PDA

View Full Version : The Dot Com Crash of Modern Art


Hakluyt
04-26-2006, 05:41 AM
http://www.theepochtimes.com/tools/printer.asp?id=40151

The Dot.Com Crash of Modern Art

Price of modern art declines while traditional art increases
By Fred Ross
Art Renewal Center
Apr 12, 2006

(In 2001 Fred Ross, Chairman of the Art Renewal Center, addressed over 700 portrait artists, gallery owners and members of the press at the Metropolitan Museum in New York during the American Society of Portrait Artists (ASOPA) Conference. Following is the fourth and final installment. All emphasis is the author's.)

I am quite certain that every artist in this audience paints better than all of the famous modernists and post modernists, and is more deserving of societal attention and praise. Yet still, so-called "major works" of theirs can sell for between two and twenty five million dollars at auction. The dirty little secret, however, that the modernist establishment and the press has been hiding, is that those same works sold for two to three times those prices back in 1988 and '89. While the prices of all the icons of modernism peaked at that time, and any money invested then has declined a whopping 50 to 80%, the market for Gérôme, Waterhouse, Bouguereau, Alma-Tadema, Burne-Jones, Rossetti, Millais and Lord Leighton, has increased between 2000 and 10,000 percent since 1975.

Every year, records are being broken again and again. In 1977, the world record price for a Bouguereau was $17,000. Now, in the past 3 years, the world records for his work first topped a million dollars in 1997, then a million and a half in '98, two and a half million in '99, and last May, Charity sold for over $3,500,000. Additionally, last June the world record for any Victorian painting was completely trampled when Saint Cecilia, by John William Waterhouse, sold for just over $10,000,000 in London to Andrew Lloyd Weber.

There are only 826 Bouguereaus and about 465 Tademas in the world. Do you know how many Picassos there are? Can anybody here guess? There are 80,000 of them, and the balance between supply and demand has faltered, and like the dot com stocks of last year they will soon come crashing down along with hundreds of billions of paper profits lost in the dust of history. Like the tulip bulbs in the 17th century, or Tokyo Real estate in the 1980's, investors will be decimated. If I owned a work by any of those "Abstract artists" I would be racing to cash it in before the fall, and that has been my recommendation to dozens who have asked me.

il ragno
04-26-2006, 05:54 AM
Every year, records are being broken again and again. In 1977, the world record price for a Bouguereau was $17,000. Now, in the past 3 years, the world records for his work first topped a million dollars in 1997, then a million and a half in '98, two and a half million in '99, and last May, Charity sold for over $3,500,000. Additionally, last June the world record for any Victorian painting was completely trampled when Saint Cecilia, by John William Waterhouse, sold for just over $10,000,000 in London to Andrew Lloyd Weber.

True - I have a sweet tooth for late-19th/early-20th century art auction catalogues (w/ prices realized) and those prices have been skyrocketing, particularly over the past dozen years.

Yet sad - I'd always secretly hoped that shit would dominate the market; that I might be able to nab an original Tissot or Gerome (or any of half-a-hundred great masters of the salon era) for a pittance like $17, 000 one day. Not a chance in Hades of that happening now.

Ahmadinebobina
05-01-2006, 11:42 PM
Much as I favour 'traditional' or representational art myself I can't say I hold very well with the Art Renewal Centre. I think they miss the point entirely of modern art. I almost can't blame them since i did the same myself for many years but how and ever it is unfortunate. There's a lot to be said for abstract art, when it comes down to it, people just seem to enjoy avoiding the point :(

I'd agree with Ragno though, I'd rather it skyrocket and give me a chance at some older paintings :D

Ahmadinebobina
05-01-2006, 11:44 PM
Modern Art is about expanding the definition of art. They believe that "everything is art," or, "Whatever the artist says is art, is art." Well, if everything is art, then nothing is art. Any definition that includes everything is not a definition at all. As I said, Modern art is "art about art", while all the great art and literature and theatre throughout history is "Art about life."

I wouldn't hold entirely with this either, I can understand why he has a bias but far from all of the Modernists had such a view.

Lionheart
05-02-2006, 12:52 AM
Modern art is crap. People only think otherwise because they are sheep incapable of thinking against trends. That such "art" is popular is a testament to the degradation of our times.

Roland
05-02-2006, 02:59 PM
Modern and Postmodern art have served various purposes, though for the most part the art itself is universally incapable of providing aesthetic moments for the viewing subject. While art has always been a "text" to be read with various meanings, it usually remained aesthetically pleasing. Contemporary art has abandoned this dedication to beauty in favor of making art a new medium for expressing vague and generally uneducated philosophical utterances about the ills of society. This seems to be a logical outcome of a society dominated by postmodern relativism, and eliminative materialism, both of which deny the metaphysics of beauty.

il ragno
05-02-2006, 03:17 PM
Contemporary art has abandoned this dedication to beauty in favor of making art a new medium for expressing vague and generally uneducated philosophical utterances about the ills of society. This seems to be a logical outcome of a society dominated by postmodern relativism, and eliminative materialism, both of which deny the metaphysics of beauty.

Or, in plain English, only the financially comfortable can generally afford to decadently ooh and ahh over ugliness and dysfunction.

You know why people liked musicals and comedies during the Great Depression? Because they were all too well acquainted with ugliness and dysfunction, which was waiting for them, with depressing unavoidability, the moment they exited the theater.

Roland
05-02-2006, 03:32 PM
I thought my English was sufficient. In either case, your interpretation is in binary opposition to mine. Your analysis is materialistic-economic, mine was idealistic.

il ragno
05-02-2006, 06:14 PM
You're wrong. Read it again.