The Amazing World Of Buying & Selling Art

[Vinayaka]

Mine are violet....the visible ones, that is.

There are many varieties. In the visible category, I've probably seen 20 different ones or so around the neighbourhood. The other one I bought has larger petals, or whatever the smaller tiny parts are called on a lilac, odd purple blended into white, named Sensation French. In the invisible category, there are thousands. My favourites are the glowing orange climber ones that don't need roots.

 

[Vinayaka]

I find it highly amusing.
It's like Pet Rocks, but with a more outrageous price.

I think fine arts will survive.

I wouldn't want to be married to the guy who bought it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't want to be married to the guy who bought it.

Neither would I.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wouldn't want to be married to the guy who bought it.

Yes, they don't seem like the most competent people. They may require a carer if they're that irresponsible with money.

 

[80s fashion girl]

Would it be to dear to sell, or would you be
willing to part with it...for the right price?

Hmmm, anything, almost anything can be parted with for the right price.

 

[PureX]

I wouldn't want to be married to the guy who bought it.

Why not? He clearly has plenty of money, and isn't afraid to spend it on whatever he wants. Sounds like the American dreamboat, to me.

 

[Quagmire]

I plan to sell a 1000 page book of my philosophy.
The text will be invisible.
Many varied deep meanings could be read into it.
Signed 1st editions are available for the bargain
price of $10,000 (plus shipping & handling).

My invisible check is in the mail.

 

[Quagmire]

I've already forged a copy of his sculpture.

Damn! Looks just like the original.

Seriously I can't tell them apart!

 

[sun rise]

The dog ate the certificate of authenticity.
Bad @sun rise...bad....bad dog!

I see - all dogs are guilty for the acts of one dog. That makes you guilty of all sins committed by all people. I can live with that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see - all dogs are guilty for the acts of one dog. That makes you guilty of all sins committed by all people. I can live with that.

I've done many things...I've been busy.

 

[sun rise]

I've done many things...I've been busy.

As well as keeping up your posting volume but sadly a bit less than before. Are you slipping just a wee bit?

 

[Revoltingest]

As well as keeping up your posting volume but sadly a bit less than before. Are you slipping just a wee bit?

Real life can be inconvenient.
And this problem is variable.

 

[PureX]

Years ago, a guy named Kostabi hired art students for minimum wage to paint his paintings for him. Then he'd show them in fancy New York art galleries with inflated price tags on them, and when someone would come along interested in buying one, Kostabi would insult them and tell them they were fools. But the buyers presumed that the insults were all part of the "schtick". Meaning that the artist was really doing a kind of 'performance piece' and the painting was really just a prop. They thought this was very inventive, and 'socially aware', so they bought the (bad) paintings and couldn't wait to tell all their rich friends that they'd been insulted by Kostabi and paid thousands of dollars for one of his bad hired-out paintings.

So was Kostabi just a huckster and a prick? Or was he some sort of modern art genius? My guess is that he's a little bit of both and a lot of neither. Most real artists see him as a waste of everyone's time, including his own. But then again, he's been surviving as an artist for decades, and very few real artists can make that claim. In the world of fine art marketing being a prick, a huckster, and even a fool, can be quite an asset. Whereas just being smart, honest, and talented will get you nowhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Years ago, a guy named Kostabi hired art students for minimum wage to paint his paintings for him. Then he'd show them in fancy New York art galleries with inflated price tags on them, and when someone would come along interested in buying one, Kostabi would insult them and tell them they were fools. But the buyers presumed that the insults were all part of the "schtick". Meaning that the artist was really doing a kind of 'performance piece' and the painting was really just a prop. They thought this was very inventive, and 'socially aware', so they bought the (bad) paintings and couldn't wait to tell all their rich friends that they'd been insulted by Kostabi and paid thousands of dollars for one of his bad hired-out paintings.

So was Kostabi just a huckster and a prick? Or was he some sort of modern art genius? My guess is that he's a little bit of both and a lot of neither. Most real artists see him as a waste of everyone's time, including his own. But then again, he's been surviving as an artist for decades, and very few real artists can make that claim. In the world of fine art marketing being a prick, a huckster, and even a fool, can be quite an asset. Whereas just being smart, honest, and talented will get you nowhere.

This article didn't mention your claims.
Mark Kostabi - Wikipedia
Any links?

 

[PureX]

This article didn't mention your claims.
Mark Kostabi - Wikipedia
Any links?

I heard about it back in the late 80s. In art marketing terms that's pre-historic. I have no idea how long the "schtick" lasted. Maybe he's still doing it. Who knows? The point is that there is a lot of precedent for these kinds of "theoretical" artworks that involve as much theater as they do actual physical substance. Andy Warhol comes to mind. John Cage. Marcel Duchamp. Many of the Dadaists. And there are many more. Some I respect, and some I don't. But that's the nature of the beast. Art is often about exploring how we humans perceive the world we live in. And sometimes that means exploring how we perceive the art world/art market that we (or the artist) lives in. I suppose it's a valid pursuit, though the more 'incestuous' it gets the more quickly I tire of it. I was in grad school from '82 to '84, which was a time when there was a lot of this kind of stuff going on. So my tolerance for it has been pretty well used up.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heard about it back in the late 80s. In art marketing terms that's pre-historic. I have no idea how long the "schtick" lasted. Maybe he's still doing it. Who knows? The point is that there is a lot of precedent for these kinds of "theoretical" artworks that involve as much theater as they do actual physical substance. Andy Warhol comes to mind. John Cage. Marcel Duchamp. Many of the Dadaists. And there are many more. Some I respect, and some I don't. But that's the nature of the beast. Art is often about exploring how we humans perceive the world we live in. And sometimes that means exploring how we perceive the art world/art market that we (or the artist) lives in. I suppose it's a valid pursuit, though the ore 'incestuous' I gets the more quickly I tire of it. I was in grad school from '82 to '84, which was a time when there was a lot of this kind of stuff going on. So my tolerance for it has been used up.

You "heard about it", eh.
Can't argue with that kind of evidence.

 

[PureX]

You "heard about it", eh.
Can't argue with that kind of evidence.

I had friends who worked in the art galleries in New York that he was showing in at the time. So I'm not concerned that wiki doesn't seem to know about it. Nor that you don't seem to want to know about it.

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't see any fraud....just a really strange idea of value
placed upon things with no tangible value. The Soviets
tried making socially damaging art illegal, eg, jazz.
Such law never works out well.

"Degenerate art" wasn't a great idea either.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's offensive to all people who love art and creativity.

That can't be true. I love art and creativity and I'm not offended.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nor that you don't seem to want to know about it.

I simply question your veracity....no links.
And no verification to be found on the web.