Hacker News Reader

Comment by yieldcrv | Hacker News Reader

> The question is how to “get people to understand that art isn’t an asset class,” Schwartzmann added. “That’s not how you should be collecting,”

> Valentine said ... "Asking $20,000 for a work in an artist’s first show is unsustainable"

none of the separate participants in this article are willing to acknowledge that these are related problems.

there is no price discovery in the art world, and it was only just beginning to happen in the pandemic era flush with cash

when you question the price or try to find any rational trend, the gallery director gaslights you into the prior quote "you should just love the piece!" okay but why should I love it at this price "because it will be another price in the future!" but why will it be another price who sets that price "we the gallery do! it moves up over time!" how does that work "you should just love the piece!"

View on HN

I have a painting of a commuter train I used to ride to work every day. It's not a conversation starter (or rather, I'm always the one who starts talking about it) but I love it because it reminds me of when I discovered that I didn't need to be a slave to my car and how freeing that was.

It cost me $50 and I've taken it with me every time I've moved.

I really don't get dropping thousands on a single piece, I've never felt any work speak that loudly to me.

I'm sure there is some art you'd shell out for. Maybe an original prop from your favorite movie or a collectors item from a time period you're nostalgic for...

I didn’t end up buying it - it went for a price I could afford but did not want to pay - but I have seen an original Al Bean painting. Twelve men walked on the moon. One painted it. If it had gone for $10k it would have been mine.

I think it depends on the piece. I have a piece that I love and spent about $5k on. It's relatively large and has a lot of detail. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the equivalent of a month's work full time for the artist so the price seems reasonable to me.

Yeah art has objective value and subjective value. Every once in a while you'll find something with a lot of subjective value. Finding something with both is also a thing but it's not easy to find them for a low price.

The reason that expensive art exists is because there's a market. The fact that the market is weird and in decline doesn't change the fact that wealthy people find art to be a worthwhile thing to buy.

price discovery happens at auction.

otherwise yes, it’s the gallery’s job to preserve a level of value for the artist, and they work hard to maintain the house cards.

A huge number of things receive either no bid or don't meet the reserve bid

And yet the price of the piece is still set above the reserve bid for all intents and purposes, and if the piece is part of a collection that one future trade is setting the price of the whole collection - just like with any low float asset like illiquid shares

but I find the artists, dealers, and galleries to be doing the most to prevent price discovery. Doing the most to not be compared to other kinds of markets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com