Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Storm Hits the Art Market

news.artnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#51

Post by worthless-trash »

relaxing wrote: post #28
mmaunder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - a lot of art is sold via artists having a relationship with a stable of a few hundred people via insta. Completely bypasses the galleries and is far more compelling for the buyer because they can develop an emotional connection with the creator. Galleries can’t do that without having the artist present and even then they’re overwhelmed and buyers can’t make a connection. So this isn’t necessarily an art thi…

This has nothing to do with the art world the article is talking about.

I don't think it has to. The greater art world is abstracted from the value it provides, so much so its obviously seedy.

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#52

Post by jandrewrogers »

The art world is just fine. Pretentious art speculation maybe not so much.

In a way, we are actually in a golden age. I lurk on social media accounts of amateur art enthusiasts around the globe with (IMHO) good taste who seek out interesting little known artists and post it on their feeds. I am introduced to so much great art that I probably would have never known about otherwise. If I see something I like, I search for the artist online and see if they have something available in their portfolio for sale that I love.

I’ve bought amazing art from talented artists around the globe that speak no common language with me. We get it done (Google Translate to the rescue). I don’t filter on price but virtually everything I’ve bought is always in a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars range. The fact that you can talk to the artist just adds to the story.

Forget the “tastemakers” in art. I can give my money to excellent artists directly, including many that never attracted the attention of tastemakers or who weren’t deemed worthy by said people. I received a huge piece from Denmark today. The whole experience is lovely and the artists really appreciate that someone loves their work. This is the future.

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#53

Post by mikrl »

noman-land wrote: post #37
riazrizvi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs were about transparency in provenance, using public, tamper-proof records, that replace jurisdictions/authorities with the type of math that enabled cross-border digital payments. Sure there was a spin-off scam industry but there remains a kernel of legitimacy in the concept.

Non-fungible tokens are not about payment, they are about cryptographic ownership of uniqueness.

>they are about cryptographic ownership of uniqueness

My web browser has a novel and advanced attack on the cryptosystem built into it I have dubbed the right-click-copy-image attack.

I’ve even managed to replicate it on my phone.

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#54

Post by sandspar »

My city has a medium size art gallery. Every couple of years, the curators will hold their nose and run an exhibit by "dead white males": figurative painters like Rembrandt. The gallery becomes packed with people. Afterward the curators go back to their usual fare of "Iranian-American textile artists" or whatever; the gallery sees no visitors for months.

Bleeding money, the gallery recently laid off half their staff.

It's almost as if the curators would rather lose their jobs than exhibit art that the public enjoys.

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#55

Post by Ferret7446 »

mosura wrote: post #7

This is really the art as speculation fad coming home to roost. The people actually interested in art as art are now on things like Instagram buying direct from the artists with very little gatekeeping either by art schools or galleries. It would be tempting to see if there is a correlation in when the “legit” art world price going off a cliff and the NFT bubble, because that suckered in a lot of the idiot end of the…

The "art as speculation" fad is just a consequence of "inflation is good" economic theory, the same as "real estate as an investment".

If you don't let people hold onto cash, they will just find something else to replace it (and of course, it is always the lower classes that have to suffer the secret taxation that is money supply inflation targets).

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#56

Post by darth_avocado »

> My former Artnet colleague Tim Schneider’s analysis at the time of the deal revealed that the gallery was on the hook for $704,000 in monthly rent, or $8.5 million a year—$220 million over the course of the lease

Seems like it’s not an art problem but an art dealer problem. If you rent a $100k/month restaurant space that seats 20 people, is the food industry dying if you can’t turn a profit and close?

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#57

Post by msegal »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #52

The art world is just fine. Pretentious art speculation maybe not so much. In a way, we are actually in a golden age. I lurk on social media accounts of amateur art enthusiasts around the globe with (IMHO) good taste who seek out interesting little known artists and post it on their feeds. I am introduced to so much great art that I probably would have never known about otherwise. If I see something I like, I search…

Any good account suggestions?

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#58

Post by CydeWeys »

I'm amazed that the article doesn't discuss the end of ZIRP. The bursting of the art market bubble in mid 2022 coincides exactly with when interest rates started rising following the 'transitory' inflation caused by pandemic relief measures. This was also the same time that we started seeing hiring freezes in tech, the bursting of the luxury watch bubble, etc. It's all tied together, and has the same root cause: It stopped being cheap to borrow money, and it started being lucrative to lend it out for guaranteed returns (e.g. by buying Treasuries) rather than speculating on artworks, or NFTs, or whatever.

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#59

Post by fluoridation »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #55
mosura wrote: post #7

This is really the art as speculation fad coming home to roost. The people actually interested in art as art are now on things like Instagram buying direct from the artists with very little gatekeeping either by art schools or galleries. It would be tempting to see if there is a correlation in when the “legit” art world price going off a cliff and the NFT bubble, because that suckered in a lot of the idiot end of the…

The "art as speculation" fad is just a consequence of "inflation is good" economic theory, the same as "real estate as an investment". If you don't let people hold onto cash, they will just find something else to replace it (and of course, it is always the lower classes that have to suffer the secret taxation that is money supply inflation targets).

I don't think so. Speculative markets would arise even in a 0% inflation economy, for the same reason that casinos would. Speculation isn't about storing value, it's about gambling. You have a stronger point with real estate, but real estate isn't as volatile or speculative, usually.

Re: The Storm Hits the Art Market

#60

Post by JKCalhoun »

coldcode wrote: post #38

I make an unusual kind of art, but I haven't tried selling it, as you need a stable of interested people, and I can only post it in one place at the moment (a Facebook interest group on tiling, Instagram is overrun with AI, you can't start a new profile without lots of existing supporters). I've considered opening a gallery in my local area just to sell my art (5 million people in the metro, and barely a real commerc…

I have heard, and believe: successful galleries are a location thing. People with deep pockets will pick up a piece by anyone in Aspen, Colorado, and probably not look twice if they (somehow) saw a Koons in a Topeka gallery.
Post reply on HN