richskara
New Member
Posts • 263
Likes • 12
April 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by richskara on Mar 5, 2014 21:05:15 GMT 1, That would be a good experiment. Obviously not with my money.
I'm tempted to give it a try when the bonus comes in.
That would be a good experiment. Obviously not with my money. I'm tempted to give it a try when the bonus comes in.
|
|
stvro22
New Member
Posts • 668
Likes • 261
February 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by stvro22 on Mar 5, 2014 21:05:26 GMT 1, My 2K would go for a RAE too and do you know how I know that? I'm in the process of a commission from him for just about that amount:)
What I'm feeling about RAE's work these days is the fact that he can put brush to canvas and make something great. In this scene there seems to be a lot of artists who need to use other methods like photoshop, stencils and found images. I'm not against those methods but if you take that stuff away from some artists what's left? RAE can paint.
I read something about how someone was worried about how outdated their collection might look in 20 years. I think this stencil/solid color background style is going to be dated.
Okay ready for others to pile on my opinions.
My 2K would go for a RAE too and do you know how I know that? I'm in the process of a commission from him for just about that amount:)
What I'm feeling about RAE's work these days is the fact that he can put brush to canvas and make something great. In this scene there seems to be a lot of artists who need to use other methods like photoshop, stencils and found images. I'm not against those methods but if you take that stuff away from some artists what's left? RAE can paint.
I read something about how someone was worried about how outdated their collection might look in 20 years. I think this stencil/solid color background style is going to be dated.
Okay ready for others to pile on my opinions.
|
|
Manty
New Member
Posts • 956
Likes • 574
May 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by Manty on Mar 5, 2014 21:14:41 GMT 1, My 2K would go for a RAE too and do you know how I know that? I'm in the process of a commission from him for just about that amount:) What I'm feeling about RAE's work these days is the fact that he can put brush to canvas and make something great. In this scene there seems to be a lot of artists who need to use other methods like photoshop, stencils and found images. I'm not against those methods but if you take that stuff away from some artists what's left? RAE can paint. I read something about how someone was worried about how outdated their collection might look in 20 years. I think this stencil/solid color background style is going to be dated. Okay ready for others to pile on my opinions. Dunno
I am bored with my Rae already, only got it late last year
No one will buy it from me or trade it
Its in the cellar
My 2K would go for a RAE too and do you know how I know that? I'm in the process of a commission from him for just about that amount:) What I'm feeling about RAE's work these days is the fact that he can put brush to canvas and make something great. In this scene there seems to be a lot of artists who need to use other methods like photoshop, stencils and found images. I'm not against those methods but if you take that stuff away from some artists what's left? RAE can paint. I read something about how someone was worried about how outdated their collection might look in 20 years. I think this stencil/solid color background style is going to be dated. Okay ready for others to pile on my opinions. Dunno I am bored with my Rae already, only got it late last year No one will buy it from me or trade it Its in the cellar
|
|
stvro22
New Member
Posts • 668
Likes • 261
February 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by stvro22 on Mar 5, 2014 21:19:11 GMT 1, My 2K would go for a RAE too and do you know how I know that? I'm in the process of a commission from him for just about that amount:) What I'm feeling about RAE's work these days is the fact that he can put brush to canvas and make something great. In this scene there seems to be a lot of artists who need to use other methods like photoshop, stencils and found images. I'm not against those methods but if you take that stuff away from some artists what's left? RAE can paint. I read something about how someone was worried about how outdated their collection might look in 20 years. I think this stencil/solid color background style is going to be dated. Okay ready for others to pile on my opinions. Dunno I am bored with my Rae already, only got it late last year No one will buy it from me or trade it Its in the cellar
So what's on the wall now?
My 2K would go for a RAE too and do you know how I know that? I'm in the process of a commission from him for just about that amount:) What I'm feeling about RAE's work these days is the fact that he can put brush to canvas and make something great. In this scene there seems to be a lot of artists who need to use other methods like photoshop, stencils and found images. I'm not against those methods but if you take that stuff away from some artists what's left? RAE can paint. I read something about how someone was worried about how outdated their collection might look in 20 years. I think this stencil/solid color background style is going to be dated. Okay ready for others to pile on my opinions. Dunno I am bored with my Rae already, only got it late last year No one will buy it from me or trade it Its in the cellar So what's on the wall now?
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
If you had £2k..., by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 21:25:05 GMT 1, The best investment you can make is to buy something you love and that you'll want to pass onto your kids or take to the grave. only you can decide. £2k buys you alot of art. Take your time.
The best investment you can make is to buy something you love and that you'll want to pass onto your kids or take to the grave. only you can decide. £2k buys you alot of art. Take your time.
|
|
Manty
New Member
Posts • 956
Likes • 574
May 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by Manty on Mar 5, 2014 21:29:31 GMT 1, Dunno I am bored with my Rae already, only got it late last year No one will buy it from me or trade it Its in the cellar So what's on the wall now? We recently moved and i couldn't find anywhere that suited the Rae, so it didn't make it
I do like Rae stuff. Just don't like the one i bought, loved it at the time of purchase, just not feeling it now
edit
i didn't answer your question
mainly stencils , some Neate, Micallef, Lots of Choe and SPQR. Lovely
Dunno I am bored with my Rae already, only got it late last year No one will buy it from me or trade it Its in the cellar So what's on the wall now? We recently moved and i couldn't find anywhere that suited the Rae, so it didn't make it I do like Rae stuff. Just don't like the one i bought, loved it at the time of purchase, just not feeling it now edit i didn't answer your question mainly stencils , some Neate, Micallef, Lots of Choe and SPQR. Lovely
|
|
|
Dungle
Junior Member
Posts • 3,994
Likes • 5,127
June 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by Dungle on Mar 5, 2014 21:36:16 GMT 1, Buying art is NEVER an investment, at best it is speculation. That is quite simply not true.
Buying art is NEVER an investment, at best it is speculation. That is quite simply not true.
|
|
|
If you had £2k..., by Jeezuz Jones Snr on Mar 5, 2014 22:01:08 GMT 1, I would save more and buy an ed ruscha print.. But sticking to the question maybe a low ed. bast, or research 2 new artists (images you like and will be on your walls for a long time) and buy an OG or a water colour from each.. If they don't go up in value you still love the art
I would save more and buy an ed ruscha print.. But sticking to the question maybe a low ed. bast, or research 2 new artists (images you like and will be on your walls for a long time) and buy an OG or a water colour from each.. If they don't go up in value you still love the art
|
|
anodyne13
New Member
Posts • 432
Likes • 212
April 2008
|
If you had £2k..., by anodyne13 on Mar 5, 2014 22:01:53 GMT 1, It is true.
It does not mean that you can not receive a profit from speculating, but not knowing the difference between the two, is a common investment mistake.
With an investment you are committing some funds now to get more funds later through the operation of the asset. Generally speaking, with speculation there really is no operation of anything that is creating significant value. As a result putting money in things like art, gold, cars, bitcoins, etc. consists of speculation.
In regards to urban art, its still so young I would not consider any purchase if my primary objective was investing. If you want some art primarily and are hoping to be directed to artists/pieces that are less like to lose value (not necessarily gain value) I would say that in general, artists with a smaller body of work, few exhibitions, and smaller auction results are much higher risks to increase in value over time (I know it sound obvious, but you provide a good example Dolk v. Banksy).
It is true.
It does not mean that you can not receive a profit from speculating, but not knowing the difference between the two, is a common investment mistake.
With an investment you are committing some funds now to get more funds later through the operation of the asset. Generally speaking, with speculation there really is no operation of anything that is creating significant value. As a result putting money in things like art, gold, cars, bitcoins, etc. consists of speculation.
In regards to urban art, its still so young I would not consider any purchase if my primary objective was investing. If you want some art primarily and are hoping to be directed to artists/pieces that are less like to lose value (not necessarily gain value) I would say that in general, artists with a smaller body of work, few exhibitions, and smaller auction results are much higher risks to increase in value over time (I know it sound obvious, but you provide a good example Dolk v. Banksy).
|
|
monsoonking
New Member
Posts • 143
Likes • 81
July 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by monsoonking on Mar 5, 2014 22:03:54 GMT 1, Buying art is NEVER an investment, at best it is speculation. That is quite simply not true. It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is.
Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors.
Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small.
If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122
Buying art is NEVER an investment, at best it is speculation. That is quite simply not true. It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122
|
|
v
New Member
Posts • 88
Likes • 25
December 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by v on Mar 5, 2014 22:11:21 GMT 1, I'd bank it, save a little more and go after a Dran "I have Chalk" image. Dying to get my hands on one just not there yet lol.
I'd bank it, save a little more and go after a Dran "I have Chalk" image. Dying to get my hands on one just not there yet lol.
|
|
Dungle
Junior Member
Posts • 3,994
Likes • 5,127
June 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by Dungle on Mar 5, 2014 22:20:48 GMT 1, That is quite simply not true. It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122 And you can apply your argument to anything, property, cars, watches, gold. A lot of people make a lot of money investing in these things. That's not to say everyone does, but if you invest wisely there is money to be made.
That is quite simply not true. It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122And you can apply your argument to anything, property, cars, watches, gold. A lot of people make a lot of money investing in these things. That's not to say everyone does, but if you invest wisely there is money to be made.
|
|
|
If you had £2k..., by madeinnorway on Mar 5, 2014 22:30:15 GMT 1, Invader Invaded Scream, in my eyes one of his best work and should be possible to get a AP for 2k
Invader Invaded Scream, in my eyes one of his best work and should be possible to get a AP for 2k
|
|
monsoonking
New Member
Posts • 143
Likes • 81
July 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by monsoonking on Mar 5, 2014 22:32:06 GMT 1, It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122And you can apply your argument to anything, property, cars, watches, gold. A lot of people make a lot of money investing in these things. That's not to say everyone does, but if you invest wisely there is money to be made. Yes, cars, watches, and gold are speculations too. Property is an investment. It's an asset that generates largely predictable cash flows upon which a valuation can be based (though, property can be a speculation too if you're basing your purchase on being able to quickly flip the property at a higher price, even if the cash flow doesn't support it that price).
Whether people make money or lose money on these things is immaterial to whether it's speculation or investment. Maybe we're just using terminology differently.
It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122And you can apply your argument to anything, property, cars, watches, gold. A lot of people make a lot of money investing in these things. That's not to say everyone does, but if you invest wisely there is money to be made. Yes, cars, watches, and gold are speculations too. Property is an investment. It's an asset that generates largely predictable cash flows upon which a valuation can be based (though, property can be a speculation too if you're basing your purchase on being able to quickly flip the property at a higher price, even if the cash flow doesn't support it that price). Whether people make money or lose money on these things is immaterial to whether it's speculation or investment. Maybe we're just using terminology differently.
|
|
|
bonesy
Junior Member
Posts • 1,386
Likes • 264
July 2006
|
If you had £2k..., by bonesy on Mar 5, 2014 22:42:27 GMT 1, I can't believe Dolk is being compared to Banksy investment wise or in any manner......
I like the Banksy rat recommendation. Shepard Fairey fine art, if you can get a solid image at retail. Bast. Who knows if he is even making prints anymore.....
I can't believe Dolk is being compared to Banksy investment wise or in any manner......
I like the Banksy rat recommendation. Shepard Fairey fine art, if you can get a solid image at retail. Bast. Who knows if he is even making prints anymore.....
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
If you had £2k..., by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 22:53:53 GMT 1, get Pezlow to queue and buy you some secret postcards. The man has the golden touch ;-).
get Pezlow to queue and buy you some secret postcards. The man has the golden touch ;-).
|
|
raindogs
New Member
Posts • 462
Likes • 482
June 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by raindogs on Mar 5, 2014 23:13:07 GMT 1, Robert Proch, RAE, Revok, Know Hope, something by Sainer or Betz. Many more: the nice part is to find unknown artists just for the pure pleasure to have their pieces on the wall and after a couple of years discover they have been a good investment too.
Robert Proch, RAE, Revok, Know Hope, something by Sainer or Betz. Many more: the nice part is to find unknown artists just for the pure pleasure to have their pieces on the wall and after a couple of years discover they have been a good investment too.
|
|
kultur
New Member
Posts • 903
Likes • 380
June 2010
|
If you had £2k..., by kultur on Mar 5, 2014 23:21:07 GMT 1, That is quite simply not true. It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122 In the last 20 or 30 years qualified art critics and historians (which I am guessing you are not) have said similar things about artists such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein to name a few. Saying you will get $20 for a Dolk print in 20 years is just as ridiculous as replying to this thread as I have... then to go on and recommend Stella... just takes the cake.
Buy what you like and end the speculation. When was the last time average people made money from a car purchase. Investments... as you put it... go up and down... almost any investment.
That is quite simply not true. It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122In the last 20 or 30 years qualified art critics and historians (which I am guessing you are not) have said similar things about artists such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein to name a few. Saying you will get $20 for a Dolk print in 20 years is just as ridiculous as replying to this thread as I have... then to go on and recommend Stella... just takes the cake. Buy what you like and end the speculation. When was the last time average people made money from a car purchase. Investments... as you put it... go up and down... almost any investment.
|
|
monsoonking
New Member
Posts • 143
Likes • 81
July 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by monsoonking on Mar 6, 2014 0:21:03 GMT 1, It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122In the last 20 or 30 years qualified art critics and historians (which I am guessing you are not) have said similar things about artists such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein to name a few. Saying you will get $20 for a Dolk print in 20 years is just as ridiculous as replying to this thread as I have... then to go on and recommend Stella... just takes the cake. Buy what you like and end the speculation. When was the last time average people made money from a car purchase. Investments... as you put it... go up and down... almost any investment. This has nothing to do with art history. I'm speaking purely in probabilistic terms. The vast majority of contemporary artists will fade from the annals of art history. Replace Dolk with Lucien Smith, or Oscar Murillo in my example if that makes it less touchy. If these artists don't "make it", their art will be near worthless.
Stella is already in the history books. His art is prominently hanging in almost every contemporary art museum of note. If you have the choice to spend £2k on a sure thing, or Dolk, why on Earth would you choose Dolk? From in investment perspective, it's utter madness.
If you love Dolk and having him on your wall is worth £2k to you, then godspeed.
It is speculation. Art produces no earnings, interest, dividends, or distributions. There's absolutely no basis for "valuation" other than what someone else might be willing to pay for it. Buying art as an "investment" is entirely predicated on the greater fool theory. When someone pays 10k for a Hirst spot print, they're doing so with the believe that they'll find someone else down the road to pay 20k for it. There's no way to determine if a spot print is a good "investment" other than trying to determine which way the mad crowds are flocking. If that's not speculation, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is. Over the long haul, you might hope that art as a whole tracks inflation. I doubt that this is the case. I suspect that it underperforms dramatically. Yes, you'll get a few huge winners, but 99.9% of art will lose most of its value over the long haul. To add insult to injury, the stock of art of most dramatic winners is controlled by a small, tightly connected cartel or dealers and wealthy collectors. Take a look at any backwater auctions. There's tons of cool work trading for a pittance, much of it probably purchased for 10k off a gallery wall at some point. In 20 years I'd be shocked if you could get $20 for that Dolk print. That's not a knock on Dolk, but the number of artists who are going to make the history books is very very small. If I were to make an "investment", I'd try to find a recognizable image from a major 20th century art star. This Frank Stella is a bit out of your price range, but you can probably pick up something like this by Stella or similar artists like Baldessari in the secondary at a better price than auction: www.phillips.com/detail/FRANK-STELLA/NY030113/122In the last 20 or 30 years qualified art critics and historians (which I am guessing you are not) have said similar things about artists such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein to name a few. Saying you will get $20 for a Dolk print in 20 years is just as ridiculous as replying to this thread as I have... then to go on and recommend Stella... just takes the cake. Buy what you like and end the speculation. When was the last time average people made money from a car purchase. Investments... as you put it... go up and down... almost any investment. This has nothing to do with art history. I'm speaking purely in probabilistic terms. The vast majority of contemporary artists will fade from the annals of art history. Replace Dolk with Lucien Smith, or Oscar Murillo in my example if that makes it less touchy. If these artists don't "make it", their art will be near worthless. Stella is already in the history books. His art is prominently hanging in almost every contemporary art museum of note. If you have the choice to spend £2k on a sure thing, or Dolk, why on Earth would you choose Dolk? From in investment perspective, it's utter madness. If you love Dolk and having him on your wall is worth £2k to you, then godspeed.
|
|
curiousgeorge
Junior Member
Posts • 5,833
Likes • 1,091
March 2007
|
If you had £2k..., by curiousgeorge on Mar 6, 2014 1:44:13 GMT 1, For the purpose of the thread…Rats!
If it were a case of winning a scratch card with the condition you had to buy art, my reply would be very different.
Can't believe a bunch of Outis ap's has not been mentioned or ermmmm Bambi?
For the purpose of the thread…Rats!
If it were a case of winning a scratch card with the condition you had to buy art, my reply would be very different.
Can't believe a bunch of Outis ap's has not been mentioned or ermmmm Bambi?
|
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
Posts • 2,943
Likes • 2,731
November 2010
|
If you had £2k..., by Hairbland on Mar 6, 2014 1:48:00 GMT 1, Not a competition, maybe you didn't understand what I said.
Not a competition, maybe you didn't understand what I said.
|
|
LAZAKY
Artist
Junior Member
Posts • 1,499
Likes • 609
August 2012
|
If you had £2k..., by LAZAKY on Mar 6, 2014 8:41:06 GMT 1, I just bought a Rafael Sliks canvas for a bit more than 2k£ , don't know if that's good money invest but the canvas is massive and I do like it. That's the point mate, buy something you like and take your time before purchasing so this will be a good investment for you!
I just bought a Rafael Sliks canvas for a bit more than 2k£ , don't know if that's good money invest but the canvas is massive and I do like it. That's the point mate, buy something you like and take your time before purchasing so this will be a good investment for you!
|
|
|
rosh
New Member
Posts • 599
Likes • 252
March 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by rosh on Mar 6, 2014 14:45:19 GMT 1, I wouldn't buy a print but an original of upcoming artist, or a drawing by a established artist like Dran for exemple
I wouldn't buy a print but an original of upcoming artist, or a drawing by a established artist like Dran for exemple
|
|
floubi
Junior Member
Posts • 1,509
Likes • 795
June 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by floubi on Mar 6, 2014 22:24:16 GMT 1, I would buy an original from Robert Proch or/and Hyuro
I would buy an original from Robert Proch or/and Hyuro
|
|
gironawatch
Junior Member
Posts • 1,197
Likes • 94
August 2007
|
If you had £2k..., by gironawatch on Mar 6, 2014 22:57:25 GMT 1, This dolk was 300 about 18 ago, last yeas was 1k now they are 2k and going up!
By the end of the year those will be close to 3k not many out there! Banksy is another good bet, don't put a pent In Martin or dot dot etc
This dolk was 300 about 18 ago, last yeas was 1k now they are 2k and going up!
By the end of the year those will be close to 3k not many out there! Banksy is another good bet, don't put a pent In Martin or dot dot etc
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
Posts • 5,807
Likes • 5,418
September 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by Poster Bob on Mar 6, 2014 23:24:52 GMT 1, If Dolk prints sell for £3k by the end of the year I'll eat my hat. It just will not happen. Dot Dot Dot is a far better bet than Martin Whatson. Dot Dot Dot as far as I can tell doesn't keep rehashing the same goddamn thing over and over. Speaking of, if you have about £2.15k and want some large Whatson's message me. I just found two for sale.
If Dolk prints sell for £3k by the end of the year I'll eat my hat. It just will not happen. Dot Dot Dot is a far better bet than Martin Whatson. Dot Dot Dot as far as I can tell doesn't keep rehashing the same goddamn thing over and over. Speaking of, if you have about £2.15k and want some large Whatson's message me. I just found two for sale.
|
|
skynet
New Member
Posts • 519
Likes • 202
April 2012
|
If you had £2k..., by skynet on Mar 8, 2014 6:59:25 GMT 1, Bast hand finished or Charming Baker on wood
Bast hand finished or Charming Baker on wood
|
|
Quinnster
Junior Member
Posts • 3,628
Likes • 2,770
January 2006
|
If you had £2k..., by Quinnster on Mar 9, 2014 11:44:58 GMT 1, 2k is about what I need to get the last two bits I'm after before I start working my way through the framing pile.
I'm after a Blek and a one more Faile....
I would love a few more Banksys but refuse to get involved in the stupid prices.
2k is about what I need to get the last two bits I'm after before I start working my way through the framing pile.
I'm after a Blek and a one more Faile....
I would love a few more Banksys but refuse to get involved in the stupid prices.
|
|
Shoeless
Junior Member
Posts • 1,105
Likes • 613
February 2011
|
If you had £2k..., by Shoeless on Mar 9, 2014 21:26:50 GMT 1, I would love a few more Banksys but refuse to get involved in the stupid prices. Cheers to that. Plenty of good art to be had at £2k
I would love a few more Banksys but refuse to get involved in the stupid prices. Cheers to that. Plenty of good art to be had at £2k
|
|
Unica
Junior Member
Posts • 2,058
Likes • 1,220
November 2013
|
If you had £2k..., by Unica on Apr 3, 2014 0:04:34 GMT 1, I would get a Swoon piece.
I would get a Swoon piece.
|
|