[Billy Sport]

I've received a few emails from a gallery that will remain nameless, and I found these mails to be a bit strange, and not quite sitting right with me.

 The first issue I have is equating art as an alternative investment to stocks and shares, I know we all buy and sell, and hope to put us in a better position to buy bigger, more expensive pieces but to actually tie it into an investment strategy? strange.

The second issue is , is it not in the gallery's interest to promote the artist as widely as possible anyway? would not greater exposure lead to more sales/ higher prices/ more recognition?

maybe I am just a curmudgeonly old bloke who needs to find better things to do, but thought I would see what the view of the forum is? (artist, gallery and other names removed, but it wouldnt be difficult to find out the gallery).

Hi,

The stock market is a volatile place, even for experts. The problem with it is that it is so out of your personal control and in the hands of people with other intentions to your own. That's why we have come up with this way to invest in art that gives the investor control:

If you invest a substantial amount (minimum $50,000) in a suggested artists work we re-invest 20% of that on an expert PR and marketing campaign targeted towards increasing the profile and therefor value of the art you bought.

As an example, XXXX  has a new series being released in galleries around the world from May - July. This series is his most spectacular yet and will grab major international attention, but if you were to invest $250,000 in buying out the editions of the hottest works in this series, we would invest at least $50,000 in buying major advertising in the biggest art publications in the world and billboards in influential areas as well as a PR campaign directed towards making the images you bought become extremely famous.

In the art world fame is the major index to value. Already XXXX works increased 50% this year (See his international press here:) and he has a Harpers Collins coffee table book and feature film starring Oscar Nominated XXXXX coming out this year (not to mention a few other Top Secret other huge happenings.) But with a major promotional campaign on this latest series the works would dominate worldwide art attention and have an excellent chance of sky rocketing prices. The whole point is that here, unlike in the stock market, here you can have some control over what you invested in.

To find out about the new series, how we would carry out the campaign, and what we would do to use your investment to increase the value of it, please email

Yours sincerely,

[tartarus]

Nice. Welcome to hell!

[AFR1KA]

I think I know the artist...that is horrible.

[alexnh123]

this has art-world equivalent of the banking crisis written all over it. Artificially polishing turds, no thanks.

[Deleted]

Mar 6, 2013 14:41:07 GMT 1 alexnh123 said:

this has art-world equivalent of the banking crisis written all over it. Artificially polishing turds, no thanks.

Can't agree more.  Sounds just like it.

[nah]

Wow, I mean no doubt stuff relatively similar to this goes on behind the scenes quite often, but to be so brazen about it...

Like how there's very little talk about the actual art itself. Totally secondary to the price stats and gossip. Recipe for disaster.

[freakinstyle]

Agree, this is another higher end pyramid scheme. 'If you buy we make sure, through marketing, that others buy so your stuff goes up'. Until....

Besides this will limit a natural breakthrough of artists that might not have a big name or fancy art background, because with a strategy like this they at least need to start with a slightly significant artist to make it look realistic in terms of marketing.

[alexnh123]

This sort of practice, and artists who in my opinion slip through the net with artificial or unsubstantiated acclaim like MBW, will be the downfall of this movement.

[alittle]

Disgusting...

[Nuno]

Bambi??

[tartarus]

Mar 6, 2013 21:13:17 GMT 1 Nuno said:

Bambi??

Thought the exact same thing!!!

[Dr Plip]

I think I know the artist as well. It's all a bit sad really, but it only confirms what most of us already know anyway. You can manufacture anything if you have enough money. And fame can come before talent.

You can't polish a turd, but you can certainly put some glitter on it.

Edit: (Oh, and I am not saying that this artist isn't talented)

[Dr Plip]

Mar 6, 2013 21:28:47 GMT 1 tartarus said:

Mar 6, 2013 21:13:17 GMT 1 Nuno said:

Bambi??

Thought the exact same thing!!!

Bambi is a lady. And besides, if it was Bambi, she'd have leaked the fact that we're talking about her to the Daily Star, then thanked the Daily Star for featuring her and reTweeted it to her followers on Twitter.

I think it's Patrick (Moustache Man) Waldo

Just kidding. It isn't.

[Dr Plip]

I'm -1ing myself for mentioning Bambi on here.

[tartarus]

Ah yeah, thats a good point. Does kinda exclude her i guess!

[loucastel]

Mar 6, 2013 21:36:50 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

I think I know the artist as well. It's all a bit sad really, but it only confirms what most of us already know anyway. You can manufacture anything if you have enough money. And fame can come before talent.

You can't polish a turd, but you can certainly put some glitter on it.

Edit: (Oh, and I am not saying that this artist isn't talented)

Not if POW has got anything to do with it!

[mmmike]

MBW and Exit through the gift shop provided the road map. I'm pretty sure if I worked at it I could also become a successful fraud of an artist.



This is just the latest attempt at a pyramid scheme (with or without glitter)



I suspect in 10 years time (or a lot sooner) everyone on this forum will have a greater appreciation of Banksy's Morons.

[vince11]

It actually sounds like those spam emails you get about some african billionnaire who has diamonds to give you in exchange of your credit card details

[alexnh123]

Leonard Villa galler ?

[balibob]

Cartrain...oooh sorry, they did say talanted. ;D

[brookesjoe]

So who?

Toughen up!

[anodyne13]

I would not want to be associated with these pepole. First of all this is not an investment, it is pure speculation with a disturbing marketing scheme.

It may work and it may ultimately not work, but I find that whatever the situation is, "investing" with people of questionable character is a losing proposition, even if you make some money initially.

[Wearology]

Mar 6, 2013 21:36:50 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

I think I know the artist as well. It's all a bit sad really, but it only confirms what most of us already know anyway. You can manufacture anything if you have enough money. And fame can come before talent.

You can't polish a turd, but you can certainly put some glitter on it.

Edit: (Oh, and I am not saying that this artist isn't talented)

What type of glitter?

Is it the type of glitter than takes almost 2 years to figure out how it can stick to paper?

[Wearology]

After reading this thread over again this morning I am completely disgusted. Art is just like fashion there is just so much that can be manipulated by PR firms, advertising agencies and celebrity endorsements but eventually people have to buy and wear the clothes once they arrive in the store.

[alexnh123]

this is the very sad state of some parts of the artwold today (cue Mr carwash brain train). There are a lot of artists and galleries letting the side down. To a certain extent street artists were always stowaways on the good ship contemporary artworld, some hid well and joined the crew without getting sussed, whilst others are getting found and will be thrown overboard before too long. I just hope these guys don't drag the decent artists down with them, or worse still sink the ship for everyone.

[met]

Mar 6, 2013 14:00:54 GMT 1 Billy Sport said:

I've received a few emails from a gallery that will remain nameless, and I found these mails to be a bit strange, and not quite sitting right with me.

 The first issue I have is equating art as an alternative investment to stocks and shares, I know we all buy and sell, and hope to put us in a better position to buy bigger, more expensive pieces but to actually tie it into an investment strategy? strange.

The second issue is , is it not in the gallery's interest to promote the artist as widely as possible anyway? would not greater exposure lead to more sales/ higher prices/ more recognition?

maybe I am just a curmudgeonly old bloke who needs to find better things to do, but thought I would see what the view of the forum is? (artist, gallery and other names removed, but it wouldnt be difficult to find out the gallery).

Hi,

The stock market is a volatile place, even for experts. The problem with it is that it is so out of your personal control and in the hands of people with other intentions to your own. That's why we have come up with this way to invest in art that gives the investor control:

If you invest a substantial amount (minimum $50,000) in a suggested artists work we re-invest 20% of that on an expert PR and marketing campaign targeted towards increasing the profile and therefor value of the art you bought.

As an example, XXXX  has a new series being released in galleries around the world from May - July. This series is his most spectacular yet and will grab major international attention, but if you were to invest $250,000 in buying out the editions of the hottest works in this series, we would invest at least $50,000 in buying major advertising in the biggest art publications in the world and billboards in influential areas as well as a PR campaign directed towards making the images you bought become extremely famous.

In the art world fame is the major index to value. Already XXXX works increased 50% this year (See his international press here:) and he has a Harpers Collins coffee table book and feature film starring Oscar Nominated XXXXX coming out this year (not to mention a few other Top Secret other huge happenings.) But with a major promotional campaign on this latest series the works would dominate worldwide art attention and have an excellent chance of sky rocketing prices. The whole point is that here, unlike in the stock market, here you can have some control over what you invested in.

To find out about the new series, how we would carry out the campaign, and what we would do to use your investment to increase the value of it, please email

Yours sincerely,

Is this a genuine post or a wind-up?  

If genuine, why the coyness about identifying the gallery and artist?

By "it wouldn't be difficult to find out the gallery", could you clarify the simple route to finding out?  Is there a specific Google search term?  

HarperCollins certainly isn't known for art books, and nor does the company currently list an art book that could apply in the 'New Releases' or 'Upcoming Books' sections of its .com website.  By "he has a ... feature film starring Oscar Nominated XXXXX coming out this year", does this mean the relevant artist also works as a film director or producer?

The motivation behind only a partial disclosure of information in this post seems odd.  Presumably, it would be in the wider interest if the gallery and artist were named.

[curiousgeorge]

Mar 14, 2013 13:39:19 GMT 1 met said:

Mar 6, 2013 14:00:54 GMT 1 Billy Sport said:

I've received a few emails from a gallery that will remain nameless, and I found these mails to be a bit strange, and not quite sitting right with me.

 The first issue I have is equating art as an alternative investment to stocks and shares, I know we all buy and sell, and hope to put us in a better position to buy bigger, more expensive pieces but to actually tie it into an investment strategy? strange.

The second issue is , is it not in the gallery's interest to promote the artist as widely as possible anyway? would not greater exposure lead to more sales/ higher prices/ more recognition?

maybe I am just a curmudgeonly old bloke who needs to find better things to do, but thought I would see what the view of the forum is? (artist, gallery and other names removed, but it wouldnt be difficult to find out the gallery).

Hi,

The stock market is a volatile place, even for experts. The problem with it is that it is so out of your personal control and in the hands of people with other intentions to your own. That's why we have come up with this way to invest in art that gives the investor control:

If you invest a substantial amount (minimum $50,000) in a suggested artists work we re-invest 20% of that on an expert PR and marketing campaign targeted towards increasing the profile and therefor value of the art you bought.

As an example, XXXX  has a new series being released in galleries around the world from May - July. This series is his most spectacular yet and will grab major international attention, but if you were to invest $250,000 in buying out the editions of the hottest works in this series, we would invest at least $50,000 in buying major advertising in the biggest art publications in the world and billboards in influential areas as well as a PR campaign directed towards making the images you bought become extremely famous.

In the art world fame is the major index to value. Already XXXX works increased 50% this year (See his international press here:) and he has a Harpers Collins coffee table book and feature film starring Oscar Nominated XXXXX coming out this year (not to mention a few other Top Secret other huge happenings.) But with a major promotional campaign on this latest series the works would dominate worldwide art attention and have an excellent chance of sky rocketing prices. The whole point is that here, unlike in the stock market, here you can have some control over what you invested in.

To find out about the new series, how we would carry out the campaign, and what we would do to use your investment to increase the value of it, please email

Yours sincerely,

Is this a genuine post or a wind-up?  

If genuine, why the coyness about identifying the gallery and artist?

By "it wouldn't be difficult to find out the gallery", could you clarify the simple route to finding out?  Is there a specific Google search term?  

HarperCollins certainly isn't known for art books, and nor does the company currently list an art book that could apply in the 'New Releases' or 'Upcoming Books' sections of its .com website.  By "he has a ... feature film starring Oscar Nominated XXXXX coming out this year", does this mean the relevant artist also works as a film director or producer?

The motivation behind only a partial disclosure of information in this post seems odd.  Presumably, it would be in the wider interest if the gallery and artist were named.


Says the member with a username alluding to be from the Met police...

[Happy Shopper]

*cough*CharmingBaker*cough*

...IMO

[vei]

Reads like the art worlds version of a boiler room scam to me!!!

[Billy Sport]

no wind up, I am sure other people received this dross. I actually have named the gallery. In the first line..

just wonder why in the wider interest it pays to name? I didnt want to give any additional promotion to them, as they probably operate under "there's no such thing as bad press".


"The motivation behind only a partial disclosure of information in this post seems odd. Presumably, it would be in the wider interest if the gallery and artist were named."



the only thing to me that seems odd is someone would create a conspiracy where there is none, so shall we imply you are from said named gallery trying to promote yourself?