sammyman
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 279
๐๐ป 6
February 2007
|
Negative Banksy Article - Thoughts?, by sammyman on Apr 27, 2007 17:15:50 GMT 1, I just read this article I found. What do you all think?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the opposite end of the continuum is Banksy, the art world's speculative acme-du-jour. As little as three years ago his art was selling for pocket change and today the ante is well into the tens of thousands of dollars just to play a hand. But what's the game?
Banksy backers point to Angelina Jolie's recent patronage to the tune of some hundreds of thousands of dollars. But does this mean anything? Does it lend credence and durability to the market for Banksy art? Not really. It's little more than Hollywood headline news. Jolie is not known for her art collection, and her acquisitions certainly don't impact the mindsets of art world stalwarts. Maybe if the buyer were Steve Martin-- a world-class collector-- things would be different.
Oh wait... you don't know what art world stalwarts are? They're loyalists of the highest order, people who would rather buy art than EAT, who devote their lives to collecting art and supporting artists, who understand what they collect as well as anybody out there, who continually contemplate and reflect on day to day developments with artists in particular and with the art world in general, and who are in the thick of the hunt until the ends of their days. And do you know how many people that represents? Not many. The truth is that only a small percentage of people who buy art do so in large enough ways to influence the course of collecting (and perhaps even of art history)-- as well they should. We like that level of experience, commitment, and dedication at the helm. The flip side, however, is that this small percentage can only support (and subsequently deify in perpetuity) a small number of artists. Furthermore, the deification process is slow and methodical, no matter who the artist, requiring decade after decade of accomplishment after accomplishment and success after success-- each and every instance subject to acute unforgiving scrutiny. Nothing ever happens fast-- at least nothing enduring.
Which brings us back to Banksy. Over the past several years, his art has escalated in value faster than pretty much any substance known to man. A price structure that topped in the low $1000's as recently as 2004 now exceeds $100,000 at the high end, with barely a rope footbridge to connect the two sides of the cash chasm-- a circumstance that's not particularly healthy for either the art market in general or for Banksy in particular. It's not the folks who buy Banksy at the bottom of the chain letter that anybody should be concerned about-- they've got far more money than they do ways to spend it. It's Banksy-- his meteoric rise to mythic status and price structure to go with it uncompromisingly intensify the pressure to perform-- to sustain the frenzy. Gobs of $$$ are riding on him too, many of which are fickle and prepared to go south at the slightest hitch. So here we stand, arms folded, toes tapping, waiting for his next big coup.
And let's say that next coup's a jewel-- and the next and the next. Where do prices go? $1 million Banksy's in another couple of years? To complicate matters, if he decides to take any kind of hiatus, there's not a lot in the way of history or stability to fall back on, to hold in the heat, to preserve the status quo. And one more irksome detail-- step outside the vortex for a moment, look around, and you quickly realize you can buy exceptionally serious established eternally enshrined blue chip art for $100,000, not to mention a million $$. Seems like tunnel vision's temporarily trumped reality.
This isn't so much about Banksy, by the way, as it is a classic example of a market that's spiraled perilously out of control. Banksy's a major player in terms of advancing the envelope of what art is, especially on a popular level, but his market stability and continuity from longevity standpoints are tenuous to say the least. Everybody's all caught up in the hubbub of the moment, while whoever's in charge of the big picture appears to be taking a long lunch. Will Banksy weather the storm to triumph and prosper? Will big money buyers continue to feed the machine? Stay tuned.
I just read this article I found. What do you all think?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the opposite end of the continuum is Banksy, the art world's speculative acme-du-jour. As little as three years ago his art was selling for pocket change and today the ante is well into the tens of thousands of dollars just to play a hand. But what's the game?
Banksy backers point to Angelina Jolie's recent patronage to the tune of some hundreds of thousands of dollars. But does this mean anything? Does it lend credence and durability to the market for Banksy art? Not really. It's little more than Hollywood headline news. Jolie is not known for her art collection, and her acquisitions certainly don't impact the mindsets of art world stalwarts. Maybe if the buyer were Steve Martin-- a world-class collector-- things would be different.
Oh wait... you don't know what art world stalwarts are? They're loyalists of the highest order, people who would rather buy art than EAT, who devote their lives to collecting art and supporting artists, who understand what they collect as well as anybody out there, who continually contemplate and reflect on day to day developments with artists in particular and with the art world in general, and who are in the thick of the hunt until the ends of their days. And do you know how many people that represents? Not many. The truth is that only a small percentage of people who buy art do so in large enough ways to influence the course of collecting (and perhaps even of art history)-- as well they should. We like that level of experience, commitment, and dedication at the helm. The flip side, however, is that this small percentage can only support (and subsequently deify in perpetuity) a small number of artists. Furthermore, the deification process is slow and methodical, no matter who the artist, requiring decade after decade of accomplishment after accomplishment and success after success-- each and every instance subject to acute unforgiving scrutiny. Nothing ever happens fast-- at least nothing enduring.
Which brings us back to Banksy. Over the past several years, his art has escalated in value faster than pretty much any substance known to man. A price structure that topped in the low $1000's as recently as 2004 now exceeds $100,000 at the high end, with barely a rope footbridge to connect the two sides of the cash chasm-- a circumstance that's not particularly healthy for either the art market in general or for Banksy in particular. It's not the folks who buy Banksy at the bottom of the chain letter that anybody should be concerned about-- they've got far more money than they do ways to spend it. It's Banksy-- his meteoric rise to mythic status and price structure to go with it uncompromisingly intensify the pressure to perform-- to sustain the frenzy. Gobs of $$$ are riding on him too, many of which are fickle and prepared to go south at the slightest hitch. So here we stand, arms folded, toes tapping, waiting for his next big coup.
And let's say that next coup's a jewel-- and the next and the next. Where do prices go? $1 million Banksy's in another couple of years? To complicate matters, if he decides to take any kind of hiatus, there's not a lot in the way of history or stability to fall back on, to hold in the heat, to preserve the status quo. And one more irksome detail-- step outside the vortex for a moment, look around, and you quickly realize you can buy exceptionally serious established eternally enshrined blue chip art for $100,000, not to mention a million $$. Seems like tunnel vision's temporarily trumped reality.
This isn't so much about Banksy, by the way, as it is a classic example of a market that's spiraled perilously out of control. Banksy's a major player in terms of advancing the envelope of what art is, especially on a popular level, but his market stability and continuity from longevity standpoints are tenuous to say the least. Everybody's all caught up in the hubbub of the moment, while whoever's in charge of the big picture appears to be taking a long lunch. Will Banksy weather the storm to triumph and prosper? Will big money buyers continue to feed the machine? Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
hungrig
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 173
๐๐ป 0
May 2006
|
Negative Banksy Article - Thoughts?, by hungrig on Apr 27, 2007 18:08:54 GMT 1, Cheers, sammyman,
A well-written article that raises some very interesting points.
Who is the author, and where was it originally published?
I too have stepped back and looked at what else I could buy with the cash now required to purchase an original Banksy. Sobering, to say the least. That is not to say I hope his bubble will burst; it's been a fun and exciting ride, especially for those who jumped on early.
Good point also about the increased pressure on Banksy to perform and "come up with the goods". In that respect, he is in an unenviable position.
Likewise, Banksy's persona of 'art terrorist', 'guerilla artist' and subversive figure generally sits rather uneasily with the fact that he is now a millionaire, selling paintings for six-figure sums, and often embraced by (and, arguably, part of) the very establishment he mocks. No doubt the irony is not lost on him. I'm sure it also makes him shift slightly uncomfortably in his chair.
Cheers, sammyman,
A well-written article that raises some very interesting points.
Who is the author, and where was it originally published?
I too have stepped back and looked at what else I could buy with the cash now required to purchase an original Banksy. Sobering, to say the least. That is not to say I hope his bubble will burst; it's been a fun and exciting ride, especially for those who jumped on early.
Good point also about the increased pressure on Banksy to perform and "come up with the goods". In that respect, he is in an unenviable position.
Likewise, Banksy's persona of 'art terrorist', 'guerilla artist' and subversive figure generally sits rather uneasily with the fact that he is now a millionaire, selling paintings for six-figure sums, and often embraced by (and, arguably, part of) the very establishment he mocks. No doubt the irony is not lost on him. I'm sure it also makes him shift slightly uncomfortably in his chair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negative Banksy Article - Thoughts?, by finsburyparkranger on Apr 27, 2007 18:44:22 GMT 1, He fails to realise that millions of People want Banksy's art to be considered as important as the great masters. Banksy gives voice to a new generation. Never has an artist been wished to succeed by so many. Banksy represents more than art or money. He represents people. What other artists can claim these advantages in their lifetime?
He fails to realise that millions of People want Banksy's art to be considered as important as the great masters. Banksy gives voice to a new generation. Never has an artist been wished to succeed by so many. Banksy represents more than art or money. He represents people. What other artists can claim these advantages in their lifetime?
|
|
|
|
Negative Banksy Article - Thoughts?, by numusic on Apr 27, 2007 18:49:58 GMT 1, I didn't find that negative at all.. thought it was kind of spot on. Especially the "things take time", I'd say Banksy is pretty much here to stay.. things will no doubt slow down sooner or later, but then hopefully we see Banksy develop a large body of relevant work. I think the people forking out 10k -20k plus for those following in the wake of Banksy, Neate, Dface , Blek, Micallef etc.. are maybe the one's to take note.
I didn't find that negative at all.. thought it was kind of spot on. Especially the "things take time", I'd say Banksy is pretty much here to stay.. things will no doubt slow down sooner or later, but then hopefully we see Banksy develop a large body of relevant work. I think the people forking out 10k -20k plus for those following in the wake of Banksy, Neate, Dface , Blek, Micallef etc.. are maybe the one's to take note.
|
|
motor
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,839
๐๐ป 411
December 2006
|
Negative Banksy Article - Thoughts?, by motor on Apr 27, 2007 19:07:25 GMT 1, He fails to realise that millions of People want Banksy's art to be considered as important as the great masters. Banksy gives voice to a new generation. Never has an artist been wished to succeed by so many. Banksy represents more than art or money. He represents people. What other artistists can claim these advantages in their lifetime?
Well said 
This sum it up
Respect
He fails to realise that millions of People want Banksy's art to be considered as important as the great masters. Banksy gives voice to a new generation. Never has an artist been wished to succeed by so many. Banksy represents more than art or money. He represents people. What other artistists can claim these advantages in their lifetime? Well said This sum it up Respect |
|
|
|
thanks for posting that 
;D
and now they are realizing that they have been left behind 
