lee3
New Member
Posts โข 832
Likes โข 1,289
November 2009
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by lee3 on Dec 16, 2008 18:15:44 GMT 1, This is an interesting read and while I do disagree with the author on some points, I share his belief on many others. Heโs wrong in arguing that the bubble is about to pop as it already has popped given that one can buy Warhol, Banksy, and Prince in some cases for 75% off of what they traded for this past May. I disagree with him in that Banksy is art lite but it is fun reading nonetheless. I do agree with him that Murakami, Prince, Hirst, etc have a long ways to go in a downtrend but the same is true of most artists and many of them have already retreated by 50%+ from their highs (which takes out 100% appreciation from the previous move).
www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10474
This is an interesting read and while I do disagree with the author on some points, I share his belief on many others. Heโs wrong in arguing that the bubble is about to pop as it already has popped given that one can buy Warhol, Banksy, and Prince in some cases for 75% off of what they traded for this past May. I disagree with him in that Banksy is art lite but it is fun reading nonetheless. I do agree with him that Murakami, Prince, Hirst, etc have a long ways to go in a downtrend but the same is true of most artists and many of them have already retreated by 50%+ from their highs (which takes out 100% appreciation from the previous move). www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10474 |
|
idiom
Artist
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,030
Likes โข 2
July 2008
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by idiom on Dec 16, 2008 18:24:01 GMT 1, That's a very interesting article. I'm not entirely sure of how much he says will come to pass but he clearly thinks he knows exactly what he's talking about. I think he's on the money to a certain degree though...
That's a very interesting article. I'm not entirely sure of how much he says will come to pass but he clearly thinks he knows exactly what he's talking about. I think he's on the money to a certain degree though...
|
|
|
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by onemandown72 on Dec 16, 2008 18:31:20 GMT 1, An interesting read, notably for Banksy cementing his place as a value yardstick amongst the contemporary art world.
On another note every rise and crash is always slightly different, due to time and context, so whilst looking backwards is helpful no two falls are the same,
An interesting read, notably for Banksy cementing his place as a value yardstick amongst the contemporary art world.
On another note every rise and crash is always slightly different, due to time and context, so whilst looking backwards is helpful no two falls are the same,
|
|
Existencil
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,305
Likes โข 2
July 2007
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by Existencil on Dec 16, 2008 18:42:34 GMT 1, This is a really good, well-written article. I agree with Onemandown that time and context is very important.
This is a really good, well-written article. I agree with Onemandown that time and context is very important.
|
|
skylarkin
New Member
Posts โข 283
Likes โข 19
June 2006
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by skylarkin on Dec 16, 2008 18:47:34 GMT 1, This is an interesting read and while I do disagree with the author on some points, I share his belief on many others.
Good article, I think he is spot on about Hirst and his blagging buffoons with the diamond skull..and alot of the autions where they where potentially purchasing to keep up sale price, rather than for clients. (not that Banksy would ever do that <cough>)
best quote...
"he German painter Anselm Reyle was unknown in 2003; you could have picked up one of his stripe paintings for โฌ14,000. Now he has a studio with 60 assistants turning them out for about โฌ200,000 each." - a mear fecking $14,000 for an unknown artist  ;D
...Marther unlock my paint brushes we are getting stripes...
This is an interesting read and while I do disagree with the author on some points, I share his belief on many others. Good article, I think he is spot on about Hirst and his blagging buffoons with the diamond skull..and alot of the autions where they where potentially purchasing to keep up sale price, rather than for clients. (not that Banksy would ever do that <cough>) best quote... "he German painter Anselm Reyle was unknown in 2003; you could have picked up one of his stripe paintings for โฌ14,000. Now he has a studio with 60 assistants turning them out for about โฌ200,000 each." - a mear fecking $14,000 for an unknown artist ;D ...Marther unlock my paint brushes we are getting stripes... |
|
daveart
New Member
Posts โข 940
Likes โข 879
February 2008
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by daveart on Dec 16, 2008 20:02:14 GMT 1, So a 50% correction on most of the prints talked about on this board 'costs' people maybe a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. I can accept that as a cost of having something hang on my wall that looks nice. Same way we all realize that suit or shoes or watch or car is just something we are using until its used up. I cannot imagine paying hundreds or millions for a work of art. We have to remember this stuff has no intrinsic value and a 50% drop in that value would equate to more money than most of us will ever see. my analysis - the top of the market is insane. the middle... risky. the lower end of the market say sub 5K .. this is just the cost of pretty things. up or down .. who knows. enjoy it for what it is and there isnt a lot of risk.
So a 50% correction on most of the prints talked about on this board 'costs' people maybe a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. I can accept that as a cost of having something hang on my wall that looks nice. Same way we all realize that suit or shoes or watch or car is just something we are using until its used up. I cannot imagine paying hundreds or millions for a work of art. We have to remember this stuff has no intrinsic value and a 50% drop in that value would equate to more money than most of us will ever see. my analysis - the top of the market is insane. the middle... risky. the lower end of the market say sub 5K .. this is just the cost of pretty things. up or down .. who knows. enjoy it for what it is and there isnt a lot of risk.
|
|
|
|
Michael Jacob
Artist
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,049
Likes โข 29
October 2006
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by Michael Jacob on Dec 16, 2008 20:17:06 GMT 1, Great find lee. Thanks.
really well written and researched. I agree with most of what he said. While I think Banksy is great, he is lite when it comes to the main names. Just look at Hirst, Basquait, Twombly, Bacon, etc. I still believe that with time, and a correction to the market, Banksy will both rise in value and more importantly, get his name in the art books for future generations.
Great find lee. Thanks.
really well written and researched. I agree with most of what he said. While I think Banksy is great, he is lite when it comes to the main names. Just look at Hirst, Basquait, Twombly, Bacon, etc. I still believe that with time, and a correction to the market, Banksy will both rise in value and more importantly, get his name in the art books for future generations.
|
|
|
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by Agent Provocateur on Dec 16, 2008 21:55:20 GMT 1, Great article, very well written and researched. This paragraph really intrigued me:
'In his book, Manias, Panics, and Crashes, Charles Kindleberger observed that manias typically start with a "displacement" that excites speculative interest. It may come from a new object of investment or from the increased profitability of existing investments. It is followed by positive feedback as rising prices encourage less experienced investors to enter the market. Then, as the mania gets a grip, speculation becomes more diffuse and spreads to other types of asset. Fresh assets are created at an ever faster rate to take advantage of the euphoria and investors try to increase their gains by borrowing to buy assets or using derivatives. Credit ultimately becomes overextended, swindling and fraud proliferate, and the mania ends in panic as investors seek to liquidate their positions.'
Just my opinion but it read like a biography of the street art style that has slowly transcended it's original location (the street) and moved into the gallery, onto the canvas and limited edition print. I would call this the 'new object of desire' (as quoted above). The rise of this new and radical form of image making and message conveying struck a cord with normal people (not Rembrandt buyers or Oligarchs) because they saw that they could appreciate a modern art form without having millions of pounds and going to a major auction house or Bond Street Gallery. As collectors spread the word and more people appreciate the artistic value, other artists start to follow the same path creating a burgeoning movement in art that is different from what has gone before.
This is good, but I just have a different tack on the Banksy 'lite' phrase. All past art style (movements) have developed directly on the back of the previous ones. Sorry, can't quote any, but after the Renaissance their was a more painterly movement (clearly definable brush strokes etc), this was because a certain style had been done so well (Da Vinci/Michaelangelo) that they needed to forge new ideas. The same with Impressionism and Cubism. The rise of Street art in the mainstream art world was caused by innovative artists, image makers and craftsmen in their own trade.
Contemporary art (as the author said) has risen in value so much and so fast... that the natural reaction by a new underground art movement (that has it's roots based on the streets) is too push away from it. Less bling and more string (sorry bad whateveritis!). The artists know what has gone before, and because they live in the new world of ever an ever increasing social/wealth divide want to shout their message to the people.
I better not carry on, I know I'm rambling and not very good at structuring my dialogue but... my main point is that this Banksy/street art 'lite' message doesn't ring true with me. In these dark days of recession, depression and crunches... grey concrete cityscapes, political and holy wars, this art movement is talking to the people... US!
Hohum... IMO ;D
Great article, very well written and researched. This paragraph really intrigued me:
'In his book, Manias, Panics, and Crashes, Charles Kindleberger observed that manias typically start with a "displacement" that excites speculative interest. It may come from a new object of investment or from the increased profitability of existing investments. It is followed by positive feedback as rising prices encourage less experienced investors to enter the market. Then, as the mania gets a grip, speculation becomes more diffuse and spreads to other types of asset. Fresh assets are created at an ever faster rate to take advantage of the euphoria and investors try to increase their gains by borrowing to buy assets or using derivatives. Credit ultimately becomes overextended, swindling and fraud proliferate, and the mania ends in panic as investors seek to liquidate their positions.'
Just my opinion but it read like a biography of the street art style that has slowly transcended it's original location (the street) and moved into the gallery, onto the canvas and limited edition print. I would call this the 'new object of desire' (as quoted above). The rise of this new and radical form of image making and message conveying struck a cord with normal people (not Rembrandt buyers or Oligarchs) because they saw that they could appreciate a modern art form without having millions of pounds and going to a major auction house or Bond Street Gallery. As collectors spread the word and more people appreciate the artistic value, other artists start to follow the same path creating a burgeoning movement in art that is different from what has gone before.
This is good, but I just have a different tack on the Banksy 'lite' phrase. All past art style (movements) have developed directly on the back of the previous ones. Sorry, can't quote any, but after the Renaissance their was a more painterly movement (clearly definable brush strokes etc), this was because a certain style had been done so well (Da Vinci/Michaelangelo) that they needed to forge new ideas. The same with Impressionism and Cubism. The rise of Street art in the mainstream art world was caused by innovative artists, image makers and craftsmen in their own trade.
Contemporary art (as the author said) has risen in value so much and so fast... that the natural reaction by a new underground art movement (that has it's roots based on the streets) is too push away from it. Less bling and more string (sorry bad whateveritis!). The artists know what has gone before, and because they live in the new world of ever an ever increasing social/wealth divide want to shout their message to the people.
I better not carry on, I know I'm rambling and not very good at structuring my dialogue but... my main point is that this Banksy/street art 'lite' message doesn't ring true with me. In these dark days of recession, depression and crunches... grey concrete cityscapes, political and holy wars, this art movement is talking to the people... US!
Hohum... IMO ;D
|
|
lee3
New Member
Posts โข 832
Likes โข 1,289
November 2009
|
An interesting read (Banksy), by lee3 on Dec 16, 2008 23:03:35 GMT 1, >>>my main point is that this Banksy/street art 'lite' message doesn't ring true with<<<
I concur. The author wrote this with a knowledge of both art and economics but I suspect formal trainging in the former. Of course contemporary art experiences the biggest percentage moves as it is the equivalent of venture investing (start ups) with the established artists already trading like a public company on an exchange if you will. He's correct that most contemporary art will end up worthless as that is an obvious fact. I agree with him too that art on the whole is overvalued but some of us are addicts to objects that stir a passion within us. Contrary to the authors position, I believe we are in the midst of the correction as opposed to on the verge of it.
You have to trust your instincts and buy what you love. Most of us here probably disagree with the Banksy = art lite comment and I would guess that this author is over 50 taking a position like that (or he's smart enough to create contoversy in an effort to spur more hits to the site as more and more visitors come to read the article which is ultimately his job).
The point is valid that a big correction was overdue. Yes, Warhol and many others have lost a good 30-70% but they will not lose 100%. Still, no art lover who understands economics will agree that art bubble=tulip bubble. Tulips never regained their purchaing power whereas art is the signature of generations and therefore it has intrinsic value. You could apply the same art lite nonsense to Warhol 50 years ago using a silk screen to make as many copies as he possibly could of an image to "cash in before the bubble burst" and yet everyone of us here WISHES we were alive and stupid enough back then to buy a bunch of '60s art lite.
A big part of me wonders if perhaps part of the reason art prices have skyrocketed is because much of the world is beginning to question why they work all day long for paper money that central banks can print at will and is backed by nothing of intrinsic value, only the word of a governing party. It could well be as much a hobby of love as an exercise of instinct to protect that which you have worked hard for. Many people have lost half their life savings this year beit in housing, stocks, art, etc. Housing has an obvious benefit as it is a tangible asset. I can say in no uncertain terms that I still get the pleasure if even for a moment here and there walking around my home every day looking at different works of art whereas I have never had any pleasure from the soul by looking at a brokerage statement in either an up market or a down market. It may very well be that the reason big money has been rushing to art over the past decade is because it no longer trusts the stocks of our coporations or our governing parties. sorry for the length
>>>my main point is that this Banksy/street art 'lite' message doesn't ring true with<<<
I concur. The author wrote this with a knowledge of both art and economics but I suspect formal trainging in the former. Of course contemporary art experiences the biggest percentage moves as it is the equivalent of venture investing (start ups) with the established artists already trading like a public company on an exchange if you will. He's correct that most contemporary art will end up worthless as that is an obvious fact. I agree with him too that art on the whole is overvalued but some of us are addicts to objects that stir a passion within us. Contrary to the authors position, I believe we are in the midst of the correction as opposed to on the verge of it.
You have to trust your instincts and buy what you love. Most of us here probably disagree with the Banksy = art lite comment and I would guess that this author is over 50 taking a position like that (or he's smart enough to create contoversy in an effort to spur more hits to the site as more and more visitors come to read the article which is ultimately his job).
The point is valid that a big correction was overdue. Yes, Warhol and many others have lost a good 30-70% but they will not lose 100%. Still, no art lover who understands economics will agree that art bubble=tulip bubble. Tulips never regained their purchaing power whereas art is the signature of generations and therefore it has intrinsic value. You could apply the same art lite nonsense to Warhol 50 years ago using a silk screen to make as many copies as he possibly could of an image to "cash in before the bubble burst" and yet everyone of us here WISHES we were alive and stupid enough back then to buy a bunch of '60s art lite.
A big part of me wonders if perhaps part of the reason art prices have skyrocketed is because much of the world is beginning to question why they work all day long for paper money that central banks can print at will and is backed by nothing of intrinsic value, only the word of a governing party. It could well be as much a hobby of love as an exercise of instinct to protect that which you have worked hard for. Many people have lost half their life savings this year beit in housing, stocks, art, etc. Housing has an obvious benefit as it is a tangible asset. I can say in no uncertain terms that I still get the pleasure if even for a moment here and there walking around my home every day looking at different works of art whereas I have never had any pleasure from the soul by looking at a brokerage statement in either an up market or a down market. It may very well be that the reason big money has been rushing to art over the past decade is because it no longer trusts the stocks of our coporations or our governing parties. sorry for the length
|
|
;D
๐ธ