Subscribe in a reader
« It Isn’t That Images Fade, It’s That They Can Vanish |
| Just Posted »
"I love art. It is uplifting. If the choice is between buying another building or a Pollock, I'd go for the Pollock every time."
—artist Damien Hirst, whose personal fortune is estimated at $250 million
Posted on Thursday, 07 June 2007 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
..and a guy being able and willing to spend that amount lightly on any work of art wreaks havoc in the art market, I guess.
Thursday, 07 June 2007 at 01:33 PM
Havoc? Heck, that IS the art market.
As Hirst himself says in the same article, what else are the super-rich going to spend their money on?
Thursday, 07 June 2007 at 01:42 PM
Yes, a product that has no actual value but a subjective perception of its worth, and its price can be driven endlessly upwards actually causing an even better perception of the product in question is THE solution when there is nothing else to be bought.
Thursday, 07 June 2007 at 02:01 PM
the artist is making art of buying art! funny and ironic.
Boje Demanr |
Thursday, 07 June 2007 at 02:13 PM
Has any product got an actual value? People will only pay what they perceive a product is worth whether it be a car or a work of art.
Paul Amyes |
Friday, 08 June 2007 at 02:37 AM
Paul, I think there's a primary product definition, which is not subjective. The car as means of transport, devoid of all luxury or status dressings is one. A car that doesn't transport you doesn't qualify as a car, in my opinion (a classic or collection car is a completely different product). So the creator has to stick to some basic definition, otherwise the whole product loses focus. There is no such constraint in art. Mainly because it's not useful.
Friday, 08 June 2007 at 10:46 AM
"There is no such constraint in art. Mainly because it's not useful."
that's a strange, unfortunate conclusion
John DM |
Saturday, 09 June 2007 at 04:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.