The art world is very easy to manipulate because today's society is easy to manipulate. If tomorrow any random person were to go out and shout in a museum, people would say they were crazy and go on with their lives. Now, if that shout is sold as something artistic, something important and something to be valued, it happens like with Yoko Ono. Yes, art is dead, but because the criteria, attention and knowledge of today's society are even more dead. And no, the man who put up a painting copied from a comic book is not a more special art than the raw version of a comic book. If it is okay to value it at 100M, that is what that person wants to pay for that painting, but that does not make it a revolution or give it a higher value objectively speaking and speaking of the quality of the work in terms of graphics, composition or history. The painting of the Mona Lisa is a clear example of this, a painting that was overlooked, that was even stolen and nobody noticed, now with excessive marketing by Paris it became a more valuable painting in terms of popularity and monetary, but that does not give more objective value to the painting, nor was anything new invented (since the techniques used, even if it is said in marketing that what Da Vinci did is something innovative, in truth it is not and it has been used for hundreds of years, as in Fayum Funeral Portraits) so it does not have more artistic value, since it is just another painting, yes the most famous in the world, but not the most important or most masterful. That is why art is dead, because people only see the money it is worth and not what it represents, what it transmits, the technique, the effort and the wisdom that the painting has. This, added to the lack of values and criteria of the society in which we live, makes what happens happen, that any work is considered a great work and that the world sees art as something to laugh at and speculate about, instead of what it is, human expression in its maximum splendor, to transmit feelings that cannot be expressed with words, to improve techniques and create better and better works and to decorate the world in which we live, since the decorated environment affects a lot, the Renaissance already knew that. But well, now people prefer smooth buildings without personality and simple works that can attract anyone and at the same time no one, since it is an object without soul or expression.
The only thing you care about is that people know that 90% of the art world is just smoke and mirrors, it's because you're buying that smoke and mirrors too. And nobody cares about that, you could keep playing with art with meaningless works and everything would stay the same, only better since the public eye would ignore you. The problem is that if you want the public eye to simply say that what you did makes sense if the buying and selling business goes wrong. But well, the solution is that if the world was aware of the true value of the works and didn't focus on the simple, you could speculate with those masterful works and keep playing your game, the problem with that is that people would stop paying for any shit and there would only be a few works that would sell for 100 million and nowadays there are more... And there would be works that would be worth billions, only your eye only sees money not the greatness of a work.
the idea of the value of an artist's self-expression is a stupid and hyped idea that came to us on the wave of interest in psychoanalysis at the end of the 19th century. art has never been involved in such nonsense... who is an artist?! - a crazy and poorly educated person! (for example, Masaccio) why should I be interested in his inner world, which is nothing more than a deep obsession expressed in a pictorial compulsion?)) therefore, your argument about the "true" value of art - - is not an argument at all))
@@mozartwa1 Ok, you're not interested in Massacio because for you he's crazy (even though he has technical perfection and is a very important painter in terms of innovation, in terms of linear perspective and natural light in painting, etc.) But if you're interested in Kaws, abstract art or Yoko Ono, your argument is simply absurd. Massacio's art contributes much more, it has a meaning and it is what art is in its fullness, a meaningful and knowledgeable expression of a human being. (It's fine that you don't like it, but it's objectively ridiculous that you say that it has less general value than a work of abstract art, even if it has value for you, objectively you'll have to come to the conclusion that it doesn't.) Because on top of that, the majority of the art that you're defending (abstract art) or simplistic art in general and more accurate terms, that literally not even the creator knows the meaning or what his work expresses, that doesn't make sense and it can't be treated as a work, or at least as a good work.
@@ubenva that's why I say that artists are crazy)) - read carefully what is written! I did not write about Masaccio the artist, but about Masaccio the man. besides, although Masaccio is considered an innovator in the early Renaissance, all this had already been done before him for one and a half thousand years... it is not news that modern philosophers today are coming to the point that they are rediscovering Plato's ideas))
@@mozartwa1 You seem to be equating value as just monetary value, which is only of interest to the jaded cynic. Yes, when it comes to the pinnacle of the art market where value is created through advanced capitalism I'm a cynic too but as the video pointed out that is a very small part of any art market. I spent a few hours with my daughter at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, viewing an exhibition of Miriam Cahn. I wasn't really interested in a boring train ride because online I wasn't impressed with the work I had seen of Miriam Bahn but my daughter insisted I would like her work. So I went to Amsterdam more to see my daughter than to see MC's art. Did I waste my time? Not at all, I was blown away by the exhibition and had to admit I was wrong about MC, much to the smugness of my daughter. As for not being interested in someone's inner world, should we burn all books of fiction, all poetry, stop all dancing and music? It all comes from someone's inner world. Not all manifestations of expression from someone's inner world is narcissistic navel gazing, very little is. The point is to communicate through the use of interesting visual language, like a poet communicates through the interesting use of words. The language can stretch across a spectrum from the ugly to the beautiful, from the boring to the interesting, from the description of a slice of bread to the speculation about the human condition, to our place in the universe. There is nothing uninteresting about such things, there are plenty of uninteresting ways of communicating about them, not everyone can use language, visual or spoken in interesting ways. BTW Thank you for calling me a crazy poorly educated person, I'll take that as a compliment coming from you. 😉
If I wanted to become a scammer and make a fortune, becoming an artist or running a gallery are just about the last professions I’d choose. As always, an interesting and informative video, you and what you’re doing deserve every success.
I've read several comments here and there seems to be a hell of a lot of confusion about several things that revolve around several questions: 1. Why is art valued the way it is? It's simply based on the demand for that art and that demand will fluctuate over time. Forty years ago, most Chinese art wasn't worth jack. Then once Chinese wealth grew, the demand for the art grew and prices shot up. Simple. 2. Is the art that is high-priced today going to be automatically considered great later on? Nope. I guarantee you, there are works that are considered "genius" today that will be considered shit 40 years from now. Ask Peter Doig. His work today is valued in the millions, but he understands that even his long-term legacy isn't guaranteed. The number of artists who were considered great in their time who have been forgotten cannot be counted. Conversely, how many artists who were ignored in their time come to be known later when their work is reexamined? A lot. So only time will tell. So I guess my point is this: don't confuse the art market and artist "success" with the production of great art. These are two different things.
Living in a world of information overlaid where we must make good choices with our values. Exquisitely done … especially where I was rolling laughing with the car buying advice🤣🥰 Another valuable tool provided here with you Julien and Perrier. Your tools have kept me moving along. All happiness to you and team.
As for historical importance, that's also a far-fetched argument... Renaissance artists didn't hide the fact that they were interested in ancient art, which they essentially just repeated fifteen hundred years later. (mostly)
Interesting topic. Art is subjective and every artist is different. But for everyday people the art world appears to be seclusive and reserved to a rich elite. I think the art must also evolve by trying to be more open to common people. But you must also take in fact that Art is also a business and as you say like every business it has its dark side.
The notion of "Scam" comes from a personal perspective of not seeing value in an artwork. It is not easy for the general population to a) access the information surrounding the artwork. b) see through the nepotism sometimes these artworks are surrounded with. What we see that it's true, is that there is a disconection i the zeitgeist of the elite and the biggest art collectors in comparison to the average people.
While I agree that not all opinions are equal, the issue with your analogy lies in the fundamental difference between valuing art and valuing cars. Unlike cars, where value is more objectively determined by measurable factors, the value of artwork is far more open to subjective interpretation. Moreover, the art world is a relatively small industry compared to, say, the automobile industry. This makes it less stable and more susceptible to the influence of individuals in positions of power-the so-called experts. Like other smaller industries, the art world has fewer gatekeepers and relies more heavily on personal relationships. And while public opinion "the power of the people" does play a role in the art world, it doesn’t carry nearly as much weight as it does in industries like film, fashion, or automobiles. In those fields, expert endorsements may help, but they rarely determine the ultimate success or failure of a product.
I work in the art market. The word “scam” is used commonly by media to grab attention. But it is simply market manipulation which is 100% legal. And it’s not a scam because it doesn’t promise one thing and do another. It’s doing what we know it to do. Supply and demand. Whether that demand is authentic or not is one thing. But that is how you control the market. And make profits.
@@jmsjms296 what do you mean shady its literally explained. If someone likes an artwork he will buy it. Now if he likes it for what it looks like or for what it represents or if it is an already well known artwork (popular so he wants to have it) it does not matter. Its not a scam, if someone buys dirt for thousands of dollars because a lot of people gave value to that dirt, there is nothing you can do about it. Thats how it works. For artists the top priority should be courage in creating what is truly meaningful to them and searching for their truth. Its a lifelong learning process, thats what makes art great. Its certainly not some trick where you learn to paint pretty pictures, now it certainly can be a part of that journey but its not the main point, originality must be present. Virtually every great artist did that.
No!!! The art market is definitely NOT A SCAM! As a matter of fact, I'm an undiscovered wunderkind artteest, and I have a whole big ol pile of "masterpieces" " wink wink 😉, just waiting for a really smart, celebrity, "INVESTOR" wink wink 😉, to write me a big fat check a they can adorn their villas in the south of France with my brilliance! Wink wink 😉!
curators do not make artists or art, but money!... not to understand this means not to understand anything in the modern world)) if castelli had found liechtenstein in the same way, but offered to buy him on the cost principle - canvas, paints, spent time, rent of premises, then liechtenstein would have remained unknown, despite his talent!... a totalizator of bets on horse racing is not interested in horses and horse racing as a spectacle, but in who will come first, if money is bet on him..
The conundrum here is that the art world is for the rich. Most people even with a decent income could not reasonably buy a piece of art for let's say $1000 a month. The artist needs to find several people to buy at that price or even more to make a living. The reality is that the artist is dependent on the rich(er) to just survive.
the whole economy is a scam - the art market is no exception. the comparison with buying a car is incorrect, because art has a symbolic component and this is its only component, unlike a car, in which the utilitarian component is an undeniable, albeit dubious fact. in addition, no one will give you tax breaks if you decide to buy a car, no matter whether it is a city car for a family or a collector's car. this is present in the art market.. in any case, where there is subjectivity - there is a loophole for manipulation. the host is undoubtedly a nice young man who wants to make the art world better and more comfortable for its participants. but unfortunately he has a mega-banal and ordinary intellect, which will never allow him to become either an outstanding artist or an outstanding gallery owner... - a teacher and a cultural activist - that's the maximum..
The art world is not a scam, it is a market, like the world of haute couture or watchmaking. What could be considered a scam is the way it is promoted or the information is falsified, for example in the news saying that a certain painting is better than another because it is more expensive or the marketing that some 'artists' use saying and extracting meanings from works that do not have them, but in no case selling a work legally and without excessive marketing, even if objectively that work is a disaster, can be considered a scam, since buyers do not let themselves be fooled by what they buy. I see the problem in the vision of society, harmful marketing and the objectivity of society, not in the art business.
@@ubenva you simply do not understand the mechanisms of the market and do not understand cultural and human psychology - that is why you are breaking into open gates... money is valued not for the paint on which a portrait is painted, or even for the number written on it, or even for the fact that you can buy a coffee maker or a Maserati with it, but for the fact that people believe in it!... and they are valued by faith.. if this were not so, then there would be no cryptocurrency or even paper money. - there would only be gold, which even the Indians did not have the same price as the Spaniards))
@@mozartwa1 People believe in money because the government underwrites it, at least in theory, if not in fact band people will believe in money until it is so depreciated people will prefer to barter. When you buy a painting, you are not just paying for the materials an artwork is made of, you are also paying for the artist's imagination, skill and experience in executing and producing an art work. The fact there are charlatans is true but that is true in any walk of life, look at the hit records of our time or any time, there is lots of junk in there, along with the indifferent, the fashionably popular and just plain boring but the good stuff lasts and that is always a minority.
@@KeithBrighouse-r3k to be honest, both this educational video made for primary school children and the whole tone of the discussions are not worth a damn. no arguments will make people believe that pictures that most ordinary people do not like and do not understand can cost so much money! they perceive it as an insult to their bright feelings. and they are right in many ways - they can be understood! but what you can't understand are people who consider themselves professionals in the art market, who undertake to explain with arguments issues that have nothing to do with art as such, or with the methodologies of such explanation, or with the phenomenon itself... this boy with a dog on the couch decided that he could explain to the average person why thomas kinkade is a bad artist and should be inexpensive, while gerhard richter, for example, should be expensive, only on the basis that we are talking about art, and not about symbolic goods in the field of modern civilization and its forms of economy))) after all, he is not an economist, and a painting that is sold - no matter in a souvenir shop or at a sotheby's auction - is a product!!! feel the difference!!! half of the things he tells in his videos should be told by invited guests with experience, talent and professional reputation, and not a student in glasses with his ever-present dog (even she gets bored)) that's why hyped videos will always win the competition in such issues.
@@mozartwa1 People who look for an equivalence of monetary value and picture quality, being imagination, concept, skill, execution etc. do not understand that the art and monetary value put upon it are two completely different things. Some products are better than others and you are putting a Marxist materialist interpretation on the art. While a Marxist dialectic is fine for socio-economic issues, a Marxist dialectic is not very good when it comes to issues of the mind, even Marx realised this. While the art is just an object, worth a few pounds to a few hundred pounds, the image is beyond monetary value, which is why art is left open for advanced capitalism to make huge profits out of some art. People buy the image, not the material the image is made on, surely you can see that!
3:36 hi! I'm an art student from Spain and Ive thinking bout this specific chapter a lot. "Who would you trust more to give you an insight on the reality of the art market, outsider or insider?", right? So I can't help but question the role of said insider, as they're the ones perpetuating the 'buy whatever, believe a story, it will resell for more in some years'. I'm seeing it first hand in uni, where most professors, also 'artists', live off a past fame and past art, but right now they're not producing anything, yet the national galleries search for them instead of all the students graduating. And believe me, there's some really good students here. Is not only the gatekeeping problem, but a 'what does a gallery really value, what does the art market really value' type of question. Young artists being exposed in mainstream art market only happens in two cities (London and NY), and the star of the show that comes from a small village in Congo or a receding community in Taiwan appear in the show because 'oh surprise, they have family in the US already'. I hope you know what I'm trying to point out here. It's nepotism, it's the 'repeat, repeat, repeat' mindset of art buyers who prefer a dollar store looking Koons rather than a new sculpture by a 22 y/o artists with much more things to say. But it's also a rich-people circle, it's lot of art fairs who skyrocket the entry pass for said students not to come in and interrupt the 'serious' people, etc... I find it so discouraging how some people who utterly repeat an already told story with already done methodologies and those are the ones getting sold instead of much more valued people who could finally drag us up out of this declining art world status... Idk... I swear all of my colleagues are always commenting this, even some of the professors too😓😓
While some of the things you say are correct, some things are not. The art market does not only take place in NY and London, but also in Paris, Berlin, LA and 25 other vibrant art cities I mention this article: www.contemporaryartissue.com/top-30-art-cities/ Money and nepotism occur in the art world, but it is definitely not only based on this, not at all. I see numerous unknown artists, with no wealthy parents or connections, being picked up by good galleries because they love their work. The work does well and those galleries, and bigger galleries come for them. They climb the ladder of success and that success only accumulates over time. So don't look too much at the success of others if it fills you with frustration and negativity. Perhaps today they are not interested in the sculptures of that 22 year old, but you can change their minds with time. And when you are becoming more established, that success can accumulate in your favor, and perhaps other students will be envying you.
Tell people to stop buying talentless garbage and the stigma will probably go away. When people pay millions for nothing but a simple animal and formaldehyde (Hirst) or a giant tacky kitty (Koons), or stand in line to hold hands with a con "artist" while she looks at you in the eyes and cries (Abramovic), all of which took zero artistic ability to make and zero talent to make, it reeks of a con. In the case of Hirst and Koons, they don't even make their own work. Particularly since the work itself either has no meaning or only has meaning impressed upon it by some BS word salad that ANY person can come up with. Lichtenstein was a tracer and a hack. The comic book artist that labored over the original work he merely stole from should be credited before his name in every case his work is shown. IE: Jack Kirby, traced by Roy Lichtenstein, 1965. No. I'm not kidding. There is stealing in the artistic sense Picasso spoke of, and then there is outright effing theft.
If people love it and want to pay good money for it, that's entirely up to them, regardless of our personal opinion of those works. If the gatekeepers are going to make money anyway because they have all the power, why would they intentionally do it with this "BS + word salads" and not "good art?" Just to annoy us? Not at all. It is because they do like those works and so do many others, even if that seems impossible to some. Nevertheless, thank you for tuning in and wishing you a great day
@@contemporaryartissue Yes, I agree with you that if people want to pay 300 million for permission to stick a banana on the wall, let them do it. But the point is that they don't highlight works that are objectively good because it's easier to play with the market with something subjective and for you to be the one to say how much your work is worth and not objective critics since they can create their own artists and make them millionaires and nobody can say anything since art for them is 100% subjective, so they can play with that. But if it were objective and you could see the quality, they couldn't create their own artists, which only they understand, since you would have to hire people with great quality, which is a loss, and any other person with greater knowledge could come and make better works, and you no longer have them on your team, something that will never happen with subjective works. That's the problem with auction houses, which are the ones that create their own artists and move with the help of other millionaires who also accommodate the industry as they want. Greetings and good video, I understand your point, but I think you didn't think about it too much and didn't come to good conclusions. I think art should be seen through the eyes of Renaissance artists, and only ordinary people would win. Since art is the best expression of human things that cannot be described with words, not what current art is, which are words that have to be there to describe a work that conveys nothing and contributes nothing without words. Greetings from Spain. -ubenva
@@ubenva has it occured to you that taste in conceptual or "traditional" art has to do with ideological superstructures based on the economic base? But no. Marx is dissected in the academia as is dialectics supposedly.
lol i appreciate the video and agree with a lot of what you said but you are very disconnected from normal people and you don't understand how they view the world.
You should make a video based on data and not your opinion. This video is highly biased. When people think about the art market, they think in terms of the market cap, not your used novelty painting being sold at a garage sale. People follow the money because that's what is relevant. The research of Magnus Resch and others suggests that the art market is controlled by a selective group of galleries and gatekeepers. Take a look at the global economy- being an artist is a losing career path, and it only makes sense if you can get into one of the top 5 galleries, which have all the problems you subverted. This is where the prosperity is, and this is what the data suggests. A large part of the issue with your analysis and the opinion of other people in the art world is that you are not trained to think like a scientist and use data and instead make claims and arguments based on subjective opinions.
Thank you for watching. Unfortunately, I am afraid your assessment is not correct. I graduated as an art scientist at Ghent University and all articles and thus videos are based on art scientific research and are strongly data-driven-similar to the approach of the paper you refer to by Resch and others, "Quantifying Succes and Reputation in Art"-a paper now very well. Think of all our top lists, that are not about my subjective opinion but are based on data. This article is also based on numbers and data. Concerning your take on the top 5 galleries, that statement does not correspond with the data. There are thousands of galleries that perform very well, and there are tens of thousands of artists who are performing very well in the art market-and no, they are not all based in the US. The focus on the 1% is also problematic, something Magnus Resch is doing a bit too much as he also enjoys a sensational conclusion to make the message more powerful, but it also results in a lack nuance. Feel free to rewatch the video version here on UA-cam, presented by Barabási here ua-cam.com/video/RgZ1X4Dok3Y/v-deo.htmlsi=VwO1qVwC8SlywltN (or read the original paper). Make sure to watch the chapter at 4:50 and onwards, titled "talent matters" which was also a conclusion from this study but is so often overlooked because it does not align with this polarizing discourse that the art world is all about who you know and not about the art. Another option is to talk with artists who are working with smaller galleries in medium-sized art cities, to experience first hand that the art world is not at all as you think it is. I sincerely invite you to approach this with an open mind
@@contemporaryartissue Your video did not include quantitative analysis, is qualitative, and is somewhat subjective. You showed no data or evidence for your claim. The quantitative research of Resch et al. disagrees with your claims. I recommend producing an academic paper with real evidence and data or citing what the researchers say if we want to make claims. The researchers who study this topic say that most galleries are failing businesses, and there is an over-saturation of artists with too much supply and insufficient demand. When we look at where the volume of money is in the art market, it is concentrated at the top, and that's just the facts. You mentioned that many artists are doing "well," but I would like to see more data and evidence on this. What percentage of artists are doing "well"? Just simply saying "many" doesn't cut it. Please give us a proportion, and I bet it tells a different story. Also, what does "doing very well" mean exactly? What is their average annual salary? For the top earners, we will find a few top artists connected with the top 5 galleries. To your point, there may be a few artists in the world doing ok, but they likely represent a vanishingly small fraction of total artists. You are perpetuating the same UA-cam misinformation you admonish by just giving opinions and subjective interpretations unless you provide real data, real evidence, and real numbers.
@@joeh212@joeh212 I do have actual numbers to specify "many" and "very well," which I addressed in the following article, including citations of where the data is coming from. You review it here: www.contemporaryartissue.com/how-much-money-do-visual-or-contemporary-artists-make/ I do not disagree with the paper you refer to and the paper does not disagree with my assessments on this channel. Yes, the biggest value is concentrated at the top, as it is the case in any industry in a global capitalist economy. That is how the distribution of wealth works-for example, 50% of all wealth is owned by the top 1% of the population, and this is reflected in almost any field or industry. I work with a gallery that is in the top 1500, and it has numerous full-time artists in the gallery program.
Scale of scam does not change scam. Giving pop art and calling it " subversive" is a " postmodern" "argument" it is clear from that era and on and on this is what goes now in then commodification of art. Gatekkeping now likes digital art in the hopes of a digital capitalist economy.
The question is if a charitable donation tax reduction is a scam in the first place. And scale does matter if people are blaming or renouncing the entire industry. Concerning digital art and gatekeeping, digital art has been promoted predominantly by anti-gatekeeper voices, and the gatekeeping art world still stands with the physical object-hence 100% digital art not finding traction in the highest tiers of the art world-so this argument does not make any sense I am afraid. Nevertheless, thank you for tuning in and wishing you all the best
@contemporaryartissue U say the same arguments that academia " part of gatekeeping" says about this to justify yourself. Let's do performance art and we will stop commodification /not. Artists are not revolutionary subjects but "theory" feeds it to them. I didn't tune in. Algorithm tuned me in. And about taxes. Sorry I won't talk about "reformism". Thank you.
I have a love hate relationship with the art world. The art world literally has been used to feed and clothe me. My father is, and has been since my childhood, an internationally successful artist with good gallery representation. I, on the other hand, am an aspiring fine art photographer struggling to find my unique style, which draws me to your channel. Scam is a provocatively strong word, probably chosen for the same reason. It draws clicks. However, even as the son of a successful artist, I find some of the art world rules and practices questionable. When I search the list of most expensive photographs, I really don’t get it, and think to myself, “I’ll never be compatible with these people.” The idea that art has to have “meaning” and I can’t just like it for the shapes and colors, as an artist or as a buyer, is arbitrary. I’ve overheard my father at shows talking to buyers and collectors giving his work “meaning” and I’ve thought to myself, “how incoherent.” Yet they loved it. He could have said anything. It seemed so pretentious. The line between fine art and wall art or other preventing lines that can “cheapen” your work or disqualify you from the art world are seemingly baseless. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the principles of over saturation, oversupply, and under demand. Yet it seems to me that the guy that got a licensing deal with IKEA to sell his art is just as much of an artist as the top auctioning artist at Sotheby’s or Christie’s, all the numbers being equal and such. If I can sell a $5,000,000 painting or sell $5,000,000 worth of paintings (just a figurative number), then we’re tied. To specifically pick on your new car opinion analogy, it appears to contain the appeal to authority fallacy and a false dilemma fallacy. False dilemma: Most people are usually Person C: Has a car Has probably owned a few cars over the years Drives to work and back but is suspicious of Person B because they keep invoking their expertise to invalidate what I can see with my own eyes and experience. Appeal to authority: I’m also a filmmaker and often experts in these subjective fields ruin it for me. I don’t need an expert to tell me whether the music was good, if the film was good, or if the fashion is nice. I can subjectively base it on how it made me feel and then tell you myself if it was good or not. It’s like having an expert tell me which is the better ice cream chocolate or vanilla. That’s why 5th Avenue brands get away with robbery. It’s impossible to make a $5,000 bag, yet here we are. Also, the analogy doesn’t stretch because cars are functional while art is fashion. The metrics for a good car have to be objective , while art being subjective can’t hold to the same standards. If the world were in the most extreme time of crises, i.e. disasters or famine, a car would be more utility. While acknowledging the major cultural contributions of art, it would always be closest to the lowest priority in a comparable scenario. It’s a luxury for most. The operative word in the art world or art business appears to be “business.” If you eliminate that word “business” it would be the great equalizer. My six year old’s drawing of me would give Basquiat a run for his money. I know with this attitude, I probably won’t get far but here I am with this opinion and still trying to break into the photography genre of this industry. Simply because I enjoy the visual mediums and would like to share with an audience in exchange for them sharing some of their money.
Hi there, thank you very much for watching the video and for your comment with very interesting and valuable thoughts. I completely understand your point. One can perfectly enjoy art for it's visual attributes, and many collectors do as well, and if that is what excites you, that's what you should be doing and to create your own career path to find the collectors that enjoy art in the same way as you do. Even more, in the high-end art world, there are a lot artists who are also predominantly occupied with the visual and are still able to create a conversation piece. The "message" does not always have to be a message. The medium can be the message. The process can be the message. The immediate experience can be the message. If that is the case, for the sake of communicating your vision and this message, you need to include this in your statement or biography. Yes, you will be using words and will be giving it "meaning," but that meaning and those words are directly derived from what genuinely excites you in your art, so you don't have to artificially create meaning where there is not in order to become successful. I hope this can be a steppingstone to a new piece to your puzzle to find your way in the art world. Concerning the IKEA comparison, yes, in absolute numbers, economically speaking, you are tied. In relative numbers, one is not. A $5 million painting can appreciate over time or simply selling that piece again to get your money back is very possible. Selling $5 million worth of paintings for $5 million a second time is a lot harder. So this is a bit apples and oranges but I definitely see your point, it shows that is indeed all about the perspective. I love the person C analogy, and to make the argument even more complete, one would have to add a person D, E, F and more-think of people who simply want their car to go from point A to B and others that want their car to be beautiful, innovative, a true classic, engages with the history of the iconic model of that brand by for instance reinterpreting the design of that car in the 1980s, and all these other aspects where expertise becomes more important-but of course for the sake of the argument I wanted to keep it as simple and understandable as possible. It is your right to prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, but when comparing art, we are comparing more than just personal taste because there are more parameters. We cannot reduce the comparison of, for instance, an academic figure drawing today over a Jan van Eyck-even though, for some, the figure drawing is more realistic and therefore "better." The expert will say the van Eyck painting is more valuable, and the expert is right. And when it comes down to the economic value, more people will be willing to pay more money for the van Eyck painting compared to the academic figure drawing, so from a democratic perspective (the power of the people, the art lovers), the art market is right. It can really be a minefield to discuss these things, and I definitely do not aim to change your way of seeing art-that's not the point of course. But I do hope that this response can give you some further insights and reflections into these mechanisms. Wishing you the very best! Cheers, Julien
Thanks for your reply. I enjoy your channel and it is helping me, even if it’s in deciding whether to continue or not. Without knowing you personally, your videos and your reply exude class. I agree that it can be a minefield discussion, more than we can unpack here, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I challenge my father all the time with similar questions. Your points are well made. Keep up the good work.
Who's opinion should you trust more, the person that can see the obvious scam of the art market, or the person who has invested substantial time and money in order to be able to talk about art and to support their continued employment and inventory values while declaring themselves an expert beyond question?
But that "obvious scam" does not seem to be that obvious, and perhaps even not a scam at all? I am writing and researching this topic as a completely independent platform. Even more, I recommend rewatching the final minutes discussing this discourse because who is benefiting from all the commotion about these scams? The people who are making these false claims to make lots of money with their viral videos. I could do it too with my UA-cam channel and make a lot more money with this video, but I refuse, because it is simply not true.
@@contemporaryartissue You can see who is benefiting from the second slide shown from the Art Basel report. Under 50k was 94% of sales volume and only 12% of value. I can guarantee that the few people making videos about the art market are making a tiny fraction of that made by the top 6% of sales volume, those $50k and larger sales. I would also suggest that without those top end sales, your education, writing, and independent research would be significantly reduced in value and distribution.
@@karln3463 The distribution of wealth is pretty much like that across all industries-therefore the wolrd's richest 1% has 50% of all the wealth of the entire population. At the bottom, you have a high volume of low value transactions. And at the top, you have a low volume of high value transactions. To see this reflected in the art market is not a surprise at all, nor is the art market an exception or a scam because of it. It is natural effect of a global capitalist economy. And without those top end sales, my education, writing, and research would have a fairly similar value and distribution, as it is not tight in any way to that top end.
@@contemporaryartissue You're clearly mistaking market distribution in other markets or even the art market as some evidence of being above board. You're just validating my point that the beneficiaries are in fact the few involved at the price point to make a scam worthwhile. And without the high-end market then you're just talking about any other commodity that doesn't require all the fancy, faux-intellectualism to constantly justify it's existence as something special. If you think this work is valuable talking about frozen concentrated orange juice, good for you.
The "who you know" saying is addressed in this video, and it will always come second to the art. But yes, your network and getting your work out there is crucial. But this is also something we are in charge of.
I'm an art lover and buyer, i have about 30ish paintings that are worth between $500,00 to probably $80.000,00 each. The video i'd be interested in is margins galleries make because over time i've figured out that in almost all cases it's nearly impossible to buy something from a gallery that is a good investment. Paintings of the same artist usually sells for way less in auctions, so you're way better off educating yourself, researching values of artists you like and then buying art from auctions when something comes up that you like. That way you buy it for market value or less and actually have a good chance of having something that appreciates in value.
Great topic suggestion indeed! And you're absolutely right. Buying art from "promising artists" is easy, but getting your money back is much harder. You need to purchase to work because you love it, but it is possible to buy art strategically via galleries and to see some appreciate over time-having access to some whispers on future exhibitions or representation is, of course, of great help, or simply seeing the potential of the art and the artist's career is also possible but a bit more tricky. The main advantage of buying from the primary market is that you can buy art that is brand new and thus have the latest works from the artist you have been following and adore. But if you really want to see a return on investment, the better option could be the secondary market and trying to strike a bargain and creating your own platform or gallery to sell them.
Yes it have seen this article, remember art is your own personal journey. Most people don't live in New York, every mid level town around the world has its own art scene ❤
Absolutely, and as we have discussed in our video on living outside of major art cities, it is perfectly possible to live in a small town and have your network and gallery partners in a big city. Thank you for watching!
😆 🤣 😂 only way you get in is who you know. And the "list" need to get on to be sold high end. I've sold in Miami. I know the game talked to the people who know. They can't let all the real artists in because the value of collection will drop.
The "who you know" saying is addressed in this video, and it will always come second to the art. But yes, your network and getting your work out there is crucial. But this is also something we are in charge of.
@contemporaryartissue ok so I should be able walk right up to top galleries introduce myself and I'm in. No the "list" from what I was told by secondary art resellers. Is the list you need to be on just to get looked at. Maybe 1k people get you to the top 50 galleries. You know if unknown artists dose same art 10x better then know artists. The unknown artist will never get a chance.
@contemporaryartissue and that's not how laundry the money. It's not one piece of art it's the five other works but same artists that go up in value. Plus the galleries get cut bethel can raise their prices. Or wait resellers in five years if artists gets hot. If let other artists in who deserve to be looked at you'll have free market. The art industry is not free market
Grey areas or simply by manipulating the perception-which is even more troublesome, as it is not about the truth being grey, but making changing it from black to white. Thank you for tuning in!
The art world is very easy to manipulate because today's society is easy to manipulate.
If tomorrow any random person were to go out and shout in a museum, people would say they were crazy and go on with their lives. Now, if that shout is sold as something artistic, something important and something to be valued, it happens like with Yoko Ono.
Yes, art is dead, but because the criteria, attention and knowledge of today's society are even more dead.
And no, the man who put up a painting copied from a comic book is not a more special art than the raw version of a comic book. If it is okay to value it at 100M, that is what that person wants to pay for that painting, but that does not make it a revolution or give it a higher value objectively speaking and speaking of the quality of the work in terms of graphics, composition or history.
The painting of the Mona Lisa is a clear example of this, a painting that was overlooked, that was even stolen and nobody noticed, now with excessive marketing by Paris it became a more valuable painting in terms of popularity and monetary, but that does not give more objective value to the painting, nor was anything new invented (since the techniques used, even if it is said in marketing that what Da Vinci did is something innovative, in truth it is not and it has been used for hundreds of years, as in Fayum Funeral Portraits) so it does not have more artistic value, since it is just another painting, yes the most famous in the world, but not the most important or most masterful.
That is why art is dead, because people only see the money it is worth and not what it represents, what it transmits, the technique, the effort and the wisdom that the painting has. This, added to the lack of values and criteria of the society in which we live, makes what happens happen, that any work is considered a great work and that the world sees art as something to laugh at and speculate about, instead of what it is, human expression in its maximum splendor, to transmit feelings that cannot be expressed with words, to improve techniques and create better and better works and to decorate the world in which we live, since the decorated environment affects a lot, the Renaissance already knew that.
But well, now people prefer smooth buildings without personality and simple works that can attract anyone and at the same time no one, since it is an object without soul or expression.
The only thing you care about is that people know that 90% of the art world is just smoke and mirrors, it's because you're buying that smoke and mirrors too.
And nobody cares about that, you could keep playing with art with meaningless works and everything would stay the same, only better since the public eye would ignore you.
The problem is that if you want the public eye to simply say that what you did makes sense if the buying and selling business goes wrong.
But well, the solution is that if the world was aware of the true value of the works and didn't focus on the simple, you could speculate with those masterful works and keep playing your game, the problem with that is that people would stop paying for any shit and there would only be a few works that would sell for 100 million and nowadays there are more... And there would be works that would be worth billions, only your eye only sees money not the greatness of a work.
the idea of the value of an artist's self-expression is a stupid and hyped idea that came to us on the wave of interest in psychoanalysis at the end of the 19th century. art has never been involved in such nonsense... who is an artist?! - a crazy and poorly educated person! (for example, Masaccio)
why should I be interested in his inner world, which is nothing more than a deep obsession expressed in a pictorial compulsion?))
therefore, your argument about the "true" value of art -
- is not an argument at all))
@@mozartwa1 Ok, you're not interested in Massacio because for you he's crazy (even though he has technical perfection and is a very important painter in terms of innovation, in terms of linear perspective and natural light in painting, etc.) But if you're interested in Kaws, abstract art or Yoko Ono, your argument is simply absurd.
Massacio's art contributes much more, it has a meaning and it is what art is in its fullness, a meaningful and knowledgeable expression of a human being. (It's fine that you don't like it, but it's objectively ridiculous that you say that it has less general value than a work of abstract art, even if it has value for you, objectively you'll have to come to the conclusion that it doesn't.)
Because on top of that, the majority of the art that you're defending (abstract art) or simplistic art in general and more accurate terms, that literally not even the creator knows the meaning or what his work expresses, that doesn't make sense and it can't be treated as a work, or at least as a good work.
@@ubenva that's why I say that artists are crazy)) - read carefully what is written! I did not write about Masaccio the artist, but about Masaccio the man. besides, although Masaccio is considered an innovator in the early Renaissance, all this had already been done before him for one and a half thousand years... it is not news that modern philosophers today are coming to the point that they are rediscovering Plato's ideas))
@@mozartwa1 You seem to be equating value as just monetary value, which is only of interest to the jaded cynic. Yes, when it comes to the pinnacle of the art market where value is created through advanced capitalism I'm a cynic too but as the video pointed out that is a very small part of any art market. I spent a few hours with my daughter at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, viewing an exhibition of Miriam Cahn. I wasn't really interested in a boring train ride because online I wasn't impressed with the work I had seen of Miriam Bahn but my daughter insisted I would like her work. So I went to Amsterdam more to see my daughter than to see MC's art. Did I waste my time? Not at all, I was blown away by the exhibition and had to admit I was wrong about MC, much to the smugness of my daughter.
As for not being interested in someone's inner world, should we burn all books of fiction, all poetry, stop all dancing and music? It all comes from someone's inner world. Not all manifestations of expression from someone's inner world is narcissistic navel gazing, very little is. The point is to communicate through the use of interesting visual language, like a poet communicates through the interesting use of words. The language can stretch across a spectrum from the ugly to the beautiful, from the boring to the interesting, from the description of a slice of bread to the speculation about the human condition, to our place in the universe. There is nothing uninteresting about such things, there are plenty of uninteresting ways of communicating about them, not everyone can use language, visual or spoken in interesting ways.
BTW Thank you for calling me a crazy poorly educated person, I'll take that as a compliment coming from you. 😉
Yes, please, make more videos about these topics. Thank you. 😊
Will do!
If I wanted to become a scammer and make a fortune, becoming an artist or running a gallery are just about the last professions I’d choose.
As always, an interesting and informative video, you and what you’re doing deserve every success.
I've read several comments here and there seems to be a hell of a lot of confusion about several things that revolve around several questions:
1. Why is art valued the way it is? It's simply based on the demand for that art and that demand will fluctuate over time. Forty years ago, most Chinese art wasn't worth jack. Then once Chinese wealth grew, the demand for the art grew and prices shot up. Simple.
2. Is the art that is high-priced today going to be automatically considered great later on? Nope. I guarantee you, there are works that are considered "genius" today that will be considered shit 40 years from now. Ask Peter Doig. His work today is valued in the millions, but he understands that even his long-term legacy isn't guaranteed. The number of artists who were considered great in their time who have been forgotten cannot be counted. Conversely, how many artists who were ignored in their time come to be known later when their work is reexamined? A lot. So only time will tell.
So I guess my point is this: don't confuse the art market and artist "success" with the production of great art. These are two different things.
Living in a world of information overlaid where we must make good choices with our values.
Exquisitely done … especially where I was rolling laughing with the car buying advice🤣🥰
Another valuable tool provided here with you Julien and Perrier. Your tools have kept me moving along. All happiness to you and team.
Thank you for informative videos. Please don’t exhaust yourself arguing with youtubers.
Thank you for the video. It is always helpful to have objective and reasoned rebuttal, especially when there is so click bait on the topic.
As for historical importance, that's also a far-fetched argument... Renaissance artists didn't hide the fact that they were interested in ancient art, which they essentially just repeated fifteen hundred years later. (mostly)
very interesting thank you 😎
Interesting topic. Art is subjective and every artist is different. But for everyday people the art world appears to be seclusive and reserved to a rich elite. I think the art must also evolve by trying to be more open to common people. But you must also take in fact that Art is also a business and as you say like every business it has its dark side.
The notion of "Scam" comes from a personal perspective of not seeing value in an artwork.
It is not easy for the general population to a) access the information surrounding the artwork. b) see through the nepotism sometimes these artworks are surrounded with.
What we see that it's true, is that there is a disconection i the zeitgeist of the elite and the biggest art collectors in comparison to the average people.
While I agree that not all opinions are equal, the issue with your analogy lies in the fundamental difference between valuing art and valuing cars. Unlike cars, where value is more objectively determined by measurable factors, the value of artwork is far more open to subjective interpretation.
Moreover, the art world is a relatively small industry compared to, say, the automobile industry. This makes it less stable and more susceptible to the influence of individuals in positions of power-the so-called experts. Like other smaller industries, the art world has fewer gatekeepers and relies more heavily on personal relationships.
And while public opinion "the power of the people" does play a role in the art world, it doesn’t carry nearly as much weight as it does in industries like film, fashion, or automobiles. In those fields, expert endorsements may help, but they rarely determine the ultimate success or failure of a product.
great explanation thanks
What are the prerequisites to enter that level we're speaking of. Quality of work clearly isnt the bearer of "success". So what is..
I strongly disagree; quality (historical relevance and originality) is the first bearer of success in art.
So does that mean you have to make history to reach that level of success?
@@contemporaryartissueSo does that mean you have to make history to reach that level of success?
@@williamcarson5274 if thats the case, whats the point? History is already paid for my investors and preferential legacy by the powers that be.
I work in the art market. The word “scam” is used commonly by media to grab attention.
But it is simply market manipulation which is 100% legal.
And it’s not a scam because it doesn’t promise one thing and do another.
It’s doing what we know it to do.
Supply and demand.
Whether that demand is authentic or not is one thing. But that is how you control the market.
And make profits.
Plato wrote about people like you.
"Whether that demand is authentic or not is one thing. But that is how you control the market." Sounds kinda shady to me.
@@jmsjms296 what do you mean shady its literally explained. If someone likes an artwork he will buy it. Now if he likes it for what it looks like or for what it represents or if it is an already well known artwork (popular so he wants to have it) it does not matter. Its not a scam, if someone buys dirt for thousands of dollars because a lot of people gave value to that dirt, there is nothing you can do about it. Thats how it works. For artists the top priority should be courage in creating what is truly meaningful to them and searching for their truth. Its a lifelong learning process, thats what makes art great. Its certainly not some trick where you learn to paint pretty pictures, now it certainly can be a part of that journey but its not the main point, originality must be present. Virtually every great artist did that.
@@leststonerand?
it's a tax scam for the rich
No!!! The art market is definitely NOT A SCAM! As a matter of fact, I'm an undiscovered wunderkind artteest, and I have a whole big ol pile of "masterpieces" " wink wink 😉, just waiting for a really smart, celebrity, "INVESTOR" wink wink 😉, to write me a big fat check a they can adorn their villas in the south of France with my brilliance! Wink wink 😉!
curators do not make artists or art, but money!... not to understand this means not to understand anything in the modern world))
if castelli had found liechtenstein in the same way, but offered to buy him on the cost principle - canvas, paints, spent time, rent of premises, then liechtenstein would have remained unknown, despite his talent!...
a totalizator of bets on horse racing is not interested in horses and horse racing as a spectacle, but in who will come first, if money is bet on him..
The conundrum here is that the art world is for the rich. Most people even with a decent income could not reasonably buy a piece of art for let's say $1000 a month. The artist needs to find several people to buy at that price or even more to make a living. The reality is that the artist is dependent on the rich(er) to just survive.
the whole economy is a scam - the art market is no exception. the comparison with buying a car is incorrect, because art has a symbolic component and this is its only component, unlike a car, in which the utilitarian component is an undeniable, albeit dubious fact. in addition, no one will give you tax breaks if you decide to buy a car, no matter whether it is a city car for a family or a collector's car. this is present in the art market..
in any case, where there is subjectivity - there is a loophole for manipulation.
the host is undoubtedly a nice young man who wants to make the art world better and more comfortable for its participants. but unfortunately he has a mega-banal and ordinary intellect, which will never allow him to become either an outstanding artist or an outstanding gallery owner... - a teacher and a cultural activist - that's the maximum..
The art world is not a scam, it is a market, like the world of haute couture or watchmaking.
What could be considered a scam is the way it is promoted or the information is falsified, for example in the news saying that a certain painting is better than another because it is more expensive or the marketing that some 'artists' use saying and extracting meanings from works that do not have them, but in no case selling a work legally and without excessive marketing, even if objectively that work is a disaster, can be considered a scam, since buyers do not let themselves be fooled by what they buy.
I see the problem in the vision of society, harmful marketing and the objectivity of society, not in the art business.
@@ubenva you simply do not understand the mechanisms of the market and do not understand cultural and human psychology - that is why you are breaking into open gates... money is valued not for the paint on which a portrait is painted, or even for the number written on it, or even for the fact that you can buy a coffee maker or a Maserati with it, but for the fact that people believe in it!... and they are valued by faith.. if this were not so, then there would be no cryptocurrency or even paper money. - there would only be gold, which even the Indians did not have the same price as the Spaniards))
@@mozartwa1 People believe in money because the government underwrites it, at least in theory, if not in fact band people will believe in money until it is so depreciated people will prefer to barter. When you buy a painting, you are not just paying for the materials an artwork is made of, you are also paying for the artist's imagination, skill and experience in executing and producing an art work. The fact there are charlatans is true but that is true in any walk of life, look at the hit records of our time or any time, there is lots of junk in there, along with the indifferent, the fashionably popular and just plain boring but the good stuff lasts and that is always a minority.
@@KeithBrighouse-r3k to be honest, both this educational video made for primary school children and the whole tone of the discussions are not worth a damn. no arguments will make people believe that pictures that most ordinary people do not like and do not understand can cost so much money! they perceive it as an insult to their bright feelings. and they are right in many ways - they can be understood! but what you can't understand are people who consider themselves professionals in the art market, who undertake to explain with arguments issues that have nothing to do with art as such, or with the methodologies of such explanation, or with the phenomenon itself... this boy with a dog on the couch decided that he could explain to the average person why thomas kinkade is a bad artist and should be inexpensive, while gerhard richter, for example, should be expensive, only on the basis that we are talking about art, and not about symbolic goods in the field of modern civilization and its forms of economy))) after all, he is not an economist, and a painting that is sold - no matter in a souvenir shop or at a sotheby's auction - is a product!!! feel the difference!!! half of the things he tells in his videos should be told by invited guests with experience, talent and professional reputation, and not a student in glasses with his ever-present dog (even she gets bored)) that's why hyped videos will always win the competition in such issues.
@@mozartwa1 People who look for an equivalence of monetary value and picture quality, being imagination, concept, skill, execution etc. do not understand that the art and monetary value put upon it are two completely different things.
Some products are better than others and you are putting a Marxist materialist interpretation on the art. While a Marxist dialectic is fine for socio-economic issues, a Marxist dialectic is not very good when it comes to issues of the mind, even Marx realised this. While the art is just an object, worth a few pounds to a few hundred pounds, the image is beyond monetary value, which is why art is left open for advanced capitalism to make huge profits out of some art. People buy the image, not the material the image is made on, surely you can see that!
3:36 hi! I'm an art student from Spain and Ive thinking bout this specific chapter a lot. "Who would you trust more to give you an insight on the reality of the art market, outsider or insider?", right?
So I can't help but question the role of said insider, as they're the ones perpetuating the 'buy whatever, believe a story, it will resell for more in some years'. I'm seeing it first hand in uni, where most professors, also 'artists', live off a past fame and past art, but right now they're not producing anything, yet the national galleries search for them instead of all the students graduating. And believe me, there's some really good students here. Is not only the gatekeeping problem, but a 'what does a gallery really value, what does the art market really value' type of question.
Young artists being exposed in mainstream art market only happens in two cities (London and NY), and the star of the show that comes from a small village in Congo or a receding community in Taiwan appear in the show because 'oh surprise, they have family in the US already'. I hope you know what I'm trying to point out here. It's nepotism, it's the 'repeat, repeat, repeat' mindset of art buyers who prefer a dollar store looking Koons rather than a new sculpture by a 22 y/o artists with much more things to say. But it's also a rich-people circle, it's lot of art fairs who skyrocket the entry pass for said students not to come in and interrupt the 'serious' people, etc... I find it so discouraging how some people who utterly repeat an already told story with already done methodologies and those are the ones getting sold instead of much more valued people who could finally drag us up out of this declining art world status... Idk... I swear all of my colleagues are always commenting this, even some of the professors too😓😓
While some of the things you say are correct, some things are not. The art market does not only take place in NY and London, but also in Paris, Berlin, LA and 25 other vibrant art cities I mention this article: www.contemporaryartissue.com/top-30-art-cities/ Money and nepotism occur in the art world, but it is definitely not only based on this, not at all. I see numerous unknown artists, with no wealthy parents or connections, being picked up by good galleries because they love their work. The work does well and those galleries, and bigger galleries come for them. They climb the ladder of success and that success only accumulates over time. So don't look too much at the success of others if it fills you with frustration and negativity. Perhaps today they are not interested in the sculptures of that 22 year old, but you can change their minds with time. And when you are becoming more established, that success can accumulate in your favor, and perhaps other students will be envying you.
Excellently clear description of this issue! thank you!
Thank you so much! The pleasure is all mine!
The Kill Room ( 2023) movie
sonice gerat.
Every video you make tells the world of art clearly. I am a big CAI fan. This is one of the best channels for us painters and art lovers. Thank you!
Thank you so much for your most kind words. I appreciate it! Have a great day and best wishes from Belgium
Excellent video, as always. Thank you CAI
Hi Michael, thank you so much. Have a great day and cheers from Belgium
Tell people to stop buying talentless garbage and the stigma will probably go away. When people pay millions for nothing but a simple animal and formaldehyde (Hirst) or a giant tacky kitty (Koons), or stand in line to hold hands with a con "artist" while she looks at you in the eyes and cries (Abramovic), all of which took zero artistic ability to make and zero talent to make, it reeks of a con. In the case of Hirst and Koons, they don't even make their own work. Particularly since the work itself either has no meaning or only has meaning impressed upon it by some BS word salad that ANY person can come up with.
Lichtenstein was a tracer and a hack. The comic book artist that labored over the original work he merely stole from should be credited before his name in every case his work is shown. IE: Jack Kirby, traced by Roy Lichtenstein, 1965.
No. I'm not kidding. There is stealing in the artistic sense Picasso spoke of, and then there is outright effing theft.
If people love it and want to pay good money for it, that's entirely up to them, regardless of our personal opinion of those works. If the gatekeepers are going to make money anyway because they have all the power, why would they intentionally do it with this "BS + word salads" and not "good art?" Just to annoy us? Not at all. It is because they do like those works and so do many others, even if that seems impossible to some. Nevertheless, thank you for tuning in and wishing you a great day
@@contemporaryartissue
Yes, I agree with you that if people want to pay 300 million for permission to stick a banana on the wall, let them do it.
But the point is that they don't highlight works that are objectively good because it's easier to play with the market with something subjective and for you to be the one to say how much your work is worth and not objective critics since they can create their own artists and make them millionaires and nobody can say anything since art for them is 100% subjective, so they can play with that. But if it were objective and you could see the quality, they couldn't create their own artists, which only they understand, since you would have to hire people with great quality, which is a loss, and any other person with greater knowledge could come and make better works, and you no longer have them on your team, something that will never happen with subjective works.
That's the problem with auction houses, which are the ones that create their own artists and move with the help of other millionaires who also accommodate the industry as they want. Greetings and good video, I understand your point, but I think you didn't think about it too much and didn't come to good conclusions.
I think art should be seen through the eyes of Renaissance artists, and only ordinary people would win. Since art is the best expression of human things that cannot be described with words, not what current art is, which are words that have to be there to describe a work that conveys nothing and contributes nothing without words.
Greetings from Spain.
-ubenva
@@ubenva has it occured to you that taste in conceptual or "traditional" art has to do with ideological superstructures based on the economic base? But no. Marx is dissected in the academia as is dialectics supposedly.
Good points as usual. Cheers-Greg
Thank you Greg, wishing you a great day!
As an art student myself, I would love to see your opinion on how monitory gain could possibly have an effect on the art making process!
Great suggestion! Thank you for tuning in
lol i appreciate the video and agree with a lot of what you said but you are very disconnected from normal people and you don't understand how they view the world.
You should make a video based on data and not your opinion. This video is highly biased. When people think about the art market, they think in terms of the market cap, not your used novelty painting being sold at a garage sale. People follow the money because that's what is relevant. The research of Magnus Resch and others suggests that the art market is controlled by a selective group of galleries and gatekeepers. Take a look at the global economy- being an artist is a losing career path, and it only makes sense if you can get into one of the top 5 galleries, which have all the problems you subverted. This is where the prosperity is, and this is what the data suggests. A large part of the issue with your analysis and the opinion of other people in the art world is that you are not trained to think like a scientist and use data and instead make claims and arguments based on subjective opinions.
Thank you for watching. Unfortunately, I am afraid your assessment is not correct. I graduated as an art scientist at Ghent University and all articles and thus videos are based on art scientific research and are strongly data-driven-similar to the approach of the paper you refer to by Resch and others, "Quantifying Succes and Reputation in Art"-a paper now very well. Think of all our top lists, that are not about my subjective opinion but are based on data. This article is also based on numbers and data. Concerning your take on the top 5 galleries, that statement does not correspond with the data. There are thousands of galleries that perform very well, and there are tens of thousands of artists who are performing very well in the art market-and no, they are not all based in the US. The focus on the 1% is also problematic, something Magnus Resch is doing a bit too much as he also enjoys a sensational conclusion to make the message more powerful, but it also results in a lack nuance. Feel free to rewatch the video version here on UA-cam, presented by Barabási here ua-cam.com/video/RgZ1X4Dok3Y/v-deo.htmlsi=VwO1qVwC8SlywltN (or read the original paper). Make sure to watch the chapter at 4:50 and onwards, titled "talent matters" which was also a conclusion from this study but is so often overlooked because it does not align with this polarizing discourse that the art world is all about who you know and not about the art. Another option is to talk with artists who are working with smaller galleries in medium-sized art cities, to experience first hand that the art world is not at all as you think it is. I sincerely invite you to approach this with an open mind
@@contemporaryartissue Your video did not include quantitative analysis, is qualitative, and is somewhat subjective. You showed no data or evidence for your claim. The quantitative research of Resch et al. disagrees with your claims. I recommend producing an academic paper with real evidence and data or citing what the researchers say if we want to make claims. The researchers who study this topic say that most galleries are failing businesses, and there is an over-saturation of artists with too much supply and insufficient demand. When we look at where the volume of money is in the art market, it is concentrated at the top, and that's just the facts. You mentioned that many artists are doing "well," but I would like to see more data and evidence on this.
What percentage of artists are doing "well"? Just simply saying "many" doesn't cut it. Please give us a proportion, and I bet it tells a different story. Also, what does "doing very well" mean exactly? What is their average annual salary? For the top earners, we will find a few top artists connected with the top 5 galleries. To your point, there may be a few artists in the world doing ok, but they likely represent a vanishingly small fraction of total artists. You are perpetuating the same UA-cam misinformation you admonish by just giving opinions and subjective interpretations unless you provide real data, real evidence, and real numbers.
@@joeh212@joeh212 I do have actual numbers to specify "many" and "very well," which I addressed in the following article, including citations of where the data is coming from. You review it here: www.contemporaryartissue.com/how-much-money-do-visual-or-contemporary-artists-make/ I do not disagree with the paper you refer to and the paper does not disagree with my assessments on this channel. Yes, the biggest value is concentrated at the top, as it is the case in any industry in a global capitalist economy. That is how the distribution of wealth works-for example, 50% of all wealth is owned by the top 1% of the population, and this is reflected in almost any field or industry. I work with a gallery that is in the top 1500, and it has numerous full-time artists in the gallery program.
Scale of scam does not change scam. Giving pop art and calling it " subversive" is a " postmodern" "argument" it is clear from that era and on and on this is what goes now in then commodification of art. Gatekkeping now likes digital art in the hopes of a digital capitalist economy.
The question is if a charitable donation tax reduction is a scam in the first place. And scale does matter if people are blaming or renouncing the entire industry. Concerning digital art and gatekeeping, digital art has been promoted predominantly by anti-gatekeeper voices, and the gatekeeping art world still stands with the physical object-hence 100% digital art not finding traction in the highest tiers of the art world-so this argument does not make any sense I am afraid. Nevertheless, thank you for tuning in and wishing you all the best
@contemporaryartissue U say the same arguments that academia " part of gatekeeping" says about this to justify yourself. Let's do performance art and we will stop commodification /not. Artists are not revolutionary subjects but "theory" feeds it to them. I didn't tune in. Algorithm tuned me in. And about taxes. Sorry I won't talk about "reformism". Thank you.
I have a love hate relationship with the art world.
The art world literally has been used to feed and clothe me. My father is, and has been since my childhood, an internationally successful artist with good gallery representation. I, on the other hand, am an aspiring fine art photographer struggling to find my unique style, which draws me to your channel.
Scam is a provocatively strong word, probably chosen for the same reason. It draws clicks. However, even as the son of a successful artist, I find some of the art world rules and practices questionable.
When I search the list of most expensive photographs, I really don’t get it, and think to myself, “I’ll never be compatible with these people.”
The idea that art has to have “meaning” and I can’t just like it for the shapes and colors, as an artist or as a buyer, is arbitrary. I’ve overheard my father at shows talking to buyers and collectors giving his work “meaning” and I’ve thought to myself, “how incoherent.” Yet they loved it. He could have said anything. It seemed so pretentious.
The line between fine art and wall art or other preventing lines that can “cheapen” your work or disqualify you from the art world are seemingly baseless. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the principles of over saturation, oversupply, and under demand. Yet it seems to me that the guy that got a licensing deal with IKEA to sell his art is just as much of an artist as the top auctioning artist at Sotheby’s or Christie’s, all the numbers being equal and such.
If I can sell a $5,000,000 painting or sell $5,000,000 worth of paintings (just a figurative number), then we’re tied.
To specifically pick on your new car opinion analogy, it appears to contain the appeal to authority fallacy and a false dilemma fallacy.
False dilemma: Most people are usually
Person C:
Has a car
Has probably owned a few cars over the years
Drives to work and back
but is suspicious of Person B because they keep invoking their expertise to invalidate what I can see with my own eyes and experience.
Appeal to authority: I’m also a filmmaker and often experts in these subjective fields ruin it for me. I don’t need an expert to tell me whether the music was good, if the film was good, or if the fashion is nice. I can subjectively base it on how it made me feel and then tell you myself if it was good or not. It’s like having an expert tell me which is the better ice cream chocolate or vanilla.
That’s why 5th Avenue brands get away with robbery. It’s impossible to make a $5,000 bag, yet here we are.
Also, the analogy doesn’t stretch because cars are functional while art is fashion. The metrics for a good car have to be objective , while art being subjective can’t hold to the same standards. If the world were in the most extreme time of crises, i.e. disasters or famine, a car would be more utility. While acknowledging the major cultural contributions of art, it would always be closest to the lowest priority in a comparable scenario. It’s a luxury for most.
The operative word in the art world or art business appears to be “business.” If you eliminate that word “business” it would be the great equalizer. My six year old’s drawing of me would give Basquiat a run for his money.
I know with this attitude, I probably won’t get far but here I am with this opinion and still trying to break into the photography genre of this industry. Simply because I enjoy the visual mediums and would like to share with an audience in exchange for them sharing some of their money.
Hi there, thank you very much for watching the video and for your comment with very interesting and valuable thoughts. I completely understand your point. One can perfectly enjoy art for it's visual attributes, and many collectors do as well, and if that is what excites you, that's what you should be doing and to create your own career path to find the collectors that enjoy art in the same way as you do. Even more, in the high-end art world, there are a lot artists who are also predominantly occupied with the visual and are still able to create a conversation piece. The "message" does not always have to be a message. The medium can be the message. The process can be the message. The immediate experience can be the message. If that is the case, for the sake of communicating your vision and this message, you need to include this in your statement or biography. Yes, you will be using words and will be giving it "meaning," but that meaning and those words are directly derived from what genuinely excites you in your art, so you don't have to artificially create meaning where there is not in order to become successful. I hope this can be a steppingstone to a new piece to your puzzle to find your way in the art world.
Concerning the IKEA comparison, yes, in absolute numbers, economically speaking, you are tied. In relative numbers, one is not. A $5 million painting can appreciate over time or simply selling that piece again to get your money back is very possible. Selling $5 million worth of paintings for $5 million a second time is a lot harder. So this is a bit apples and oranges but I definitely see your point, it shows that is indeed all about the perspective.
I love the person C analogy, and to make the argument even more complete, one would have to add a person D, E, F and more-think of people who simply want their car to go from point A to B and others that want their car to be beautiful, innovative, a true classic, engages with the history of the iconic model of that brand by for instance reinterpreting the design of that car in the 1980s, and all these other aspects where expertise becomes more important-but of course for the sake of the argument I wanted to keep it as simple and understandable as possible.
It is your right to prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, but when comparing art, we are comparing more than just personal taste because there are more parameters. We cannot reduce the comparison of, for instance, an academic figure drawing today over a Jan van Eyck-even though, for some, the figure drawing is more realistic and therefore "better." The expert will say the van Eyck painting is more valuable, and the expert is right. And when it comes down to the economic value, more people will be willing to pay more money for the van Eyck painting compared to the academic figure drawing, so from a democratic perspective (the power of the people, the art lovers), the art market is right.
It can really be a minefield to discuss these things, and I definitely do not aim to change your way of seeing art-that's not the point of course. But I do hope that this response can give you some further insights and reflections into these mechanisms.
Wishing you the very best! Cheers, Julien
Thanks for your reply. I enjoy your channel and it is helping me, even if it’s in deciding whether to continue or not. Without knowing you personally, your videos and your reply exude class.
I agree that it can be a minefield discussion, more than we can unpack here, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I challenge my father all the time with similar questions. Your points are well made. Keep up the good work.
Who's opinion should you trust more, the person that can see the obvious scam of the art market, or the person who has invested substantial time and money in order to be able to talk about art and to support their continued employment and inventory values while declaring themselves an expert beyond question?
But that "obvious scam" does not seem to be that obvious, and perhaps even not a scam at all? I am writing and researching this topic as a completely independent platform. Even more, I recommend rewatching the final minutes discussing this discourse because who is benefiting from all the commotion about these scams? The people who are making these false claims to make lots of money with their viral videos. I could do it too with my UA-cam channel and make a lot more money with this video, but I refuse, because it is simply not true.
@@contemporaryartissue You can see who is benefiting from the second slide shown from the Art Basel report. Under 50k was 94% of sales volume and only 12% of value. I can guarantee that the few people making videos about the art market are making a tiny fraction of that made by the top 6% of sales volume, those $50k and larger sales. I would also suggest that without those top end sales, your education, writing, and independent research would be significantly reduced in value and distribution.
@@karln3463 The distribution of wealth is pretty much like that across all industries-therefore the wolrd's richest 1% has 50% of all the wealth of the entire population. At the bottom, you have a high volume of low value transactions. And at the top, you have a low volume of high value transactions. To see this reflected in the art market is not a surprise at all, nor is the art market an exception or a scam because of it. It is natural effect of a global capitalist economy. And without those top end sales, my education, writing, and research would have a fairly similar value and distribution, as it is not tight in any way to that top end.
@@contemporaryartissue You're clearly mistaking market distribution in other markets or even the art market as some evidence of being above board. You're just validating my point that the beneficiaries are in fact the few involved at the price point to make a scam worthwhile. And without the high-end market then you're just talking about any other commodity that doesn't require all the fancy, faux-intellectualism to constantly justify it's existence as something special. If you think this work is valuable talking about frozen concentrated orange juice, good for you.
The art market is full of smoking mirrors.... And its not what you know its who you know, that's why there's a lot of crapy artists around
The "who you know" saying is addressed in this video, and it will always come second to the art. But yes, your network and getting your work out there is crucial. But this is also something we are in charge of.
I'm an art lover and buyer, i have about 30ish paintings that are worth between $500,00 to probably $80.000,00 each. The video i'd be interested in is margins galleries make because over time i've figured out that in almost all cases it's nearly impossible to buy something from a gallery that is a good investment. Paintings of the same artist usually sells for way less in auctions, so you're way better off educating yourself, researching values of artists you like and then buying art from auctions when something comes up that you like. That way you buy it for market value or less and actually have a good chance of having something that appreciates in value.
Great topic suggestion indeed! And you're absolutely right. Buying art from "promising artists" is easy, but getting your money back is much harder. You need to purchase to work because you love it, but it is possible to buy art strategically via galleries and to see some appreciate over time-having access to some whispers on future exhibitions or representation is, of course, of great help, or simply seeing the potential of the art and the artist's career is also possible but a bit more tricky. The main advantage of buying from the primary market is that you can buy art that is brand new and thus have the latest works from the artist you have been following and adore. But if you really want to see a return on investment, the better option could be the secondary market and trying to strike a bargain and creating your own platform or gallery to sell them.
Yes it have seen this article, remember art is your own personal journey. Most people don't live in New York, every mid level town around the world has its own art scene ❤
Absolutely, and as we have discussed in our video on living outside of major art cities, it is perfectly possible to live in a small town and have your network and gallery partners in a big city. Thank you for watching!
@@contemporaryartissue yes I find your channel interesting and have been subscribed since the end of 2023 🐈
😆 🤣 😂 only way you get in is who you know. And the "list" need to get on to be sold high end. I've sold in Miami. I know the game talked to the people who know. They can't let all the real artists in because the value of collection will drop.
The "who you know" saying is addressed in this video, and it will always come second to the art. But yes, your network and getting your work out there is crucial. But this is also something we are in charge of.
@contemporaryartissue ok so I should be able walk right up to top galleries introduce myself and I'm in. No the "list" from what I was told by secondary art resellers. Is the list you need to be on just to get looked at. Maybe 1k people get you to the top 50 galleries. You know if unknown artists dose same art 10x better then know artists. The unknown artist will never get a chance.
@contemporaryartissue and that's not how laundry the money. It's not one piece of art it's the five other works but same artists that go up in value. Plus the galleries get cut bethel can raise their prices. Or wait resellers in five years if artists gets hot. If let other artists in who deserve to be looked at you'll have free market. The art industry is not free market
It seems like all the real wars are fought in grey areas.
Grey areas or simply by manipulating the perception-which is even more troublesome, as it is not about the truth being grey, but making changing it from black to white. Thank you for tuning in!