It's a little odd (though perhaps it's saved for a future episode) that there's no mention here of modern patronage and commissioning. People absolutely still pay artists directly for work, and not just big moneybags looking to show off to their rich friends - I know artists and people who commission them for works in the tens to hundreds of dollars based around fandoms, hobbies, politics, humour, and simple aesthetics. Patreon has people creating art for free (at the point of release) and making a living from people who pay them to keep doing it.
Don’t forget! If you want to support the actual art market, buy from small local creators! There is so much good art out there that is affordable, and doesn’t run in this same whacky manner as the auction house. Plus many of us artists would love to be commissioned and make some new work!
Maybe the prices on the art market don't so much reflect the value of the art, but the value of the money. And how unequal the distribution of that money is around the world.
This made me really want an episode on the current online art market. There's a vibrant commission based market on social media, as well as premade works in artist alleys at conventions. Not to mention the artists that subsist off of Patreon. It's both open to artists just starting out as well as experts, and it's affordable for regular people (though most often artists are underpaid for their work)
Except the highest end of the fine art market is just a way for the ultra rich to launder enough money to avoid paying any taxes through museum "donations".
I don't know if it's always money laundering. But obviously it is a case of "there is too much money around". I remember that in my childhood the most pictures were just pictures. The Mona Lisa was the most expensive, but there wasn't much competition for that place. There were always rich people but a bunch of new guys have become rich, and the ones who had money before have now even more of it.
It seems like art sales should at least involve a percentage of sales fees for the artist, so all of that resale industry still has to pay credit to whoever made it in the first place.
9:19 Banksy's self-destructing painting is wild. He "released a video of the shredding and how the shredder was installed into the frame in case the picture ever went up for auction" (so I'm assuming he must have had some way to control the mechanism remotely).
Honestly I think you were way too nice with this one. Why do people "invest" in art? where do they store it? what is the alternative? This video make it sound like selling a multi milion $ painting is just like baying a 500$ painting yourself. Also maybe talk about grading systems that have trickled down to things like video games (in a box), paper cards and have inspired footboxes and skin markets in game played by kids. The insanity that is the art market have been normalized and we cannot even taste the poison in the water that we are swimming in. I liked that you included stolen art though.
Through pure dumb luck, I found myself at the Tate Modern when they had their Giacometti exhibition. It was an enlightening experience to be able to look at those sculptures up close - to see how his thumbs shaped the clay model - but there were moments where I was acutely aware that the collection of sculptures was valued at well over a billion dollars, which was awe-inspiring in another, somewhat confusing way...
This was a contentious subject in my arts BA classes. How a vast majority of living artists get hosed (have to be dead, be well off already, or part of the literal 1% of artists that are deemed worthy in the art community). I’ve gotten ripped off and near arguments when selling my own pieces due to pricing. Like how dare I have anything near living wage to sell something I spent 30 hours on, let alone some extra I can set aside for savings as well. Props for making and posting, but this subject makes my blood boil. 😊😜😤
Depends strongly on what track you're working in. My BA arts classes emphasized 3 main tracks: Multiples, Commission, and Gallery. Pretty much all this video covers is Gallery art, and only briefly touches on Commission, but doesn't touch Multiples at all. Multiples are smaller pieces or prints sold in a wider variety of places than Gallery work. You usually sell Multiples at a slightly lesser value because you're working with a method that allows you profit off the same work multiple times
I would say the Art market benefits the wealthy and powerful. The people put value to art for a number of reasons but the consequence of us doing that is that the folks the need it the least want it more. At least that is how it feels a lot of the time.
i feel like if banksy wanted to make a work that actually self-destructs, and thus someone has paid millions of dollars for nothing, he could. instead, he made art that transforms, that isn't the same as what the buyer say when buying, but which continues to exist and grow in values (or shrink)
It seems to me that if Banksy was railing against the art market, he was not only ineffective but naive. More likely, his commentary seems to me a if-you-can’t-beat-em-join-em paean. The “destroyed” piece still has composition. It is transformation transfixed. If he had truly meant to stick it to the establishment, the work would be completely destroyed, if not to ashes, then at least with vertical AND horizontal cuts, leaving a pile of tiny scraps on the floor.
Why is there no mention of the new availability of paint? I learned that paint was a deeply held secret that apprentices spent years learning how to make and perfect, but new manufacturing and new ways of making paint made it far cheaper and available to artists without financial benefactors.
I dont understand why banksy's piece ended up shreded. Since it's been sold to someone else, can't the new owner say they DONT want it shredded? In that case, is the museum to oblige the new owner or follow the artist's instructions? Or is it a surprise to everyone except the artist when the shredding happened? In that case, is the artist going to jail for "damages"?
As this is art history I feel like I should say his name isn't pronounced "Van Go", we don't really have the sound in England but the best approximation would be "Van Gock".
Ever wonder why people look so good in renaissance era paintings? They had an amazing Instagram filter called "I'M THE ONE WHO'S PAYING YOU!"
It's a little odd (though perhaps it's saved for a future episode) that there's no mention here of modern patronage and commissioning. People absolutely still pay artists directly for work, and not just big moneybags looking to show off to their rich friends - I know artists and people who commission them for works in the tens to hundreds of dollars based around fandoms, hobbies, politics, humour, and simple aesthetics. Patreon has people creating art for free (at the point of release) and making a living from people who pay them to keep doing it.
Don’t forget! If you want to support the actual art market, buy from small local creators! There is so much good art out there that is affordable, and doesn’t run in this same whacky manner as the auction house. Plus many of us artists would love to be commissioned and make some new work!
✨️ Money laundering ✨️
They found a new and much more efficient way in crypto now
Came here to say this.
Maybe the prices on the art market don't so much reflect the value of the art, but the value of the money. And how unequal the distribution of that money is around the world.
This made me really want an episode on the current online art market. There's a vibrant commission based market on social media, as well as premade works in artist alleys at conventions. Not to mention the artists that subsist off of Patreon. It's both open to artists just starting out as well as experts, and it's affordable for regular people (though most often artists are underpaid for their work)
Except the highest end of the fine art market is just a way for the ultra rich to launder enough money to avoid paying any taxes through museum "donations".
I don't know if it's always money laundering. But obviously it is a case of "there is too much money around". I remember that in my childhood the most pictures were just pictures. The Mona Lisa was the most expensive, but there wasn't much competition for that place. There were always rich people but a bunch of new guys have become rich, and the ones who had money before have now even more of it.
The INSTANT I saw Sarah in my feed, I clicked. She makes art and art history so accessible and interesting!
It seems like art sales should at least involve a percentage of sales fees for the artist, so all of that resale industry still has to pay credit to whoever made it in the first place.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Banksy work was supposed to fully self-destruct but the mechanism stopped partway through.
9:19 Banksy's self-destructing painting is wild. He "released a video of the shredding and how the shredder was installed into the frame in case the picture ever went up for auction" (so I'm assuming he must have had some way to control the mechanism remotely).
This reminds me of Adam Ruins Everything's episode on the fine art market.
Honestly I think you were way too nice with this one.
Why do people "invest" in art? where do they store it? what is the alternative?
This video make it sound like selling a multi milion $ painting is just like baying a 500$ painting yourself.
Also maybe talk about grading systems that have trickled down to things like video games (in a box), paper cards and have inspired footboxes and skin markets in game played by kids.
The insanity that is the art market have been normalized and we cannot even taste the poison in the water that we are swimming in.
I liked that you included stolen art though.
Through pure dumb luck, I found myself at the Tate Modern when they had their Giacometti exhibition. It was an enlightening experience to be able to look at those sculptures up close - to see how his thumbs shaped the clay model - but there were moments where I was acutely aware that the collection of sculptures was valued at well over a billion dollars, which was awe-inspiring in another, somewhat confusing way...
This was a contentious subject in my arts BA classes. How a vast majority of living artists get hosed (have to be dead, be well off already, or part of the literal 1% of artists that are deemed worthy in the art community). I’ve gotten ripped off and near arguments when selling my own pieces due to pricing. Like how dare I have anything near living wage to sell something I spent 30 hours on, let alone some extra I can set aside for savings as well.
Props for making and posting, but this subject makes my blood boil. 😊😜😤
Depends strongly on what track you're working in. My BA arts classes emphasized 3 main tracks: Multiples, Commission, and Gallery.
Pretty much all this video covers is Gallery art, and only briefly touches on Commission, but doesn't touch Multiples at all.
Multiples are smaller pieces or prints sold in a wider variety of places than Gallery work. You usually sell Multiples at a slightly lesser value because you're working with a method that allows you profit off the same work multiple times
art is expression and sometimes it's ridiculous
It's infuriating that people will spend $73,000,000 on a painting when that money could change the lives of thousands of people.
*71
@@Alex-js5lg and they’re not buying the art, they’re buying the provenance aka a stock certificate of art.
I would say the Art market benefits the wealthy and powerful. The people put value to art for a number of reasons but the consequence of us doing that is that the folks the need it the least want it more. At least that is how it feels a lot of the time.
im in love w this series!!!
Would love to see music history crash course!!
Imagine spending 450m on a painting to hang it up ONCE and then put it in STORAGE...
i feel like if banksy wanted to make a work that actually self-destructs, and thus someone has paid millions of dollars for nothing, he could. instead, he made art that transforms, that isn't the same as what the buyer say when buying, but which continues to exist and grow in values (or shrink)
"What would you buy for 35 million dollars?"
Me, a millennial: "A house"
i would by the biggest modular synth collection.
It seems to me that if Banksy was railing against the art market, he was not only ineffective but naive.
More likely, his commentary seems to me a if-you-can’t-beat-em-join-em paean.
The “destroyed” piece still has composition. It is transformation transfixed.
If he had truly meant to stick it to the establishment, the work would be completely destroyed, if not to ashes, then at least with vertical AND horizontal cuts, leaving a pile of tiny scraps on the floor.
But I guess that's also part of his brilliance
Why is there no mention of the new availability of paint? I learned that paint was a deeply held secret that apprentices spent years learning how to make and perfect, but new manufacturing and new ways of making paint made it far cheaper and available to artists without financial benefactors.
❤
❤❤❤
I dont understand why banksy's piece ended up shreded. Since it's been sold to someone else, can't the new owner say they DONT want it shredded? In that case, is the museum to oblige the new owner or follow the artist's instructions? Or is it a surprise to everyone except the artist when the shredding happened? In that case, is the artist going to jail for "damages"?
Art is complex but yet artistic.
"Subway sandwich artists" is the greatest lie of our lifetime
As this is art history I feel like I should say his name isn't pronounced "Van Go", we don't really have the sound in England but the best approximation would be "Van Gock".
Because there are people who buy is. As simple as that 😂
I don't agree. Some time ago, I bought art from contemporary artists that I enjoy to this day.
I spent a few hundred for each.
First! Lol
First comment. Please pin me