|
Post by marcusslo on Aug 17, 2008 16:46:48 GMT -8
How is art valued from different time periods? Take Audrey Kawasaki for example. If you are comparing a painting of hers from early in her career with one from a recent show... and let's say the size of the paintings are the same. Would you think buyers would pay a comparable amount for the older work? What are your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by masao626 on Aug 17, 2008 16:58:54 GMT -8
i rarely join in on these sophisticated art conversations because i have 0 art education and am an 'emotional' collector above all else (it's interesting to read where an artist gets their inspiration from and such, but i could truly care less).
but to answer the question, i think some (maybe a lot) of it depends upon how the artist has developed over time. has their work become more complex? do they have a better command of their mediums?
i was looking over Sas' work today and in all honesty, her older work was...well. it doesn't hold a candle to her work today. i can't imagine it commanding the same price as her newer work if it came up for sale.
i have amy sol pieces from 2005 and the richness of color is not there. they are more washes and stains then strong, defined colors. i ADORE it but it's so different from where she is now...i again can't imagine the pricing being comparable to what she commands now for a similar sized piece.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Aug 17, 2008 20:15:25 GMT -8
I think that older pieces don't command the same prices as newer pieces in general because artists tend to improve as they get more experienced. And the vast majority of fans are familiar with the newer work as time goes on. The exception would probably be that if an artist got very famous, then the older pieces might have a "historical" value added onto it...kinda like an antique hehe. For example, I was able to purchase this "older" stella piece on ebay for a fraction of the price of her newer work probably because most people don't like her older style. But because i have so much of her work already, to me, this painting had value because of it's "historical" nature. I doubt it will ever be worth as much as her new stuff unless she gets super famous...but I like it.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Aug 17, 2008 21:53:13 GMT -8
I do think the older works of any artist will command a lot of money, if they are an iconic piece from the artist. Maybe its the first work that featured certain reoccurring elements of the artist, or featured a character of the artists for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by mokaneshu on Aug 17, 2008 23:17:18 GMT -8
i rarely join in on these sophisticated art conversations because i have 0 art education and am an 'emotional' collector above all else (it's interesting to read where an artist gets their inspiration from and such, but i could truly care less). *clap* I'm pretty much in the same boat here, I don't really have any background with art besides knowing certain styles or artists that I typically like. But I figure I might as well state the things that I feel I have noticed in my short time collecting. First of all, there are so many variables in this, that I say all of this knowing that there are so many other situations out there that I probably have not thought of yet, that I'm sure I will agree with too. Anyways, I do see that historical value on certain artists could make some of their older works more valueble to some collectors. As sleepboy said, he has a lot of stella work so the old piece of hers that he picked up on ebay has more value to him from a historical point of view. Also artist do grow. If they didn't then their fan base would probably reach an early plateau and level off, old fans would grow tired and not keep buying the same pieces and new collectors would start and probably feel the same way after long enough. I mean, if an artist keeps recycling the same ideas and doesn't improve on his techniques, then collectors would see the 800th piece they put out and see that it's just like all the others and say, "well... I don't need another one that looks just like the one that I do have so I'll pass." Styles change, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse in some collectors eyes. The best example I can think of from recently is stella's new canvas work. When the previews from that came out there was a lot of gripes from people who really liked her tea stained work a lot more than her canvas stuff. (their opinions may have changed when they saw the final finished work in person though) but it was a style change. I don't know if this will happen or not, but because of that style change it may perhaps make her older works more valuable since she seems to be moving away from it and trying different things and there's just not enough of her old stuff to go around to everyone. Another situation that could make an artists older work more valuable is what the current market gets into. As an example of this (possibly a very poor example) I'll use street art. many people see this as becoming a lot more popular these days. well, because of this, I'll pick greg simkins older street art that he used to do. if street art blows up in an extreme way, I could easily see his older street art becoming worth a lot more. I'm not saying that it will surpass his now current work, but I could see it's net value increasing more percentage wise than his new work that starts off high and grows less. I don't believe that the question was intended to be aimed at percentage of value growth but I feel that it's a topic that's closely related. There's so many variables in this that it's really hard to say what does or does not happen and what the direct cause is. But I think the one thing that most can agree on, is that if the artist becomes face meltingly famous.... like, to the point where say the pope recognizes them and wants them to do his portrait, then their older work will become worth more from the historical standpoint, and it will probably be on par with whatever more current work they have just because... cause it's the pope and that instantly has a fan base of a bajillion people (which I wikipedia'd to make sure I had an accurate number). let me know if you think differently and why. I'm sure I haven't thought of reasons why I'd be wrong yet, but I'll be the first to say, "you're right, I didn't think of that before." and then completely change my mind from what I have just posted.
|
|