Art is 100% marketing. This sold for $33,000 at Frieze over the weekend.
I included two pictures because it’s horribly difficult to photograph art with a digital camera (even a good one) and get the resulting photo to look semi-close to the reality.
I did the first photo with my Canon G16 and Photoshopped it to make it look brighter. The second photograph comes from a PDF which the artist’s agent sent me by email.
This is the description:
It’s not an original.The artist makes new ones from a stencil. She puts the colors in by hand, so not all look exactly alike, especially when examined closely.
Susan forbade me from spending $33,000 on it, though I did like it and the agent was willing to throw in the framing for free.
Why did someone else pay $33,000? I’m guessing:
+ They liked it. I actually did too. It was my favorite piece among the several hundred I saw yesterday during our visit to the Frieze Art Fair on Randall’s Island, New York. You have to like what you own. It may sit on your wall for years before the time will be ripe to sell it for millions.
+ You have to believe that someone will promote Lucy McKenzie to a point where she’s as known as Andy Warhol or Pablo Picasso. At that point, everyone will love their works and be prepared to pay up, making your piece worth millions and your IRR astronomical. Lucy is only 37 so she has some time to go before joining Warhol and Picasso. A long wait.
+ Somebody actually believed that something is worth what they paid for it.
The little art we own we bought because we liked it and were happy to live with it. I was also impressed with the artist. They seemed to understand the value of self-promotion. Or were about to die. (One did.)
I have some friends who dabble in contemporary art — what modern art is now called. They all spend a lot of time visiting museums and galleries and learning what’s hot. They learn an artist and whether this or that piece is a “bargain.”
This photograph went for $20,000.
This painting went for $28.000.
This sculpture went for $165,000. (I don’t make these numbers up.)
The painting went for $38,000.
I asked one of the gallery owners why the prices were “so high.” She said the rent on her booth at Frieze was very pricey.
And so, I might add, was lunch for Susan and myself:
$45.
I didn’t buy anything at Frieze yesterday (except lunch). But I did come away with a renewed enthusiasm for taking “artsy” pictures. Especially of the kids and Eleanor, our first grandchild. What else is there?
Harry Newton whose FMILX bounced nicely yesterday. Seems to be a nice, cheap fund if you want exposure to large cap — which everyone should have as part of their portfolio.
There are risks, of course, to buying expensive art. My now ex, using my hard earned money of course, bought a painting for the house I also bought her on the beach in Rhode Island. The “rare” painting cost $33,500 from a gallery in Newport, RI. After the divorce she didn’t want to keep it, so ultimately I got hold of the painting and had it professionally appraised. Value today: $3,000 give or take a buck. So as they say, why are divorces so expensive? Because they’re worth it.
My great Aunt was an accomplished artist in “miniatures”, which were used for pins, brooches, tie tacks, etc. I wonder who I would contact to market her jewelry? What do you think of these? I hope the picture uploads.
I have no idea. But I’m sure if you spend time Googling you’ll find the best dealer in the country in these beautiful things.
20K for a photo makes sense, but $45 dollars for fish bait is just nuts.
The best piece of art was that of your lunch…I approve of everything except the Coke…mineral water or wine would have been better for you. Afraid my taste in art runs more toward Monet or realistic pieces that I can recognize.I guess you could say my taste is more “in my mouth”. It is difficult to believe people would pay so much for contemporary art when there is so much beautiful art available, for so much less.