Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 14:45:10 GMT 1, Looking at art for sale in different places.
Which is best for long term prospects and value for money?
Looking at art for sale in different places.
Which is best for long term prospects and value for money? |
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 14:57:37 GMT 1, Buy what you love. No guarantee that anything you buy will increase in value. Buy what you can afford
Buy what you love. No guarantee that anything you buy will increase in value. Buy what you can afford
|
|
saint
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,887
Likes โข 1,881
September 2010
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by saint on Jan 29, 2014 14:59:48 GMT 1, Buy what you like the look of. If you want a safe investment, put your money in isa's.
Buy what you like the look of. If you want a safe investment, put your money in isa's.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 15:50:31 GMT 1, I agree. Better to buy cheap crap as opposed to expensive crap.
I agree. Better to buy cheap crap as opposed to expensive crap.
|
|
muti
New Member
Posts โข 434
Likes โข 96
December 2008
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by muti on Jan 29, 2014 18:59:12 GMT 1, I used to buy prints but now I try and stick to originals. I like owning something 99 other people don't have.
I used to buy prints but now I try and stick to originals. I like owning something 99 other people don't have.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by Deleted on Jan 30, 2014 1:02:35 GMT 1, for fucks sake people
what is this shit about ?
crap is crap , irrespective of the cost
crap is in the eye of the beholder. unless they are not willing to open their eyes
is a ยฃ7.99 paint by numbers work worth more than a 4k Os Gem multiple ?
If you truly LIKE a work, then does it matter if yiou can afford it ?
the old lady in tourquay with a wall of watercolours of Devon vs the Hoxton/ Provincial turdbag with a folio of umframed potential that are viewed only in profit and loss terms?
if you have to ask, then best consult a fund manager. if you dont know what you like, then fuck off.
for fucks sake people
what is this shit about ?
crap is crap , irrespective of the cost
crap is in the eye of the beholder. unless they are not willing to open their eyes
is a ยฃ7.99 paint by numbers work worth more than a 4k Os Gem multiple ?
If you truly LIKE a work, then does it matter if yiou can afford it ?
the old lady in tourquay with a wall of watercolours of Devon vs the Hoxton/ Provincial turdbag with a folio of umframed potential that are viewed only in profit and loss terms?
if you have to ask, then best consult a fund manager. if you dont know what you like, then fuck off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by Happy Shopper on Jan 30, 2014 11:48:56 GMT 1, if you dont know what you like, then f**k off.
HAAHAHAHAHAHA... Best post in a while.
if you dont know what you like, then f**k off. HAAHAHAHAHAHA... Best post in a while. |
|
monsoonking
New Member
Posts โข 143
Likes โข 81
July 2011
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by monsoonking on Jan 30, 2014 16:35:16 GMT 1, If you're primarily interested in art that will hold it's value, I'd save up $5-50k and buy prints by major post-war artists. Guys like Calder, Stella, Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Wesselman, Albers, Noland, etc. should fit the bill.
The fact is, 95-99% of work produced today will be worthless in a couple decades. If you're extremely adept at spotting trends and have the discipline to buy when an artist is simmering and sell when he's hot, you might be able to make a little dough flipping around in contemporary, but given the tenor of your question, I'm guessing this doesn't describe you.
You may have success finding inexpensive, high quality art from second tier artists from the latter half of the 20th century. I've recently picked up interesting works from guys like Ray Parker, Larry Zox, and Mathias Goeritz on ebay, including this one:
www.ebay.com/itm/Mathias-Goeritz-large-signed-dated-and-numbered-intaglio-1976-beautiful-gold-/151216807133?ViewItem=&ssPageName=ADME%3AL%3AOC%3AUS%3A3160&item=151216807133&nma=true&si=vNd2DyfOtZ1iqEAUD37BYLAN7kM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
Until you develop your taste (hopefully good taste) I'd buy as little as possible. The last thing you want to do is blow your art budget for the next five years and quickly outgrow those pieces.
If you're primarily interested in art that will hold it's value, I'd save up $5-50k and buy prints by major post-war artists. Guys like Calder, Stella, Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Wesselman, Albers, Noland, etc. should fit the bill. The fact is, 95-99% of work produced today will be worthless in a couple decades. If you're extremely adept at spotting trends and have the discipline to buy when an artist is simmering and sell when he's hot, you might be able to make a little dough flipping around in contemporary, but given the tenor of your question, I'm guessing this doesn't describe you. You may have success finding inexpensive, high quality art from second tier artists from the latter half of the 20th century. I've recently picked up interesting works from guys like Ray Parker, Larry Zox, and Mathias Goeritz on ebay, including this one: www.ebay.com/itm/Mathias-Goeritz-large-signed-dated-and-numbered-intaglio-1976-beautiful-gold-/151216807133?ViewItem=&ssPageName=ADME%3AL%3AOC%3AUS%3A3160&item=151216807133&nma=true&si=vNd2DyfOtZ1iqEAUD37BYLAN7kM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557Until you develop your taste (hopefully good taste) I'd buy as little as possible. The last thing you want to do is blow your art budget for the next five years and quickly outgrow those pieces. |
|
spatia
New Member
Posts โข 97
Likes โข 190
January 2012
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by spatia on Jan 31, 2014 21:03:29 GMT 1, Good Call
Good Call
|
|
|
|
Is buying expensive Art better? Prints v Original, by Vanessa Villegas Art Advisory on Aug 22, 2017 17:48:54 GMT 1, Investing in art parallels investing in stocks - established bluechip artists are always going to be a safer investment. So if you are looking for low risk going with the big names is your best bet. I would say Monsoonking is right start with post war artists: Calder, Kelly, Stella*, Hockney*, Warhol, Lichtenstein, etc. The more "well known" your artist is the better chance someone in the future will want to buy them.
Buying new Contemporary artists is the equivalent to investing in a startup - you could hit the jackpot or you could get hosed. Whenever you buy an emerging artist you take the risk that their market will never establish. But you may feel comfortable putting money on a new artist knowing that money might never come back to you. For me I like to see an artist have some notoriety like a major gallery or museum show. Once an artist is in a museum I would consider them established.
Originals vs. prints: I think it depends on your budget and what you are going for. You may not have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to invest in established artist originals. But you might have
$5k-50k thousand to invest in one of their prints. Again it comes down to your level of risk-aversion. If you want to spend that much on a painting buy an unknown go for it, just know that you may never see that money again...on the flip side you could turn it into millions if you buy the right artist.
Hope that is helpful!
Investing in art parallels investing in stocks - established bluechip artists are always going to be a safer investment. So if you are looking for low risk going with the big names is your best bet. I would say Monsoonking is right start with post war artists: Calder, Kelly, Stella*, Hockney*, Warhol, Lichtenstein, etc. The more "well known" your artist is the better chance someone in the future will want to buy them.
Buying new Contemporary artists is the equivalent to investing in a startup - you could hit the jackpot or you could get hosed. Whenever you buy an emerging artist you take the risk that their market will never establish. But you may feel comfortable putting money on a new artist knowing that money might never come back to you. For me I like to see an artist have some notoriety like a major gallery or museum show. Once an artist is in a museum I would consider them established.
Originals vs. prints: I think it depends on your budget and what you are going for. You may not have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to invest in established artist originals. But you might have
$5k-50k thousand to invest in one of their prints. Again it comes down to your level of risk-aversion. If you want to spend that much on a painting buy an unknown go for it, just know that you may never see that money again...on the flip side you could turn it into millions if you buy the right artist.
Hope that is helpful!
|
|
๐ธ