A friend of mine is son of a gallery owners and painter. He explain me the market of art, and it is like a pathologic market.
Art piece have no intrinsic value, and the job of a gallery owners is to never sell below a given guaranteed growing price. The reason why van gogh art is so expensive is not about his talent but because the heir was a very competent gallery owner. Of course there are fashion that pollute that security market, leading to bubbles and collapse, but gallery owners try to avoid that. Artist are appreciated if they produce stable style, quality and volume of art piece. Art is a very pure and lightweight virtual financial market, very interesting to escape taxes and for money laundry. It seems used for weapon traffic like diamonds, because of high money density and potential to grow without effort. of course working in IT finance, not in art, my opinion is biased. 2012/10/11 David Roberson <[email protected]> > Quoting Clark: > > > Works of art would be cherished because they were > > beautiful, not because they were rare. > > > > It is my opinion that works of art are mainly valuable because the > purchasers believe that they will find someone else that will pay much more > for the art piece in the future. In many cases, the signature on the art > is what counts. This has always bothered me since the lack of intrinsic > value leads me to believe that one day someone will be holding an empty > bag. > > Look at the insane protection being afforded precious gems if you want > to observe a ridiculous situation. I purchased a couple of synthetic > rubies for my wife that would be worth a king's ransom if natural. The gem > industry goes to extreme length to make us believe that the natural ones > are special when we all know that they are of much lower quality than man > made ones. > > Dave > >
