rise in the price of art.
 
2012-12-11 12:33:45 AM
The rich always use art as an appreciable asset. It's a safe place to store your wealth. Some of them even care about the art, if you can believe that. Since an art bubble doesn't affect me in any way, I really don't care how much of it they buy.
 
2012-12-11 01:39:21 AM
The rich don't buy gold "art" coins. They buy art. They leave gold coins to suckers.

Right now they are probably locking in the massive profits they and their bailed-out corporations have been making during the "recovery", which so far is mostly restricted to Wall Street and the Hamptons. (Although the unemployment rate is now down to mere Canadian levels.)

Buy some crap art, get an inflated receipt, kick back some of the giant tax deduction to the dealer and stick the crap into a museum so as to avoid paying taxes on it until you sell it at an inflated profit to a greater fool than you in a decade or two.

?

Profit.

It beats flipping houses.
 
2012-12-11 01:43:51 AM

mrlewish: Um Tax shelter.

1. Buy "art" for exorbitant price.
2. buy domicile in place with lax tax rules
3. Move some household goods including "art" to new place
4. sell art to someone else that needs to move a large amount of money around.
5. Keep all the money and now money is moved (laundered)
6. Profit


Apart from $100 bills, art is the number one currency of the "legitimate business man". You've just described how drug and other organized crime money moves around the world (when it isn't simply laundered by a "legitimate" bank, which is surprisingly common).
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report