True “collectors” buy WHAT THEY LIKE, not what will necessarily give them a financial return. Many true collectors get their “return” from the joy the artwork gives to them and if, over time, they get a financial benefit, really it doesn’t concern them as they would not consider selling anyway.
Historically, many artists have reproduced their own works for clients, and this includes the greats. It was not unusual in Renaissance times for an artist to do more than one painting in either a larger or smaller format for a client or clients. Certainly, in Victorian times too, well respected artists would often do multiple images of the same painting to satisfy demands placed upon them by their clients. This has certainly not affected the artists values.
The modern trend of limited edition prints belies the idea that multiple images of the same image depreciates the image and the work of the artist.
If an artist produces say 10 works in his/her lifetime, if they are not artistically important, their rarity is not a factor in their value.
If an artist who is known for quality, innovation, technical brilliance or invention produces thousands of images, these are not depreciated due to the “availablity” but in fact such availablity can place the images into many more collections and thus the images become more sought after.
Originality is the key. Is the artwork original? Does it show creativity? Does it show new thought or artistic process? Does it show technical brilliance?
The truth is Picasso, one of the greats if not the greatest artist of the 20th century, produced thousands and thousands of artworks, yet no-one can say his prices are devalued because of this.
Maybach or Mazda is really of little comparison or relevance to the question of “value” in art.
These are motor vehicles, by definition mass produced but to differing luxury and engineering levels. It is the cost of the “ingredients” in one that makes it more expensive than the other…..and clever marketing !
Whether the values of artworks by deceased artists are higher than those of living artists is debatable and would need a separate blog to discuss in depth, but one could name thousands of deceased artists whose works are valued less than living artists.
In regard to the artists you have mentioned, particularly Koons and Hirst, certainly they do produce editions, multiples of the same image.
The fact is that value is multi-faceted. If one talks exclusively about value being financial, then it is the creativity displayed by the artist that creates that value, not the idea of a limited number of works produced. As an example, if an artist produced 10 brilliant paintings in their lifetime and no-one knew about them, would they have value? If the same artist produced hundreds of images and people were aware of them, then they would have value.
Rarity is one thing. Talent, creativity, originality and technical ability are far more important in determining value…..on all levels.
Anthony Smith
Sarah Ann Filler
February 5, 2012
Rarity will always be a consideration in determining value. Regardless of whatever business model the internet and global business offers up, rarity will always be a consideration. Trends are trends…. and popularity of an artist within one decade, or even one year, does not guarantee longevity. The key word here is over-exposure and over-speculation.
A very simple example of this is the US postage stamp from 1930-40. Dealers, as well as some collectors, did a lot of heavy speculation during that time period, with millions of those stamps, in circulation, with very minimal value on the market today. Even silver coins of that period, if circulated, are only worth their silver bullion “melt” value, in most cases.
From my perspective, when we simply reduce art to cost of ‘production and marketing’, we enter the realm of mass production. There is a very fine line here and I tend to speak from the position of longer-term, in terms of a real understanding and knowledge of the art we produce, the continued creation of art which best represents us as a culture, as well as the heath of the market for it over the long-term.
Anthony Smith
February 13, 2012
Dear Sarah,
yes, rarity can be a consideration, but not THE consideration in determining value, particularly in regard to fine art, which is the area of collection I was referring too. Sorry for the ambiguity.
I really have no experience of stamps, but I am sure in this instance, when it is a mass produced commodity, if a misprint occurred, it would have increased value.
I agree wholeheartedly when you say “when we simply reduce art to cost of ‘production and marketing’, we enter the realm of mass production”…..but then, would this be “art” ?
Art is human endeavour. The combination of intellect and application.
As one of my finest artist’s says to me often: “I am just a tradesman”.
Yes he is…..but he is also brilliant !
http://www.asart.com
Michael Kanyuchi
February 11, 2012
Anthony i agree on the point that art-collectors buy what they like.People have different tastes and preference and i always advise people not to be swayed by other peoples opinions, but should go for what they are particularly interested in. However,the facts remains some art collectors are also investors and buy what they like, while at the same time looking at art as an long term investment. It is a well know fact that anything that is rare will appreciate in value in the long run.I have never suggested that people should collect a certain art medium all i have recommended is if one invests in mass produced art, don’t expect it to appreciate in value. At the end of day its the art-collectors decision that counts, as the art collector might have a different view of art-collecting, but what is important is that the art collector sees that there are two sides of the coin.
http://www.takuragallery.com
Anthony Smith
February 13, 2012
Michael,
I agree that “some art collectors are also investors” but those who are what I call “true collectors” are not swayed by commercial gain. If it happens, thats fine. If not, thats also ok.
Too many times over the years have I been asked by purchasers: “how much will I get for this in 3 years?”.
Are these collectors?
No. They are purely speculators. To them, art is a commodity. I am sure that ALL of us have had similar experiences.
Rarity, as such, is NO guarantee to appreciation in value, as I have outlined above.
BTW, always enjoy your posts !
http://www.asart.com
Bill Eickhorst
February 11, 2012
Anthony:
The primary financial consideration in dealing with a work by a deceased artist vice one who is still living, is that in the case of the deceased artist, you are dealing with a finite supply. As a practicing printmaker, I’m not sure what you are defining as “a limited edition print.” This term is frequently used to describe Glicee prints and other multiples based on works done in another media, which are really reproductions and not authentic prints.
Bill
http://www.missouriwestern.edu/
Exhibitors
February 11, 2012
Hello Bill
Hoping I’ve inserted the correct web-site on your comment?
Anthony Smith
February 13, 2012
Hi Bill,
thanks for your reply.
You are definitely correct in saying that “The primary financial consideration in dealing with a work by a deceased artist vice one who is still living, is that in the case of the deceased artist, you are dealing with a finite supply”.
But IF the deceased artist’s work is of a lesser quality and in lesser demand than that of the living artist, this does affect value.
I used the term “limited edition print” as a general term. I was referring to etchings and lithographs.
http://www.asart.com
John Neville Cohen
February 15, 2012
I have also been a collector and as such I have always bought what I like, regardless of experts, I do listen and consider any guidance offered, but in the end I follow my own judgement. Luckily, particularly, in the antique collecting area I have also made exceptionally good investments, although I am very reluctant to sell as I love them.
I believe and hope that in the long term artists that show really original talent and creativity will be recognised and valued. But there are problems for many of us, new on the scene, in having work seen in the best, or right places (these days), in order to gain any recognition deserved.
With the costs of participating in exhibitions and the difficulties of finding Galleries to promote newer artists. Perhaps the Internet will be the answer, but then much depends on how great artists can be discovered, amongst the millions of the not so good images already displayed.
http://www.artist-john-cohen.net