How is art maintaining its value over time? If, as we assume, new artists boasting considerable talent, conceiving of fine work and applying innovative concepts emerge – perhaps in great clusters – how will the prices of “older” art respond? Will these prices flood the market and lessen the value of art in general or not? How deep are the pockets of this consumer base? Will there continue to be a buyer willing to pay six figures and more for what is, essentially, a useless ornament? I, personally, like the idea of Galenson using statistics to reason how age might correspond with the prices of art. Just as Billy Beane uses stats to build a highly successful baseball franchise, Galenson uses statistics to determine the prices of great masterpieces. Some ask how one can quantify art (the way someone can baseball statistics). However, I believe the art itself and economic aspects of it are two completely different parts.
Just as there are two buyers, one who buys simply to invest and another who appreciates the aesthetics of the piece – are two different lenses through which we can view art. One is aesthetic analysis, and the other is art’s place in an individual’s financial plan, as well as the economy as a whole. It’s bewildering to me how much people spend on art. However it seems a worthwhile investment for some assuming prices continue to rise as they have, and there’s more demand for spectacular old than there is supply.
-Matt Shapiro
No comments:
Post a Comment