(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?

10 Dec 2012 12:45 PM   |   3246 clicks   |   Newsweek
Showing 1-50 of 71 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
FlashHarry    [TotalFark]  
this is why we can't raise taxes on them by even a penny.*

*this is what republicans actually believe.

10 Dec 2012 08:22 AM
Cythraul     
Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.

10 Dec 2012 08:32 AM
ManRay     

Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.


Only if they get a tax deduction.

10 Dec 2012 08:36 AM
dj_bigbird    [TotalFark]  
When this bubble pops, will they ask for a bailout?

10 Dec 2012 08:46 AM
ThatGuyFromTheInternet     

dj_bigbird: When this bubble pops, will they ask for a bailout?


You can bet he loss will trickle down to their future ex-employees.

10 Dec 2012 08:51 AM
Jackson Herring    [TotalFark]  
i.imgur.comView Full Size


fartte

10 Dec 2012 09:04 AM
UberDave    [TotalFark]  
Cool. My work, "Ass Cheeks on Canvas", may fetch a pretty penny...

10 Dec 2012 09:34 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus    [TotalFark]  
But the rich just hide all that money in off shore accounts and in their mattresses. How dare they spend money and generate taxable activity! We must raise taxes on art to discourage this behavior!!

10 Dec 2012 10:12 AM
gopher321    [TotalFark]  

UberDave: Cool. My work, "Ass Cheeks on Canvas", may fetch a pretty penny...


Hah! That's so pre-2010...the avant-garde now are doing works like "Balls Dipping on Homeless Guy"

10 Dec 2012 10:17 AM
ManateeGag    [TotalFark]  
I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.

10 Dec 2012 10:19 AM
phaseolus     
Quick, somebody let Jeff Koons know! And ... and that broken plate guy!

10 Dec 2012 10:26 AM
FishyFred     

The Stealth Hippopotamus: But the rich just hide all that money in off shore accounts and in their mattresses. How dare they spend money and generate taxable activity! We must raise taxes on art to discourage this behavior!!


Some of them purposely use art to hide their money. If they want to liquidate, they sell some pieces.

This is not really a bubble. No tulips here.

10 Dec 2012 10:47 AM
FlashHarry    [TotalFark]  

FishyFred: No tulips here.


www.bond-bubble.comView Full Size


those who fail to study history...

10 Dec 2012 12:20 PM
Russ1642     

FlashHarry: FishyFred: No tulips here.



those who fail to study history...


The same graph can be used for bitcoin value.

10 Dec 2012 12:48 PM
cgraves67    [TotalFark]  
SO let the bubble burst. There are two consequences. 1) Some artists must surely be profitting from this. They will suffer from a sudden drop in the value of their work. 2) Some previously high-end art might become relatively affordable to the common man.

10 Dec 2012 12:49 PM
UseUrHeadFred     
Soon, they are going to lock out all the artists and demand an agreement that protects them from each other.

10 Dec 2012 12:52 PM
tiamet4     

FlashHarry: this is why we can't raise taxes on them by even a penny.*

*this is what republicans actually believe.


Well after they spend $34 million on a painting no one will care about in 10 years, how do you expect them to give us those sweet sweet (minimum wage, no benefits) jobs if we make them pay taxes too?

Papa John's pizza might even have to go up 12 cents to cover our ingratitude.

10 Dec 2012 12:52 PM
OldManDownDRoad     
So nothing has changed since Tom Wolfe wrote "The Painted Word" in '75.

And if you ever want to get someone in the "arts community" in an uproar, just mention that book to them.

10 Dec 2012 12:53 PM
BarkingUnicorn     

ManateeGag: I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.


Art dealers, appraisers, auctioneers, insurers, packing and shipping staffers, frame makers, installers, security specialists... lotta jobs supported by extravagant consumption.

If your career plan is, "follow the money," you could do worse than chasing the 1%.

10 Dec 2012 12:55 PM
LL316     

FlashHarry: this is why we can't raise taxes on them by even a penny.*

*this is what republicans actually believe.


This is what Democrats actually believe Republicans believe.

10 Dec 2012 12:56 PM
PirateKing     
i.qkme.meView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 12:57 PM
wambu     
I have some art I'd like to sell them.

10 Dec 2012 12:57 PM
Bullseyed     
"The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.

10 Dec 2012 12:59 PM
mrlewish     
Um Tax shelter.

1. Buy "art" for exorbitant price.
2. buy domicile in place with lax tax rules
3. Move some household goods including "art" to new place
4. sell art to someone else that needs to move a large amount of money around.
5. Keep all the money and now money is moved (laundered)
6. Profit

10 Dec 2012 01:00 PM
megarian    [TotalFark]  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobilewe b/2010/08/02/russian-artist-pain ts-wit_n_667850.html

NSFW (sorry, mobile device)

Breast art. Not as hot as you think it's going to be.

Still, boobies.

10 Dec 2012 01:00 PM
Abe Vigoda's Ghost     

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: dj_bigbird: When this bubble pops, will they ask for a bailout?

You can bet he loss will trickle down to their future ex-employees.


So are you saying the trickle down theory is valid?

10 Dec 2012 01:01 PM
clyph     

cgraves67: SO let the bubble burst. There are two consequences. 1) Some artists must surely be profitting from this.


Nope. The only ones profiting from this are the gallery owners. The artist doesn't get paid again every time the work changes hands, at least not in the US - they only get half (or less) of the first sale. If an artist sells a painting for $10k, and 10 years later it goes for $1M at auction, the artist gets jack shiat from that sale (unless there's a contract that says otherwise). The artist does benefit indirectly, both from reputation as well as sales of reproductions of the work. When you buy a painting (or statue, or photographic print), you're just buying the physical artifact, not the copyright to the work (again, unless there's a contract that says otherwise).

I'm given to understand that it does work a little differently in the EU and that artists do get some compensation in that situation, but I'm not familiar with the details.

10 Dec 2012 01:03 PM
ChipNASA     
lifedisconnected.files.wordpress.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 01:03 PM
Abe Vigoda's Ghost     

megarian: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobilew eb/2010/08/02/russian-artist-pai n ts-wit_n_667850.html

NSFW (sorry, mobile device)

Breast art. Not as hot as you think it's going to be.

Still, boobies.


I was disappointed greatly by your link.

Greatly.

As in a fat woman's boobs.

Fat

Woman's

Boobs.

10 Dec 2012 01:04 PM
megarian    [TotalFark]  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: megarian: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobilewe b/2010/08/02/russian-artist-pai n ts-wit_n_667850.html

NSFW (sorry, mobile device)

Breast art. Not as hot as you think it's going to be.

Still, boobies.

I was disappointed greatly by your link.

Greatly.

As in a fat woman's boobs.

Fat

Woman's

Boobs.


Bahahaha

I bet that paint is mixed with under-boob sweat.

10 Dec 2012 01:05 PM
clyph     

ChipNASA: [lifedisconnected.files.wordpress.com image 640x333]


Is that Sasha Grey?

10 Dec 2012 01:05 PM
big pig peaches     
This is kind of like beanie babies for the wealthy.

10 Dec 2012 01:07 PM
thornhill     
Aren't is a terrible investment. Except for unquestioned masterpieces, the appraised value is way more than what you're going to get at sale, and if you sell it through a dealer or auction house -- which you pretty much have to do so you can connect with the maxim number of potential buyers -- they're going to take a huge cut of the sale.

10 Dec 2012 01:08 PM
farkeruk     

Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.


You think anyone will want to see this art in 40 years?

Galleries are a product of the age before mass-duplication of art. If you lived in the 16th century, the only way to see amazing, beautiful things was to go to a cathedral or an art gallery. Today, we have television and cinema transmitting art to us. You want to see the greatest art of the 21st century? Go and see Skyfall or The Dark Knight Rises. I'll bet Roger Deakins earns far more being a DP than most gallery artists do for putting a farking dot on a canvas.

10 Dec 2012 01:08 PM
StaleCoffee     
Is this trickle down in action?

10 Dec 2012 01:10 PM
Pitabred     

Bullseyed: "The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.


Hundreds? So tens of millions of dollars can only support a couple hundred people? Doesn't seem like it'll "trickle down" from there. It's basically still being amassed at the top and staying there.

10 Dec 2012 01:10 PM
Jon iz teh kewl     

big pig peaches: This is kind of like beanie babies for the wealthy.


think of it like tulips or dot com companies

10 Dec 2012 01:14 PM
Cythraul     

farkeruk: Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.

You think anyone will want to see this art in 40 years?

Galleries are a product of the age before mass-duplication of art. If you lived in the 16th century, the only way to see amazing, beautiful things was to go to a cathedral or an art gallery. Today, we have television and cinema transmitting art to us. You want to see the greatest art of the 21st century? Go and see Skyfall or The Dark Knight Rises. I'll bet Roger Deakins earns far more being a DP than most gallery artists do for putting a farking dot on a canvas.


Uhh, I like to visit a good art museum every now and again. Not sure why they'd become obsolete.

10 Dec 2012 01:19 PM
clyph     

mrlewish: Um Tax shelter.

1. Buy "art" for exorbitant price.
2. buy domicile in place with lax tax rules
3. Move some household goods including "art" to new place
4. sell art to someone else that needs to move a large amount of money around.
5. Keep all the money and now money is moved (laundered)
6. Profit


Nailed it.

That, with additional elements of being a dick-measuring contest among the rich and a textbook example of the bigger fool fallacy

10 Dec 2012 01:22 PM
cgraves67    [TotalFark]  

clyph: cgraves67: SO let the bubble burst. There are two consequences. 1) Some artists must surely be profitting from this.

Nope. The only ones profiting from this are the gallery owners. The artist doesn't get paid again every time the work changes hands, at least not in the US - they only get half (or less) of the first sale. If an artist sells a painting for $10k, and 10 years later it goes for $1M at auction, the artist gets jack shiat from that sale (unless there's a contract that says otherwise). The artist does benefit indirectly, both from reputation as well as sales of reproductions of the work. When you buy a painting (or statue, or photographic print), you're just buying the physical artifact, not the copyright to the work (again, unless there's a contract that says otherwise).

I'm given to understand that it does work a little differently in the EU and that artists do get some compensation in that situation, but I'm not familiar with the details.


All true, however when the artist's work becomes popular, he or she may get commisioned to create something for a wealthy client and may be compensated fairly well.

10 Dec 2012 01:22 PM
Cybernetic    [TotalFark]  
My kids can crank out 20 or 30 artworks per day. Maybe I should open a gallery.

10 Dec 2012 01:24 PM
oldtaku     
A big part of this is huge number of nouveau riche mainland Chinese (corrupt party officials, company owners) who are buying up everything they can get their hands on to show off their wealth. And they have no taste at all, even by art standards. They'd buy black velvet Elvises and crying clowns as long as it was listed as fine art in a catalog. So as long as you have this inexhaustible source of indiscriminate buyers it's hard to see things changing for a while.

10 Dec 2012 01:27 PM
Bullseyed     

Pitabred: Bullseyed: "The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.

Hundreds? So tens of millions of dollars can only support a couple hundred people? Doesn't seem like it'll "trickle down" from there. It's basically still being amassed at the top and staying there.


Yeah, hundreds. You can't expect leftists like artists and movie stars to share their money. The just hoard it and tell you you're a bad person for not donating to AIDs or Haiti or something.

10 Dec 2012 01:30 PM
KarmicDisaster    [TotalFark]  

Cybernetic: My kids can crank out 20 or 30 artworks per day. Maybe I should open a gallery.


Starving artist sale! Buy a framed, sofa-sized oil painting for only $49.99!

10 Dec 2012 01:31 PM
The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men     
In certain markets all it takes to make a contempory artists work worthless is for Charles Saatchi to wake up on the wrong side of bed and dump his stock of that artist for a dollar a piece, as he has done before. This probably holds most true for Damien Hirst, one of Saatchi's most prominent creations. That should tell you all you need to know about the staying power of these art values.

BarkingUnicorn: ManateeGag: I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.

Art dealers, appraisers, auctioneers, insurers, packing and shipping staffers, frame makers, installers, security specialists... lotta jobs supported by extravagant consumption.

If your career plan is, "follow the money," you could do worse than chasing the 1%.


A lot of the top jobs (Galleries, curators, dealers, appraisers and so on) are very hard to break into without having parents who have good friends in the art world and can financially support you in London or New York for several years of unpaid internships.

10 Dec 2012 01:31 PM
ocschwar     
Dunno about you, but I am running to buy some crayolas this afternoon after work.

10 Dec 2012 01:33 PM
ObscureNameHere     
[grabs quill, ink and parchment; brushes out mutton-chops, fixes monocle, sips brandy]

*baaruhemm*

"Dear Sirs:

I am vexed - considerably vexed! - at the blantant 'run-up' on the prices of artwork among by the Gentlemen Class. While I appreciate the need to keep the appearance of the summer and winter manors up to par, this rampant behaviour simply must stop before all social order of the Empire breaks down. Have any of my fellows considered the risk of what such an outflow of wealth to the Lower Classes might result in? These 'artists' are a notoriously decadent and fickle lot and their patronage should be kept within decent boundaries lest they gain notions above their stations. While supporting artwork that serves to enhance the Dominions of Her Majefty is a capital idea, we of the better side of society must not let our enthusiasm get the better of our humours.

Sincerely,
William J. Starchshirt, Esq."

10 Dec 2012 01:48 PM
Rich Cream     
federicodecalifornia.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


How's the velvet segment doing? Is it keeping up?

/is it the next bubble? A resurgence is over-due. lol

10 Dec 2012 01:50 PM
Onkel Buck     
Well they are gonna need to have something in their homes for us poors to loot since they are hiding their money.

10 Dec 2012 01:56 PM
Jon iz teh kewl     

Cybernetic: My kids can crank out 20 or 30 artworks per day. Maybe I should open a gallery.


or a Windows 8 Tablet
www.sensubrush.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 01:58 PM
Showing 1-50 of 71 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined