Quinnster
Junior Member
Posts • 3,624
Likes • 2,768
January 2006
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Quinnster on Aug 12, 2015 22:33:19 GMT 1, If you want an investment ask your bank manager...
The best one is the one you will enjoy...
If you want an investment ask your bank manager...
The best one is the one you will enjoy...
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts • 2,380
Likes • 2,371
April 2015
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by coller on Aug 12, 2015 22:35:09 GMT 1, I'll be the first to say "not Kaws" and leave it at that.
I'll be the first to say "not Kaws" and leave it at that.
|
|
pippyt75
Junior Member
Posts • 1,008
Likes • 1,261
March 2015
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by pippyt75 on Aug 12, 2015 22:43:51 GMT 1, Depressing question. Really should be whatever you want on your wall. But banksy or Warhol if you can stretch to it
Depressing question. Really should be whatever you want on your wall. But banksy or Warhol if you can stretch to it
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 22:49:13 GMT 1, None of the above.
Take the $8k and spend it on books(used, get more bang for the buck), MoMA online courses(http://www.moma.org/learn/courses/online), museum memberships, and gas/plane tickets to visit galleries and museums around the world.
Best investment possible, because you'll have invested in yourself. Knowledge and experience tend to pay the greatest dividends.
None of the above.
Take the $8k and spend it on books(used, get more bang for the buck), MoMA online courses(http://www.moma.org/learn/courses/online), museum memberships, and gas/plane tickets to visit galleries and museums around the world.
Best investment possible, because you'll have invested in yourself. Knowledge and experience tend to pay the greatest dividends.
|
|
A.R.T.
New Member
Posts • 630
Likes • 258
July 2007
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by A.R.T. on Aug 12, 2015 23:08:40 GMT 1, I think Koons has topped out.
I think Koons has topped out.
|
|
Black Apple Art
Art Gallery
Junior Member
Posts • 2,007
Likes • 3,970
September 2013
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Black Apple Art on Aug 12, 2015 23:28:57 GMT 1, I think the question was best investment for best monetary return. If I am correct in this interpretation, then it's a pretty easy one with Banksy far out in front, based on recent and projected year over year appreciation. For him I believe this is just the beginning and possibly another significant boost coming again very soon.
I think the question was best investment for best monetary return. If I am correct in this interpretation, then it's a pretty easy one with Banksy far out in front, based on recent and projected year over year appreciation. For him I believe this is just the beginning and possibly another significant boost coming again very soon.
|
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Howard Johnson on Aug 13, 2015 0:09:24 GMT 1, I'll bite as I have pieces by all three of these artists. IMO, for the money I'd take Banksy no questions asked, with Koons at a close second. I know a lot of people aren't a fan of his art but I quite enjoy the one Koons piece I have (even though I initially bought it only as an investment), not to mention the balloon dog is probably the most iconic sculptural work of our generation. In terms of longevity in the market, I think Kaws has a very interesting trajectory. There's no doubt that he has a massive celebrity following, but at the same time its easy to see the popularity of his work as more of a fad. Personally, I love his stuff and see him more as a Keith haring figure in that his work will always have appeal if not the same value as say a Wahol (to whom I'd compare Banksy).
I'll bite as I have pieces by all three of these artists. IMO, for the money I'd take Banksy no questions asked, with Koons at a close second. I know a lot of people aren't a fan of his art but I quite enjoy the one Koons piece I have (even though I initially bought it only as an investment), not to mention the balloon dog is probably the most iconic sculptural work of our generation. In terms of longevity in the market, I think Kaws has a very interesting trajectory. There's no doubt that he has a massive celebrity following, but at the same time its easy to see the popularity of his work as more of a fad. Personally, I love his stuff and see him more as a Keith haring figure in that his work will always have appeal if not the same value as say a Wahol (to whom I'd compare Banksy).
|
|
South Bound
Junior Member
Posts • 1,483
Likes • 1,125
May 2014
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by South Bound on Aug 13, 2015 0:22:47 GMT 1, Buy stock in Google.
Buy stock in Google.
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts • 2,380
Likes • 2,371
April 2015
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by coller on Aug 13, 2015 0:27:30 GMT 1, Don't you mean Alphabet?
Don't you mean Alphabet?
|
|
holden
New Member
Posts • 541
Likes • 29
July 2008
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by holden on Aug 13, 2015 2:43:56 GMT 1, Don't you mean Alphabet? Don't you mean BMW?
Don't you mean Alphabet? Don't you mean BMW?
|
|
Inknart
Junior Member
Posts • 3,486
Likes • 3,288
April 2015
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Inknart on Aug 13, 2015 3:39:16 GMT 1, With all this Banksy talk, it would sure probably be a mighty sound investment before the 21st rolls around…
With all this Banksy talk, it would sure probably be a mighty sound investment before the 21st rolls around…
|
|
Unica
Junior Member
Posts • 2,058
Likes • 1,220
November 2013
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Unica on Aug 13, 2015 4:22:28 GMT 1, If you want an investment ask your bank manager... The best one is the one you will enjoy... The question was little more specific than how to invest $8k, because I agree with you it probably wouldn't be on art. Lets not pretend no one is interested in the potential upside to buying an artists work. Lets not kid ourselves that we are buying Koons, Kaws and Banksy just for the imagery. I suspect most people would hope that their purchases can at least maintain their value when they drop £5k/$8k on a piece of art.
If you want an investment ask your bank manager... The best one is the one you will enjoy... The question was little more specific than how to invest $8k, because I agree with you it probably wouldn't be on art. Lets not pretend no one is interested in the potential upside to buying an artists work. Lets not kid ourselves that we are buying Koons, Kaws and Banksy just for the imagery. I suspect most people would hope that their purchases can at least maintain their value when they drop £5k/$8k on a piece of art.
|
|
Unica
Junior Member
Posts • 2,058
Likes • 1,220
November 2013
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Unica on Aug 13, 2015 4:23:41 GMT 1, Sorry Southbound, you may want to read the question again, Google wasn't an option.
Sorry Southbound, you may want to read the question again, Google wasn't an option.
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by maddoghoek100 on Aug 13, 2015 4:35:32 GMT 1, Google is a better investment than any of those three
No one buys Koons, Banksy or Kaws at current prices as an investment. High dollar editioned prints and sculptures are a status symbol. Dont get me wrong i like status symbols and some times they can appreciate in value but over the long haul they may be relatively liquid but would be hard pressed to maintain value over time.
8k can buy you a picasso edition, a nice Calder edition. Both are household names and no longer producing work.
Sorry Southbound, you may want to read the question again, Google wasn't an option.
Google is a better investment than any of those three No one buys Koons, Banksy or Kaws at current prices as an investment. High dollar editioned prints and sculptures are a status symbol. Dont get me wrong i like status symbols and some times they can appreciate in value but over the long haul they may be relatively liquid but would be hard pressed to maintain value over time. 8k can buy you a picasso edition, a nice Calder edition. Both are household names and no longer producing work. Sorry Southbound, you may want to read the question again, Google wasn't an option.
|
|
|
M
Junior Member
Posts • 1,998
Likes • 581
February 2011
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by M on Aug 13, 2015 6:40:10 GMT 1, Richter bro
Richter bro
|
|
Quinnster
Junior Member
Posts • 3,624
Likes • 2,768
January 2006
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Quinnster on Aug 13, 2015 7:03:22 GMT 1, If you want an investment ask your bank manager... The best one is the one you will enjoy... The question was little more specific than how to invest $8k, because I agree with you it probably wouldn't be on art. Lets not pretend no one is interested in the potential upside to buying an artists work. Lets not kid ourselves that we are buying Koons, Kaws and Banksy just for the imagery. I suspect most people would hope that their purchases can at least maintain their value when they drop £5k/$8k on a piece of art.
I'm not buying for investment, all my banksys were brought for image years ago, My latest was traded for another banksy and other bits.
I'm now priced out of the market and if It crashed I would not be bothered as I could afford to buy more and what I have is not for sale.
Investment wise you probably won't go wrong with any of those,
If you want an investment ask your bank manager... The best one is the one you will enjoy... The question was little more specific than how to invest $8k, because I agree with you it probably wouldn't be on art. Lets not pretend no one is interested in the potential upside to buying an artists work. Lets not kid ourselves that we are buying Koons, Kaws and Banksy just for the imagery. I suspect most people would hope that their purchases can at least maintain their value when they drop £5k/$8k on a piece of art. I'm not buying for investment, all my banksys were brought for image years ago, My latest was traded for another banksy and other bits. I'm now priced out of the market and if It crashed I would not be bothered as I could afford to buy more and what I have is not for sale. Investment wise you probably won't go wrong with any of those,
|
|
jayTown
Junior Member
Posts • 1,737
Likes • 1,213
February 2013
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by jayTown on Aug 13, 2015 8:25:57 GMT 1, Got to be banksy
Got to be banksy
|
|
Pootle
New Member
Posts • 130
Likes • 55
September 2007
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Pootle on Aug 13, 2015 14:52:12 GMT 1, At this moment in time - of the 3 metnioned - Banksy seems to be the one with more investment upside
At this moment in time - of the 3 metnioned - Banksy seems to be the one with more investment upside
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by maddoghoek100 on Aug 13, 2015 16:25:41 GMT 1, year 2000: which is a better buy, pets.com stock or etoys.com stock Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1990: which is a better buy, a spiderman 1 with the silver foil cover or the gold cover foil Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print
we can keep going, from coins to stamps to tulips. The very existence of this thread just goes to show that people rarely learn from their mistakes and there is always a greater fool to sell to (until the bubble bursts).
If you want to invest 8K in art, you are far better served finding 3 mid tier artists you think are amazing and buying 3 nice midsized originals (18x24 - 24x36). Something that does not need to be crated for shipping and is easily stored, preferably something that was part of a prominent show or something you got a great deal on buying direct from the artist. Buy them because you LOVE them and plan to hold them at least 5 years.
If you have chosen well in 5 years you will have a good relationship with 3 artists or galleries, 1 will be largely unsalable because there is a thin market for the artist, 1 you can get your money back and one will have doubled. Buying a print from a well known artists will likely be more liquid in the short term, but will never have the upside financially or personally that originals do.
year 2000: which is a better buy, pets.com stock or etoys.com stock Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1990: which is a better buy, a spiderman 1 with the silver foil cover or the gold cover foil Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print
we can keep going, from coins to stamps to tulips. The very existence of this thread just goes to show that people rarely learn from their mistakes and there is always a greater fool to sell to (until the bubble bursts).
If you want to invest 8K in art, you are far better served finding 3 mid tier artists you think are amazing and buying 3 nice midsized originals (18x24 - 24x36). Something that does not need to be crated for shipping and is easily stored, preferably something that was part of a prominent show or something you got a great deal on buying direct from the artist. Buy them because you LOVE them and plan to hold them at least 5 years.
If you have chosen well in 5 years you will have a good relationship with 3 artists or galleries, 1 will be largely unsalable because there is a thin market for the artist, 1 you can get your money back and one will have doubled. Buying a print from a well known artists will likely be more liquid in the short term, but will never have the upside financially or personally that originals do.
|
|
Inknart
Junior Member
Posts • 3,486
Likes • 3,288
April 2015
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Inknart on Aug 13, 2015 16:27:57 GMT 1, Anyone want to bet Banksy prices surge a little over the next month with all these rumors?
Anyone want to bet Banksy prices surge a little over the next month with all these rumors?
|
|
coller
Junior Member
Posts • 2,380
Likes • 2,371
April 2015
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by coller on Aug 13, 2015 16:45:06 GMT 1, year 2000: which is a better buy, pets.com stock or etoys.com stock Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1990: which is a better buy, a spiderman 1 with the silver foil cover or the gold cover foil Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer.
year 2000: which is a better buy, pets.com stock or etoys.com stock Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1990: which is a better buy, a spiderman 1 with the silver foil cover or the gold cover foil Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer.
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by maddoghoek100 on Aug 13, 2015 19:00:25 GMT 1, love them or hate them they were a cultural phenomenon for a narrow period of time that spawned rampant speculation and price increases for a product produced to be a limited edition and intended to be collected and maintained in "mint" condition. Even if you dont like the comparison they should be a strong cautionary tale about following the bandwagon
But i closed with an art example with Vasarely and Agam and could have used a laundry list of other big name artists from the 50 - 80s. Both were the key figures in a major art movement, widely collected through print editions and both have art work regularly available at estate sales for between $8 and $500 dollars. Both are in major museum collections, have global recognition, and are no longer producing work (Agam is alive but has not put out new work in several years and is almost 90). Any living working artist should be proud to be compared to either and original works from either are in the small to very large 6 figures. Prints are a dime a dozen and available in quantity are reasonable prices for people to live with and enjoy at well below their inflation adjusted original selling price.
which brings us back to it is more often than not a bad idea to buy a multiple as an investment. Buy original work you can afford and love instead
Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer.
love them or hate them they were a cultural phenomenon for a narrow period of time that spawned rampant speculation and price increases for a product produced to be a limited edition and intended to be collected and maintained in "mint" condition. Even if you dont like the comparison they should be a strong cautionary tale about following the bandwagon But i closed with an art example with Vasarely and Agam and could have used a laundry list of other big name artists from the 50 - 80s. Both were the key figures in a major art movement, widely collected through print editions and both have art work regularly available at estate sales for between $8 and $500 dollars. Both are in major museum collections, have global recognition, and are no longer producing work (Agam is alive but has not put out new work in several years and is almost 90). Any living working artist should be proud to be compared to either and original works from either are in the small to very large 6 figures. Prints are a dime a dozen and available in quantity are reasonable prices for people to live with and enjoy at well below their inflation adjusted original selling price. which brings us back to it is more often than not a bad idea to buy a multiple as an investment. Buy original work you can afford and love instead Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Howard Johnson on Aug 13, 2015 21:58:46 GMT 1, year 2000: which is a better buy, pets.com stock or etoys.com stock Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1990: which is a better buy, a spiderman 1 with the silver foil cover or the gold cover foil Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer. I think dss11's point is that comparison between short-lived collector markets and blue chip artwork is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, artwork has a collectors market all in its own, but its definatly a different beast from comic books or beanie babies. Even the timespan of the comic books collector market pails in comparison with the centuries that human civilization has been investing in/collecting artwork.
While I definatly agree with the maddoghoek100 point about the investment potential of original works I think multiples can be just as sound an investment, even if its of "status symbol" variety. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. The fact that people shell out thousands of dollars for Warhol exhibition posters and invitation cards is proof that people value having any sort of authentic piece by a blue-chip artist regardless of the medium.
year 2000: which is a better buy, pets.com stock or etoys.com stock Year 1997: which is a better buy a Princess Diana beenie baby or a Spookie beenie baby Year 1990: which is a better buy, a spiderman 1 with the silver foil cover or the gold cover foil Year 1980: should i buy this Vasarely print or this Agam print Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer. I think dss11's point is that comparison between short-lived collector markets and blue chip artwork is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, artwork has a collectors market all in its own, but its definatly a different beast from comic books or beanie babies. Even the timespan of the comic books collector market pails in comparison with the centuries that human civilization has been investing in/collecting artwork. While I definatly agree with the maddoghoek100 point about the investment potential of original works I think multiples can be just as sound an investment, even if its of "status symbol" variety. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. The fact that people shell out thousands of dollars for Warhol exhibition posters and invitation cards is proof that people value having any sort of authentic piece by a blue-chip artist regardless of the medium.
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by johnnyvinyl on Aug 14, 2015 2:37:45 GMT 1, The "conventional wisdom" when buying artwork is to buy a major or important original work by an up-and-coming artist rather than a middling or mediocre print by a major artist. Of course, this should really be taken with a grain of salt because all kinds of mitigating factors come into play, including perhaps the most important: always buy what you love. Ultimately, it's all a bit of a gamble as to what will truly hold its value in the long term. The Vasarely and Agam examples are good examples of artists who were once quite popular to the point of ubiquity and their work now seems quite dated.
I think all three artists under discussion will prove to be relevant when their careers are evaluated in 30 years time. But much of what I see in Hirst's Other Criteria won't be (as relevant as he will be considered). I believe KAWS is a very important artist and continues to push his practice in new directions while maintaining a core ethos.
The "conventional wisdom" when buying artwork is to buy a major or important original work by an up-and-coming artist rather than a middling or mediocre print by a major artist. Of course, this should really be taken with a grain of salt because all kinds of mitigating factors come into play, including perhaps the most important: always buy what you love. Ultimately, it's all a bit of a gamble as to what will truly hold its value in the long term. The Vasarely and Agam examples are good examples of artists who were once quite popular to the point of ubiquity and their work now seems quite dated.
I think all three artists under discussion will prove to be relevant when their careers are evaluated in 30 years time. But much of what I see in Hirst's Other Criteria won't be (as relevant as he will be considered). I believe KAWS is a very important artist and continues to push his practice in new directions while maintaining a core ethos.
|
|
Black Apple Art
Art Gallery
Junior Member
Posts • 2,007
Likes • 3,970
September 2013
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Black Apple Art on Aug 14, 2015 6:20:44 GMT 1, The "conventional wisdom" when buying artwork is to buy a major or important original work by an up-and-coming artist rather than a middling or mediocre print by a major artist. Of course, this should really be taken with a grain of salt because all kinds of mitigating factors come into play, including perhaps the most important: always buy what you love. Ultimately, it's all a bit of a gamble as to what will truly hold its value in the long term. The Vasarely and Agam examples are good examples of artists who were once quite popular to the point of ubiquity and their work now seems quite dated. I think all three artists under discussion will prove to be relevant when their careers are evaluated in 30 years time. But much of what I see in Hirst's Other Criteria won't be (as relevant as he will be considered). I believe KAWS is a very important artist and continues to push his practice in new directions while maintaining a core ethos. Again I believe the question here is purely from an investment point of view and going along that line of thinking, buying what you like personally is actually the least important factor. Would be similar to buying a stock in a company that you believe has big upside potential but that you personally don't like and would not use their products.
The "conventional wisdom" when buying artwork is to buy a major or important original work by an up-and-coming artist rather than a middling or mediocre print by a major artist. Of course, this should really be taken with a grain of salt because all kinds of mitigating factors come into play, including perhaps the most important: always buy what you love. Ultimately, it's all a bit of a gamble as to what will truly hold its value in the long term. The Vasarely and Agam examples are good examples of artists who were once quite popular to the point of ubiquity and their work now seems quite dated. I think all three artists under discussion will prove to be relevant when their careers are evaluated in 30 years time. But much of what I see in Hirst's Other Criteria won't be (as relevant as he will be considered). I believe KAWS is a very important artist and continues to push his practice in new directions while maintaining a core ethos. Again I believe the question here is purely from an investment point of view and going along that line of thinking, buying what you like personally is actually the least important factor. Would be similar to buying a stock in a company that you believe has big upside potential but that you personally don't like and would not use their products.
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by maddoghoek100 on Aug 14, 2015 6:43:55 GMT 1, You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight.
Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture.
I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries?
Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains.
As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though.
Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. .
You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight. Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture. I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries? Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains. As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though. Not sure I agree with this comparison. Maybe I don't like comparing Banksy to a beanie baby manufacturer. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. .
|
|
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Jeezuz Jones Snr on Aug 14, 2015 7:56:36 GMT 1, You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight. Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture. I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries? Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains. As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. .
Very good post which I agree with.
You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight. Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture. I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries? Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains. As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. . Very good post which I agree with.
|
|
Black Apple Art
Art Gallery
Junior Member
Posts • 2,007
Likes • 3,970
September 2013
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Black Apple Art on Aug 14, 2015 7:59:16 GMT 1, You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight. Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture. I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries? Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains. As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. . This discussion just keep running away and while I like the other places it had lead, I am merely sticking to the question posed. Out of those three which is the best investment. My opinion was Banksy and my "correlation" to stocks was to point out that when the main goal is monetary gain then your personal likes and dislikes take a backseat to your primary goal. That's it. Sure we can name many other artists and hell why not throw in real estate but I'm trying to stay with options of original question.
Also to lump purchasing all art as a "gamble" because they don't "produce predictable cash flows" is a personal opinion of yours and absolutely not fact. The word "gamble" itself is just a way to emphasize risk and to think their is inherently more risk in art as a whole then the stock market is just not accurate by any measure. Both are "investments" by definition and both have their good and bad and involve speculation on future demand. One can go back and forth all day debating the merits of each but that is not the question here and giving your personal opinion on which is a "gamble" or "investment" as fact is a bit misleading.
Also a bit obvious but how in the world can you begin to compare Banksy to a deceased artist who had a career that spans longer than Banksy has been alive, let alone to any other artist before him as he is something the art world has never seen and may not again. Where he will go from here no one truly knows but he was an option in the poster's original question and still my top pick of the available choices he gave.
You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight. Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture. I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries? Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains. As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. . This discussion just keep running away and while I like the other places it had lead, I am merely sticking to the question posed. Out of those three which is the best investment. My opinion was Banksy and my "correlation" to stocks was to point out that when the main goal is monetary gain then your personal likes and dislikes take a backseat to your primary goal. That's it. Sure we can name many other artists and hell why not throw in real estate but I'm trying to stay with options of original question. Also to lump purchasing all art as a "gamble" because they don't "produce predictable cash flows" is a personal opinion of yours and absolutely not fact. The word "gamble" itself is just a way to emphasize risk and to think their is inherently more risk in art as a whole then the stock market is just not accurate by any measure. Both are "investments" by definition and both have their good and bad and involve speculation on future demand. One can go back and forth all day debating the merits of each but that is not the question here and giving your personal opinion on which is a "gamble" or "investment" as fact is a bit misleading. Also a bit obvious but how in the world can you begin to compare Banksy to a deceased artist who had a career that spans longer than Banksy has been alive, let alone to any other artist before him as he is something the art world has never seen and may not again. Where he will go from here no one truly knows but he was an option in the poster's original question and still my top pick of the available choices he gave.
|
|
sixsense
New Member
Posts • 71
Likes • 214
November 2012
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by sixsense on Aug 14, 2015 8:27:11 GMT 1, that's very well said maddoghoek100, haven't seen a quality reply for a while, however, its not easy for a beginner to understand. I think collecting art has no short cut, the way and pieces you collect change as your art knowledge and experience grow.
that's very well said maddoghoek100, haven't seen a quality reply for a while, however, its not easy for a beginner to understand. I think collecting art has no short cut, the way and pieces you collect change as your art knowledge and experience grow.
|
|
Shoot Again
Junior Member
Posts • 5,519
Likes • 2,694
April 2011
|
Better investment Kaws, Koons or Banksy?, by Shoot Again on Aug 14, 2015 8:58:55 GMT 1, You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight. Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture. I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries? Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains. As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. . That's one of the most articulate post I've read in here for quite some time. I also agree 100% with everything written in there ;-)
You can buy a Picasso edition for 8k. You can by a 400 year old REMBRANT edition for 8K. I get that i am fighting an uphill battle for art history and the long game, but i am willing to fight the good fight. Instead of Vasarely and Agam i could have picked miro, calder, stella or literally dozens of others. all have a huge market for multiples and all have experienced massive declines in price relative to their peak in the 70s. Almost all of their work would be unrecognizable to the vast majority of people reading this post. That is ok, but should be taken as a cautionary tale when viewing the art market. Not knowing one or all of those artists says more about our background, level of art history knowledge and the fleeting nature of fame than it does about them, their work, and their impact on culture. I also get that i am in he wrong place to say something like this, but here goes. Banksy has had not even close to the career that Alexander Calder had. He may, if he works another 40 years and remains relevant. Calder has been on display in every major museum in the world, has monumental sculptures as the focal points of public spaces in major metropolitan areas and had a 60+ year career of cultural relevance. He also has multiples that can be readily purchased for less than 8k and many that would draw "meh" comments from most of the peanut gallery. IF asked to name an artist who worked between 1900 - 1970 most would be doing well to name 10. That says something. Many could name Mark Rothko, but could any name Agnes Martin who was one of his more significant contemporaries? Banksy may stand the test of time, become an interesting footnote, or be totally forgotten. I dont know which is most likely. What i do know is that as an investment strategy, buying editioned pieces from known artists while they are popular and well known has not been a very good inflation adjusted long term investment strategy over the last 50 years. On the other hand taking the time to rediscover greats from the past that are no longer producing work can yield some real bargains. As to other investments and correlations to the stock market, Black Apple may want to read up on some Peter Lynch. Buying an asset of any kind that has no capability of generating sustainable or predictable future cash flows is not an investment, it is a gamble. If you are a reseller of goods and believe you know the market for a good by all means buy and sell that good at a profit. you are a retailer not an investor. Im not sure you can buy a single piece of art as an investment. A diversified pool of art that was hedged against a range of taste changes maybe. You can for sure gamble in the the art market though. I am not familer with the work of Vasarely and Agam, but I'm willing to bet that the fact that I've never heard of them plays a big part in the current lackluster market for their multiples. People will continue to pay top dollar for "household-name" artists such as Warhol, Banksy, and Koons. . That's one of the most articulate post I've read in here for quite some time. I also agree 100% with everything written in there ;-)
|
|