Investing in art is more about the cultural value of money, and of art than about finance; about underlining the intrinsic Social Meaning of Money, argues a new essay published in The Newsweek magazine courtesy The Daily Beast.
Its author Blake Gopnik has worked as chief art critic with The Washington Post before serving as an arts editor-critic in Canada. He has done a doctorate in art history from Oxford University, and has extensively researched and written on topics related to both culture and aesthetic.
Gopnik’s idea is to probe the link, if any, between art prices and classic economics – to know why would Ellsworth Kelly’s blue lozenge on a white rectangle fetch a whopping $1.5 million? Is a glass cabinet carrying surgical instruments created by Damien Hirst really worth $2.5 million?
As we all are aware, despite the flatlined economic conditions, the international art market has been literally roaring. Total worldwide sales touched a record of $5.8 billion in the first half of 2011, up almost 34 percent from the corresponding period in the previous year, according to Artprice.com.
The online research company mentions that 663 works soared past the significant million-euro mark during that time period, 200 more than in the first half of 2008 that held the earlier record. Have the top art prices anything to do with classic economics? If I can’t sell something, I just double the price.” That’s what Ernst Beyeler, the great Swiss dealer who helped found Art Basel, reportedly said.
So, have the top art prices anything to do with classic economics? According to market expert and author of ‘Art of the Deal’, Noah Horowitz, your investment in art is as good as your holdings in bonds, albeit with higher risk. But, that’s not so bad, emphasizes a major New York collector, especially if you’ve nowhere else to park your money. And then bonds aren’t that great to look at! Isn’t so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment