You want to keep reading the opinions of "...a sick minded individual"--FOR FREE?
As Kim K. would probably say: - You are just sooooooooooooo 20th-century. Let's get REAL. Like, prostitution whores don't come cheap anymore. I MEAN, do you think that I look this way because I buy fake eyelashes at Kmart--when they're on sale?: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3onjCtukURE/TlTbtD_ayjI/AAAAAAAAAEE/n8Wr03W34-4/s320/kim+k.jpg On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:00 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Alright, I agree with almost every word you say (and maybe every word) but > there > are collectors of another sort, the many thousands who do buy good work > that is > not in the mix of the tiny slice of work you mention. However, I do agree > that > instead of seeing the art market as divided into several sectors, or > categories, > each with different value structures, it is perceived as a continuum or > sliding > scale from low to high under one set of values. That wrong perception of > reality is bad, no doubt. > > I've said before that when you have the cash to spend 25 million on an icon > piece, say, a big pretty heart by Jeff Koons, it's merely a convenient way > to > park money in uncertain times. Besides your equally rich friends and > competitors will quickly buy it from you at the next auction, thereby > having > their own tax-free-hassle-free place to park their money. When will the > bubble > break? The big museums are supporting this (see today's NYT re new Met > curator) and they win too because at some point, after the piece has maxed > out > in bubble-appreciation, it can be given to a museum for a total > appreciation > write off. Everybody in the game wins. But trouble is, most good art and > art > values are not in the game anymore. That doesn't mean it's not marketable > but > that the market for it is largely off the radar and that means it doesn't > get > much attention and thus doesn't count for art history, yet. > > When you think about it, there are only a few things you can buy at the > top end > of the material culture that don't incur huge maintenance costs and lots of > worry about volatility. High end art is one of them. Buy it with cash. > Put it > in your Park Ave. apt. fully insured, and enjoy the social prestige it can > provide that mere money can't. You will not lose money at all and you can > sell > it to someone else next year at a gain. You can't do that with a yacht, or > a big > castle in CT., or a company, all of which are packed with hidden and > obvious > costs and are subject to big market forces. High end art is insulated > because > because it's not in the mix of the big market forces. > > Your comments make more sense than the journalism you often quote. Why > not give > us more of your own thoughts and a lot less of the compromised (always > serving > some boss constituency) stuff you love to quote? > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, January 11, 2012 12:14:49 AM > Subject: Re: "Art collectors are good because they help the painters, but > they > are bad insofar as they give too much importance to those arts that can be > bought and sold." > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM, William Conger <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Berg, you're veering off again into the land of very dumb qoutations. > > Stop it. > > Get back on track with some sensible comments such as your recent posts. > > > > But I think that it is very relevant to realize that in any system, once > the money people get the upper hand (e.g., collectors), then rather than > work the system, they start trying to get the system to work for them by > manipulating it to make it even more profitable for themselves, i.e., they > turn the system into an auction where the highest bidders (the collectors > who spend the most) begin to call the shots as to what is valuable and what > is not. > > Quickly escalating value starts redefining any values that previously > existed and then what happens is that the highest bidders try to create a > flavor-of-the-month mentality which is even more profitable and what the > fashion industry is all about, i.e., something is hot for the moment and > then the small potato collectors are made to feel insecure as the big > cheese collectors play a kind of bait-and-switch to create a gold rush > state of mind among the mob. Sort of like a ponzi scheme where > the latecomers are lured by the early birds who are now in a position > profit most from the system. > > "Jump on the bandwagon, or you'll be left behind" is what the small potato > collectors are made to think as they chase after the latest not knowing > that the big cheese collectors have already taken the best of the latest > for themselves: > > The institution of art (where it's about values) => industry of art (where > it's about profits) => racket (where it's about getting even more profits > by hook or by crook, usually crook, (e.g., deception, exploitation)
