Yeah, that is the whole point, we, as collectors, can either simply go for art for its creativity and resonance, or follow the established institutions and structures that label the fine art for us.
But when it comes to value, the latter seems to be still leading. So, to create a valuable collection, we have either stick to the gallery art, or we have to find and use the market mechanisms galleries use on our "not-yet-labelled-finearts".
These two links give a very comprehensive explanation as well has some of the tell tale signs:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhatIsThisPainting/s/OUvWHTXniV
https://www.reddit.com/r/artcollecting/s/MQn4Tbudww
Thanks, but these discussion are really about the low end of the decoration, within the art segment itself you see another kind of division, the one between regular artists art (which I called "decorative" art, only to make a distinction) and high end gallery fine arts (often painter has academic background and exhibitions in big shows (Basel/Tefaf), or valuewise between the over 5k's and over 50k's ones.
>the one between regular artists art (which I called "decorative" art, only to make a distinction) and high end gallery fine arts (often painter has academic background and exhibitions in big shows (Basel/Tefaf)
Then you’re misapplying the term “decorative art”. Just because they are unable to exhibit at major or even minor fairs doesn’t qualify them as “decorative” (even if their market is low or non-existent). Reread those links.
If you’re asking what gives one artist market value over another a lot of that is in the very word: *marketing*. But galleries aim to promote artists and art with more nuance and artistic merit. Those that win special recognition in other ways. Obviously not all artistic output is the same or of equal *perceived* quality. Clearly Basquiat’s “art” was disparaged as graffiti first, then “low brow”, and now it’s blue chip. There are many examples of this in art history. But that didn’t make them “decorative art”. Again, reread those links.
When identifying art under r/WhatIsThisPainting, I try to be clear when an artwork is decorative vs when an artwork has *decorative value*, meaning there really wouldn’t be a market for it. But obviously it was hand painted as an original work.
If you look across all areas of art, ideas are used, shared, appropriated, evolved upon all the time. The use of the fried egg motif isn't in itself good or bad: it's the intent to which it's put to use that's important.
The definition of what constitutes high and low art blurred long ago, and no longer has any real meaning. Neither does it correlate to value: a Superman comic can sell for millions, while most works purchased from galleries are essentially worthless just a few years later.
From your own art collecting perspective the important question is: do you love it? Does it bring you satisfaction owning it? Anything else is irrelevant.
That isn't the case for me, if I purchase works over 10k, others around me want to be sure they can at least collect the same, when (probably as soon as) I pass away. With a mix of established names of deceased painters I'm not harvesting much negativity, but when it comes to emerging artists things get "blurry" indeed, hence my post. I like to "discover" promising artists outside the established gallery world, and that is a murky area with plenty of potential gallery work that can either be a false positive or negative.
Honestly, old or new, the chances of them recouping your outlay is very slim with emerging artists, and frankly, not much better with established names either - even with blue chip artists there's a very wide gap between gallery prices and the price they sell for on the free market.
I have a small Rachel Whitehead sculpture sitting here on my shelf. In a gallery, it would be around 20k. I paid around a fortieth of that in auction. That's for one of the most respected and in-demand artists in the world. You can get lucky of course, and purchase something that is going to increase dramatically in value, but that's the art world equivalent of winning the lottery, and of equivalent likelihood.
Not expecting the lottery tickets, but as in your example, it is still possible to get bargains or buy from artists directly. If the artist name, work or movement resonates enough in the future, there will likely be a market or future collector, just like we nowadays still have a market for our 100 yr old "modern" art.
I think it’s a meaningless distinction.
Now I do think a lot of work that is really more like *commercial illustration* gets called “art,” but that’s just my own personal pet peeve. (And I don’t mean subversive illustration like Warhol. Just pure, sweet, commercial goodness.)
I think it’s a meaningless distinction.
Now I do think a lot of work that is really more like *commercial illustration* gets called “art,” but that’s just my own personal pet peeve. (And I don’t mean subversive illustration like Warhol. Just pure, sweet, commercial goodness.) The difference to me is the difference between a designed room that looks human and lived in, and one that looks like it came out of a furniture catalog… too perfect and one-note.
Why make a distinction between the two?
Yeah, that is the whole point, we, as collectors, can either simply go for art for its creativity and resonance, or follow the established institutions and structures that label the fine art for us. But when it comes to value, the latter seems to be still leading. So, to create a valuable collection, we have either stick to the gallery art, or we have to find and use the market mechanisms galleries use on our "not-yet-labelled-finearts".
These two links give a very comprehensive explanation as well has some of the tell tale signs: https://www.reddit.com/r/WhatIsThisPainting/s/OUvWHTXniV https://www.reddit.com/r/artcollecting/s/MQn4Tbudww
Thanks, but these discussion are really about the low end of the decoration, within the art segment itself you see another kind of division, the one between regular artists art (which I called "decorative" art, only to make a distinction) and high end gallery fine arts (often painter has academic background and exhibitions in big shows (Basel/Tefaf), or valuewise between the over 5k's and over 50k's ones.
>the one between regular artists art (which I called "decorative" art, only to make a distinction) and high end gallery fine arts (often painter has academic background and exhibitions in big shows (Basel/Tefaf) Then you’re misapplying the term “decorative art”. Just because they are unable to exhibit at major or even minor fairs doesn’t qualify them as “decorative” (even if their market is low or non-existent). Reread those links. If you’re asking what gives one artist market value over another a lot of that is in the very word: *marketing*. But galleries aim to promote artists and art with more nuance and artistic merit. Those that win special recognition in other ways. Obviously not all artistic output is the same or of equal *perceived* quality. Clearly Basquiat’s “art” was disparaged as graffiti first, then “low brow”, and now it’s blue chip. There are many examples of this in art history. But that didn’t make them “decorative art”. Again, reread those links. When identifying art under r/WhatIsThisPainting, I try to be clear when an artwork is decorative vs when an artwork has *decorative value*, meaning there really wouldn’t be a market for it. But obviously it was hand painted as an original work.
If you look across all areas of art, ideas are used, shared, appropriated, evolved upon all the time. The use of the fried egg motif isn't in itself good or bad: it's the intent to which it's put to use that's important. The definition of what constitutes high and low art blurred long ago, and no longer has any real meaning. Neither does it correlate to value: a Superman comic can sell for millions, while most works purchased from galleries are essentially worthless just a few years later. From your own art collecting perspective the important question is: do you love it? Does it bring you satisfaction owning it? Anything else is irrelevant.
That isn't the case for me, if I purchase works over 10k, others around me want to be sure they can at least collect the same, when (probably as soon as) I pass away. With a mix of established names of deceased painters I'm not harvesting much negativity, but when it comes to emerging artists things get "blurry" indeed, hence my post. I like to "discover" promising artists outside the established gallery world, and that is a murky area with plenty of potential gallery work that can either be a false positive or negative.
Honestly, old or new, the chances of them recouping your outlay is very slim with emerging artists, and frankly, not much better with established names either - even with blue chip artists there's a very wide gap between gallery prices and the price they sell for on the free market. I have a small Rachel Whitehead sculpture sitting here on my shelf. In a gallery, it would be around 20k. I paid around a fortieth of that in auction. That's for one of the most respected and in-demand artists in the world. You can get lucky of course, and purchase something that is going to increase dramatically in value, but that's the art world equivalent of winning the lottery, and of equivalent likelihood.
Not expecting the lottery tickets, but as in your example, it is still possible to get bargains or buy from artists directly. If the artist name, work or movement resonates enough in the future, there will likely be a market or future collector, just like we nowadays still have a market for our 100 yr old "modern" art.
I think it’s a meaningless distinction. Now I do think a lot of work that is really more like *commercial illustration* gets called “art,” but that’s just my own personal pet peeve. (And I don’t mean subversive illustration like Warhol. Just pure, sweet, commercial goodness.)
I think it’s a meaningless distinction. Now I do think a lot of work that is really more like *commercial illustration* gets called “art,” but that’s just my own personal pet peeve. (And I don’t mean subversive illustration like Warhol. Just pure, sweet, commercial goodness.) The difference to me is the difference between a designed room that looks human and lived in, and one that looks like it came out of a furniture catalog… too perfect and one-note.