craig@felix.UUCP (Craig Hockenberry) (09/28/84)
Investing in art is just like any other kind of investment. In order to
make it pay off, you have to know what you are dealing with. I don't
claim to be an expert in the art market, but I have followed it for
several years and have fairly good idea of what makes it work. Also, I
have done some work as and artist and am familiar with the techniques/terms
used in the art world.
Here is some advice:
-- Be wary of anything with Salvador Dali's name on it. There are quite
a few bogus prints on the market these days. These prints were produced
by other artists in the "Dali style" with the artists permission. There
are rumors that Dali has pre-signed sheets of printing paper, allowing
printers to reproduce "signed by the artist" prints at will. Dali's
recent sickness (he is bedridden), has added to this speculation with
all the "newly offered prints". Personally, I wouldn't even consider
a new Dali print because of market saturation and questionable quality.
-- The best return on investment comes from a work produced by an
"unknown" artist that suddenly comes into favor with the art world.
As an example, many of the works of the abstract expressionists produced
during the early part of this century, are now selling for millions
at Christies. When these works were new, the artist's could not sell
them because they were too much a change for the art market of their
day. Obviously, the risks for this type of investment are usually quite
high, and take many years to mature. I would not suggest this type of
investment to a novice collector.
-- A reasonable return on investment can usually be had with art that is
neither "brand new" or "over-saturated". There are many artist's with
strong followings in the art market. The pop artist's of the sixties
are a good example. Lately, many of these artist's have been
experimenting with different techniques and styles. A couple of
examples are Robert Raushenberg's recent works in photography and
Kenneth Nolands work with sculptured paper pulp. Both of these artists
are well represented in all the major museums with their early works,
but not with their recent diversions. I think is safe to assume that
newer works would offer a good return on investment in a few years. I
would recommend this type of investment to someone with a willingness
to study art.
Also, there are a few key things to consider when buying prints:
-- How large is the edition? All prints should have some indication of
the size of the print edition. The larger the edition, the less the
individual piece is worth. For example, if you saw a 23/150 in the
lower right-hand corner of a print, you would know that there were
149 others just like it, and that you were looking at the 23rd one
printed. I like to stay away from editions larger than 200 because
of the dilution involved.
-- What kind of edition is it? Some artists allow the printer to sell
proofs. Proofs are what the printer uses for quality control. They
can be identified by markings like A.P. (Artist Proof) or E.A. (Edition
Artiste). There are many others (which I can't remember at the moment),
so if you see some marking on the bottom (or back) of the print, ask
the seller to identify it. Proof's are generally not a good investment
because of their "un-original" nature.
-- Do you like the print? As far as I'm concerned, there are two reasons
for collecting art. One is for enjoyment. It is really stupid to buy
a print that you don't enjoy looking at. Aesthetics should not be left
out of the purchase decision.
This message is already getting too long, so I'll stop. If you have any
questions about the art market, I will try to answer them (or post if of
general interest). Don't expect an answer too soon, I will be out of town
for a few weeks and very busy when I get back.
-ch
Craig Hockenberry -- FileNet Corp. -- ..!ucbvax!trwrb!felix!craigAnonymous@inmet.UUCP (10/02/84)
#R:felix:-37100:inmet:4300002:000:2 inmet!Anonymous Sep 30 14:21:00 1984
hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/02/84)
Re: Artist's Proofs Craig Hockenberry's claim that artist's proofs are not as good an investment as numbered graphics is generally not correct. Any legitimate edition usually specifies how many a.p.'s were pulled, and usually number not more than five. The reason for the existence of a.p.'s is not that they are trial versions of the print. They are exactly the same as the print. The artist usually contracts with the publisher for a certain number of copies to be made to be sold by the publisher. The artist then also retains the right to get a few copies for his personal use. These are the a.p.'s. The artist may give them to friends, trade them to other artists, or give them for sale to charitable organizations. They make their way into the market through these channels. Herman Silbiger
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/12/84)
A good article. It inspires some questions: About buying current "unknowns" which might or might not become famous and their works much more valuable in the future: The kind of advice about this I have usually seen is to "buy what you like, and enjoy it for what it is"; if it happens to be worth many times what you paid for it 20 or 40 years down the line, that's nice. If it isn't worth more than you paid for it after that time, so what? -- You've enjoyed having it, so it has repaid your cost in that fashion (same as buying any other toy or amusement). What I am wondering about, though, is how to determine what to pay and where to buy this "unknown" currently-produced art. If you live in New York, I suppose there are hundreds of galleries and individuals selling art on the sidewalk. Your problem then is picking gems from dross. But, outside of such a center of artistic activity, what approach would you recommend? I would hesitate from buying from what galleries there are; you will have to pay the owner's markup, which will reduce the investment potential (and might eliminate it entirely); this leaves locating the artists and buying directly from them. What methods would you suggest in doing this, and how would you determine a "fair" price to pay? Are arts/crafts fairs worthwhile, or are the things you find there on a level inappropriate to what would be considered "real" art? What about buying students' work, if there are universities or colleges in your area with art departments (do the schools sponsor some sort of sales procedures)? I suppose a wealthy patron finds all sorts of opportunities to buy art works, but what about the average person who would like to get the most for a few hundred dollars' investment? Determining prices for art is pretty much black magic, it seems. For recognized artists, auctions with institutional bidders determine the multi-million-dollar and suchlike high-range prices we read of. But what about buying from the artist directly, when there is no international reputation or fame to artificially inflate the value? Should such art be bought on a "time and materials" basis, without regard to paying for the "artistic inspiration" (which is what might eventually make the piece valuable as an investment!)? If the artist is trying to make a living from the practice of his/her art, they have to charge enough to cover their time and costs, of course, just like an auto mechanic or plumber; but are they entitled to more because they put some of their soul into their product? I admit I don't know much about this; that's why I'm asking. I know I find it hard to accept paying what is to me a large sum of money for a decorative object (harder than I find paying the same amount for hifi equipment or guns or other toys). Maybe this means that I will never have the attitude that will enable me to buy art, as an investment or for its own sake. And maybe this attitude is common enough that this is the reason we normally cosider art collecting to be reserved for the really rich. Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA