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

*this is what republicans actually believe.

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

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.

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

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.

fartte

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

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!!

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"

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

Quick, somebody let Jeff Koons know! And ... and that broken plate guy!

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.

FishyFred: No tulips here.



those who fail to study history...

FlashHarry: FishyFred: No tulips here.



those who fail to study history...

The same graph can be used for bitcoin value.

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.

Soon, they are going to lock out all the artists and demand an agreement that protects them from each other.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

I have some art I'd like to sell them.

"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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Is that Sasha Grey?

This is kind of like beanie babies for the wealthy.

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.

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.

Is this trickle down in action?

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.

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

think of it like tulips or dot com companies

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

Dunno about you, but I am running to buy some crayolas this afternoon after work.

[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."

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

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

Well they are gonna need to have something in their homes for us poors to loot since they are hiding their money.

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

or a Windows 8 Tablet