Urban Art Association

I'd love to have a good feel of that Auerbach  

Kim Kardasian makes millions from being Kim Kardasian and the endless column inches about her in the media are just a deistraction from reality.

Hirst and Banksy are the same just that they use art not a curvy physique.

The more crass bland gimmicky the art the better.

Where is saucyjack

We have no influence on an artist's pricing whatsoever

The art world is very secretive.


Banksy Is Damien Hirst Part 1

goldwoody.com/bansky-is-damien-hurst-part-1/

 The BBC video was interesting and the Sotheby's guy said nothing.

 The interviewer pose dthe same basic questions.

 The art world at he high level is too secretive and needs some new laws making to prevent auction houses chandelier bidding and only taking genuine bids.

 Plus to make illegal dealers bidding up the art they have put into auction for sale via proxies or their agents.

     It looks like one big money go round.


 The photo of Banksy could be Banksy or maybe not Banksy but being anonymous or not should not make any difference to the value of Banksy art.

  

A good watch. Thank you for posting.

[Strange editing at the end, though. Presumably, the BBC clip shown is an extract from a longer video. Or someone chopped off the final few seconds in error.]

I share your view that the themes covered also apply to street art / urban art. For me, this is especially the case regarding the last questions by Will Gompertz and the somewhat reluctant cautionary responses by Oliver Barker: When an artist drops off the radar or becomes less famous, their artwork stops serving the same social function. Over time, revisions and market corrections occur, with a few artists rising to the top and the others dissipating.

This is not so much an issue if collectors are getting real enjoyment from the artwork they purchase — enjoyment unrelated to cachet or validation from their peers. When someone spends £100 on art they're unable to resell a decade later, it's no big deal. The pleasure they received over that time will have been compensation enough, and hopefully worth the cost to them of £10 per year.

However, if collectors are paying high-three-figure or four-figure amounts on individual pieces with the expectation of making a good investment, this can easily be a recipe for disaster.

My belief is that 90% to 95% of the artists discussed on this message board will — at least from an art market perspective — be forgotten about in five to ten years. It's the reason I'd always strongly discourage new collectors from buying too much too quickly. Learn first, research extensively, develop the ability to discriminate, be very wary of the motives of anyone who tries to quash critique or stifle open debate, cultivate your personal taste, and, unless you really think you can predict the future (in which case I'd advise playing the stock market), assume that any money spent on art will never be recouped.

There is excellent advice by Feral Things in the tips wanted! thread.

Another useful exercise is to flick through a Christie's, Sotheby's or Phillips contemporary art auction catalogue from, say, 2006 or 2007 — a period not long ago at all. Check out the list of artists featured and the estimates for their work. Notable exceptions excluded, it is often a sobering game of Where are they now?