|
|
Post by theoryone on Jan 19, 2010 22:38:18 GMT -8
i was pondering on my way to work how many people on the board have been able to get work by a fairly unknown artist, only to see that artist blow up .. it always intrigues me and i always wonder how on earth to spot a up and coming artist, or do you just buy according to personal taste and see if anything happens..
has anyone had such an experience ?
|
|
|
|
Post by gilsteph on Jan 20, 2010 2:41:44 GMT -8
Its luck!
For me the secret is when it does happen to decide at what price you are willing to sell the piece for!!!! Its easy to be greedy......
I bought and then sold a Nick Walker original, very limited Bansky print and Micallef 21st Century Love print. All amazing things but this paid for a lot of my current collection!
Best advice is buy what you like and you cant go wrong.
(although Peter Blake seems to be alot of peoples "investment" choice in the UK)
|
|
|
|
Post by amin on Jan 20, 2010 4:19:49 GMT -8
luck is very much the case...some people have an eye for it but, I leave that to the galleries to figure out  |
|
|
|
Post by rhinomilk on Jan 20, 2010 7:46:23 GMT -8
any examples of what you're referring to?
can't really count reselling a banksy print as an example.
I think you should just buy what you like and be careful you're not buying just because of hype because you might get burned... and hopefully you hit a few gems to fund other things. I think the days of hitting F5 to get prints to flip for 10x what you paid are over.
|
|
|
|
Post by epicfai on Jan 20, 2010 8:52:47 GMT -8
I think the days of hitting F5 to get prints to flip for 10x what you paid are over. I sure hope so. |
|
|
|
Post by gilsteph on Jan 20, 2010 11:00:39 GMT -8
Hi Rhino.....I bought all three pieces before any of the hype (or interest!) over the artists.
The Bansky was the Wrong War box set, which I got pretty much when it came out.
So I was lucky that all of the artists values went up. But I did buy what I liked. The hardest thing for me was knowing when the sell. But I sold the Walker through Bonhams, the Bansky through ebay and the Micallef privately. In total I made about $30k.
I used this money to buy more art I liked. None of these artists have gone up the same way but Im still glad I sold because I enjoy the search as much as anything. Also its good to refresh the wall.
Part of me thinks about selling everything and starting again.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhinomilk on Jan 20, 2010 11:12:16 GMT -8
Hi Rhino.....I bought all three pieces before any of the hype (or interest!) over the artists. The Bansky was the Wrong War box set, which I got pretty much when it came out. So I was lucky that all of the artists values went up. But I did buy what I liked. The hardest thing for me was knowing when the sell. But I sold the Walker through Bonhams, the Bansky through ebay and the Micallef privately. In total I made about $30k. I used this money to buy more art I liked. None of these artists have gone up the same way but Im still glad I sold because I enjoy the search as much as anything. Also its good to refresh the wall. Part of me thinks about selling everything and starting again. ah.. ok, great story! also sounds like you sold them at a good time too. I agree.. the hardest part is knowing when to sell (and getting yourself to part with stuff)... I was going to sell off my Faile at a very opportune time in order to fund a fairly pricey painting, but I couldn't get myself to sell it off so I wound up keeping everything and got deeper into debt (but at least i still love everything I have... just don't have the room to display it all) |
|
|
|
Post by steveinca on Jan 20, 2010 11:47:03 GMT -8
Is it just me or does it seem as though for the most part ridiculous and quick price hikes are mostly associated with the street/graf artists? Sure a lot of artists' work rises in price, but i don't really see the same price hike in lowbrow artists' work as i do in street artists' work. Is this a wrong assumption on my part? Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by rhinomilk on Jan 20, 2010 12:22:48 GMT -8
Is it just me or does it seem as though for the most part ridiculous and quick price hikes are mostly associated with the street/graf artists? Sure a lot of artists' work rises in price, but i don't really see the same price hike in lowbrow artists' work as i do in street artists' work. Is this a wrong assumption on my part? Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by gilsteph on Jan 20, 2010 12:31:44 GMT -8
I agree Steve......Im hoping to buy at all back for the price i originally paid for it in a couple of years  |
|
|
|
Post by steveinca on Jan 20, 2010 13:10:14 GMT -8
Is it just me or does it seem as though for the most part ridiculous and quick price hikes are mostly associated with the street/graf artists? Sure a lot of artists' work rises in price, but i don't really see the same price hike in lowbrow artists' work as i do in street artists' work. Is this a wrong assumption on my part? Thoughts? Great read, rhino....thanks for the link. I agree Steve......Im hoping to buy at all back for the price i originally paid for it in a couple of years I've always liked Micallef, some of Faile's stuff. I like Banksy, but i think the main reason behind liking his work is the incredible demand for it. Having just scored my first signed piece last Christmas, i'm looking to add to it. I really do think that he is one of the "surest" bets in the volatile world of contemporary art collecting. Then again, what do i know. |
|
|
|
Post by theoryone on Jan 20, 2010 23:09:27 GMT -8
yeah i agree about the street artists whos work doubles in prices overnight ..
Maybe because street art reaches a wider market and it often spread virally, through sites like wooster collective. I think street art has a cool factor. Writing or painting a huge wall ( heracut style / banksy / etc ) or a stop frame animation ( blu ) is a lot more attractive and engaging to a lot of people. most people couldnt be bother to search galleries and gallery sites or seek out artists they like.. I think its a symptom of our "lazy" society. And ultimately talented artists suffer..
my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Jan 21, 2010 1:17:52 GMT -8
ultimately talented artists suffer.. my 2 cents I can't agree more. It's amazing how many times I see hype win out over talent. Artists that have truly worked on their craft and brought themselves to higher levels of skill will do worse in shows than artists with just the right amount of hype, and push from galleries. This is why I feel it is very important for those writing about art, blogs and critics alike, to be knowledgeable of not only art history but the creation of art. Often, I think people judge art with the "can I do this" attitude. When you get someone with little education in art history, and little idea of what it takes to create art the bar is low. So artists that could very well do with a few more years of practice are pushed out there prematurely. This was not so common with the classical artists. Imagine feeling you could "do" what "Bouguereau" or what "Rembrandt" could "do". In short, the artists with intense skill should be celebrated, and exposed far more. I think you would then be able to see then that a fairly unknown artist, with a high level of skill would surely get higher and higher and snag a work of art before they do. As opposed to now, where you see highly skilled artists do ok, and see shows of mediocre to above average skilled and idea based artists sell out shows. |
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jan 21, 2010 9:14:42 GMT -8
ultimately talented artists suffer.. my 2 cents I can't agree more. It's amazing how many times I see hype win out over talent. Artists that have truly worked on their craft and brought themselves to higher levels of skill will do worse in shows than artists with just the right amount of hype, and push from galleries. This is why I feel it is very important for those writing about art, blogs and critics alike, to be knowledgeable of not only art history but the creation of art. Often, I think people judge art with the "can I do this" attitude. When you get someone with little education in art history, and little idea of what it takes to create art the bar is low. So artists that could very well do with a few more years of practice are pushed out there prematurely. This was not so common with the classical artists. Imagine feeling you could "do" what "Bouguereau" or what "Rembrandt" could "do". In short, the artists with intense skill should be celebrated, and exposed far more. I think you be able to see then that a fairly unknown artist, with this level of skill would surely get higher and higher and snag a work of art before they do. As opposed to now, where you see highly skilled artists do ok, and see shows of mediocre to above average skilled and idea based artists sell out shows. Couldn't have said it better myself.... |
|
