These guys don't look like collectors that collect for love and passion of an item, they come across as corrupt "drug dealers" nothing pleasant about their demeanor.
Ofcourse they collect for money. Why would they hoard Warhols when oy a few of his paintings are worth the money. Wasn't their an article that the sole reason to hoard Warhols was to protect their prices. They have 800 warhols and then they were found to slowly release them jn the market. Demand and supply rule duh
The fact of the matter is that at whatever level the the dealers rely on buyers. It's all very well for these guys to keep buying and "support" the prices of art but there comes a time when market forces beyond their control take over. When that happens the market seizes up and they are going to need the liquid capital to keep going or sell at a significant loss. I can't see that here's and differance between property speculation or art speculation.
Lewis highlights that the Magrabi family own 9% of important worhals, thus cornering the market. This ultimately undermines the point of art not suiting the technology of money. I haven't seen the rest of the documentary but the point is that in the art world, the problem with money is that collectors begin to sight undue influence on who reaches (and attains dominance) in the mainstream. When money has the power to classify what is seen as important and unimportant we must realise art is exempt
These guys don't look like collectors that collect for love and passion of an item, they come across as corrupt "drug dealers" nothing pleasant about their demeanor.
Ofcourse they collect for money. Why would they hoard Warhols when oy a few of his paintings are worth the money. Wasn't their an article that the sole reason to hoard Warhols was to protect their prices. They have 800 warhols and then they were found to slowly release them jn the market. Demand and supply rule duh
“Isn’t it a miracle what so much money and so little ability can produce.” -Robert Hughes
Ya BUT ! does he have a Joseph Charles Colin - View Modern art? $77 X the Views on the Channel.
uck, of all things, them fugly warhols
The fact of the matter is that at whatever level the the dealers rely on buyers. It's all very well for these guys to keep buying and "support" the prices of art but there comes a time when market forces beyond their control take over. When that happens the market seizes up and they are going to need the liquid capital to keep going or sell at a significant loss. I can't see that here's and differance between property speculation or art speculation.
Lewis highlights that the Magrabi family own 9% of important worhals, thus cornering the market. This ultimately undermines the point of art not suiting the technology of money.
I haven't seen the rest of the documentary but the point is that in the art world, the problem with money is that collectors begin to sight undue influence on who reaches (and attains dominance) in the mainstream. When money has the power to classify what is seen as important and unimportant we must realise art is exempt
The guy in the yellow button down shirt reminds me of that art teacher character from "Six Feet Under" ha
compmaturism is a future,Regards JJ Pokrak
Legal.
My art can Never DeValue & Its Impossible.
You have the perfect personality to infiltrate the so-call art market, deconstruct it to the core and make every transparent......You're my Hero!
Art is not oil or copper, so the argument is stupid.
+Nate Moe Absolutely.. not to mention the "important Warhols" lol...