How seriously should the crime of art theft be treated?

One viewpoint is that it’s only swirls of paint on canvas, so needs to be a much lower priority for the police than either defrauding someone of their life savings or family violence.

The other viewpoint is that high art is unique, irreplaceable, and therefore needs to be a very high priority.

Some other aspects include:

• The Mona Lisa wasn’t famous until it was stolen, in 1911, and even more famous on its recovery in 1913.
• The push for very high prices for some artwork only began in 1958. Before that, nobody took art auctions seriously.
• In 2004, twenty thousand artworks were stolen from French chateaus and churches. more than double that in 2003, and topping the number stolen in Italy for the first time.
• Artworks are swapped for drugs in the drug underworld, as a substitute for cash. Drug lords have been known to use return of artworks as a way of getting a reduced sentence.
• Just about every famous artist has had an artwork stolen. Including six, I think, Van Goghs. Possibly as many as eleven Vermeers.
• A museum had a painting stolen that was insured for $14 million and spent $8 million in three or four instalments to get the painting back from the crooks by intermediaries, so the museum made an overall profit of $6 million.
• After a theft, a painting becomes clean again after different lengths of time in different countries. In Japan it is two years. Much longer for Nazi thefts.
• In 1897, British troops in Benin looted the artworks there. The Benin government nearly went bankrupt buying some of them back from the British Museum.
• What price is considered theft? Paying 10% of the value? 20%?

I feel it’s criminal to ARTificially inflate the gavel price every time a piece changes hands.
…too often, it seems, just for vanity/bragging rights.
But then it’s always been weird to buy a piece the artist couldn’t sell during his lifetime
for 11.9 Million Dollars when the gavel goes down.

so theft is part of the art

there’s art fraud also, imitating genuine works and passing them of as the real thing

happens in Australia, in fact I remember a story way back, some lovely old lady tried to deprive a young couple of their bond on a rental property, over some mostly fabricated and frivolous claim of damage to the property, to which the young couple responded by visiting the old lady and dared ask questions as to why she might rob the young couple of their bond. Now, as the story goes, which is likely completely made up, the old lady used some distractions like you’re getting your pregnant wife upset and then attempting to close the door, but inconveniently their was a foot wedged in the door and more questions, to which the lovely old lady went off and said she was calling the police, to which one of the young couple told her to bring the phone book to them and they’d find the number for her

anyway, to cut a long story short, the young couple didn’t bother going to any further trouble to get their bond back, but some justice came about maybe a decade later when a name was mentioned in a news report related art fraud

like I said, just a story

….but inconveniently their was a foot wedged in the door and more questions..

might have otherwise properly been writ …..….there was a foot wedged…

or ….their foot was wedged…

transition said:

there’s art fraud also, imitating genuine works and passing them of as the real thing

happens in Australia, in fact I remember a story way back, some lovely old lady tried to deprive a young couple of their bond on a rental property, over some mostly fabricated and frivolous claim of damage to the property, to which the young couple responded by visiting the old lady and dared ask questions as to why she might rob the young couple of their bond. Now, as the story goes, which is likely completely made up, the old lady used some distractions like you’re getting your pregnant wife upset and then attempting to close the door, but inconveniently their was a foot wedged in the door and more questions, to which the lovely old lady went off and said she was calling the police, to which one of the young couple told her to bring the phone book to them and they’d find the number for her

anyway, to cut a long story short, the young couple didn’t bother going to any further trouble to get their bond back, but some justice came about maybe a decade later when a name was mentioned in a news report related art fraud

like I said, just a story

I don’t understand, sorry.

Michael V said:

transition said:

there’s art fraud also, imitating genuine works and passing them of as the real thing

happens in Australia, in fact I remember a story way back, some lovely old lady tried to deprive a young couple of their bond on a rental property, over some mostly fabricated and frivolous claim of damage to the property, to which the young couple responded by visiting the old lady and dared ask questions as to why she might rob the young couple of their bond. Now, as the story goes, which is likely completely made up, the old lady used some distractions like you’re getting your pregnant wife upset and then attempting to close the door, but inconveniently their was a foot wedged in the door and more questions, to which the lovely old lady went off and said she was calling the police, to which one of the young couple told her to bring the phone book to them and they’d find the number for her

anyway, to cut a long story short, the young couple didn’t bother going to any further trouble to get their bond back, but some justice came about maybe a decade later when a name was mentioned in a news report related art fraud

like I said, just a story

I don’t understand, sorry.

I can’t figure it out either.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

there’s art fraud also, imitating genuine works and passing them of as the real thing

happens in Australia, in fact I remember a story way back, some lovely old lady tried to deprive a young couple of their bond on a rental property, over some mostly fabricated and frivolous claim of damage to the property, to which the young couple responded by visiting the old lady and dared ask questions as to why she might rob the young couple of their bond. Now, as the story goes, which is likely completely made up, the old lady used some distractions like you’re getting your pregnant wife upset and then attempting to close the door, but inconveniently their was a foot wedged in the door and more questions, to which the lovely old lady went off and said she was calling the police, to which one of the young couple told her to bring the phone book to them and they’d find the number for her

anyway, to cut a long story short, the young couple didn’t bother going to any further trouble to get their bond back, but some justice came about maybe a decade later when a name was mentioned in a news report related art fraud

like I said, just a story

I don’t understand, sorry.

I can’t figure it out either.

Morning all.
My daughter is a muralist. Hard to do art theft on a wall.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

I don’t understand, sorry.

I can’t figure it out either.

Morning all.
My daughter is a muralist. Hard to do art theft on a wall.

I dunno. Banksy’s had a few stolen. From walls.

Michael V said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

I can’t figure it out either.

Morning all.
My daughter is a muralist. Hard to do art theft on a wall.

I dunno. Banksy’s had a few stolen. From walls.

Come to think of it some Brit had some ancient figures sawn off a wall & taken back to England.

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

Tamb said:

Morning all.
My daughter is a muralist. Hard to do art theft on a wall.

I dunno. Banksy’s had a few stolen. From walls.

Come to think of it some Brit had some ancient figures sawn off a wall & taken back to England.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/fbi-top-ten-art-crimes/theft-of-gertrude-vanderbilt-whitney-murals

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

I dunno. Banksy’s had a few stolen. From walls.

Come to think of it some Brit had some ancient figures sawn off a wall & taken back to England.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/fbi-top-ten-art-crimes/theft-of-gertrude-vanderbilt-whitney-murals

Hmm. I was wrong. Wall art is more prevalent than I thought.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

I dunno. Banksy’s had a few stolen. From walls.

Come to think of it some Brit had some ancient figures sawn off a wall & taken back to England.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/fbi-top-ten-art-crimes/theft-of-gertrude-vanderbilt-whitney-murals

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jun/10/banksy-mural-stolen-from-bataclan-in-paris-found-by-police-in-italy

https://thevillagesun.com/plywood-mural-artists-are-screwed-as-thieves-merchants-landlords-take-artworks

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Come to think of it some Brit had some ancient figures sawn off a wall & taken back to England.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/fbi-top-ten-art-crimes/theft-of-gertrude-vanderbilt-whitney-murals

Hmm. I was wrong. Wall art is more prevalent than I thought.

~Wall art ^theft is more prevalent than I thought.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Come to think of it some Brit had some ancient figures sawn off a wall & taken back to England.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/fbi-top-ten-art-crimes/theft-of-gertrude-vanderbilt-whitney-murals

Hmm. I was wrong. Wall art is more prevalent than I thought.

There are some famous names on that list. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/fbi-top-ten-art-crimes

Tamb said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/art-theft/fbi-top-ten-art-crimes/theft-of-gertrude-vanderbilt-whitney-murals

Hmm. I was wrong. Wall art is more prevalent than I thought.

~Wall art ^theft is more prevalent than I thought.

and repetitive. https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/muralist-stephen-powers-painted-panels-stolen-in-soho/

Art theft should be treated with the same seriousness as any other property theft of a similar value.

As for the inflated prices, sure it’s a bit of a Ponzi scheme, but not as bad as Bitcoin.

Taxing all profits on sale of art works at 100% (or even 90%) would be a good way to bring the prices down to reflect real value.

The chance of that happening is pretty close to zero though.

>I can’t figure it out either

I probably wasn’t awake properly, been like it all day

nothing an early night won’t remedy

mollwollfumble said:

How seriously should the crime of art theft be treated?

I suppose it depends on value. And importance. And cultural importance.

>>One viewpoint is that it’s only swirls of paint on canvas, so needs to be a much lower priority for the police than either defrauding someone of their life savings or family violence.

crappy viewpoint. again..it depends on the art. but by all means let us not get riled about blowing up 60,000 year old aboriginal art. that can be remedied with a few ads by the mineral council and a subversive govt.

>The other viewpoint is that high art is unique, irreplaceable, and therefore needs to be a very high priority.

Where are you getting this stuff?

Some other aspects include:
>* The Mona Lisa wasn’t famous until it was stolen, in 1911, and even more famous on its recovery in 1913.

Da Vinci has been an important artist since the times. He was a rock star of Renaissance Italy.

>* The push for very high prices for some artwork only began in 1958. Before that, nobody took art auctions seriously.

ref?

• In 2004, twenty thousand artworks were stolen from French chateaus and churches. more than double that in 2003, and topping the number stolen in Italy for the first time.

that mostly proves the marketability.

>* Artworks are swapped for drugs in the drug underworld, as a substitute for cash. Drug lords have been known to use return of artworks as a way of getting a reduced sentence.

Marketability.

>* Just about every famous artist has had an artwork stolen. Including six, I think, Van Goghs. Possibly as many as eleven Vermeers.

And why is this surprising? How many tradies havent had something stolen from their ute? (I had some work disappear at art school. Admits more materials were stolen than art. Including a beautiful brush I bought in Paris.

>* A museum had a painting stolen that was insured for $14 million and spent $8 million in three or four instalments to get the painting back from the crooks by intermediaries, so the museum made an overall profit of $6 million.

and Art is the only field where this has happened?

• After a theft, a painting becomes clean again after different lengths of time in different countries. In Japan it is two years. Much longer for Nazi thefts.
• In 1897, British troops in Benin looted the artworks there. The Benin government nearly went bankrupt buying some of them back from the British Museum.
• What price is considered theft? Paying 10% of the value? 20%?

I don’t think you can have this discussion without talking about colonialism. That museum DV has never heard of is built on stolen art.

I am not impressed with assumptions made in this opening post.

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

How seriously should the crime of art theft be treated?

I suppose it depends on value. And importance. And cultural importance.

>>One viewpoint is that it’s only swirls of paint on canvas, so needs to be a much lower priority for the police than either defrauding someone of their life savings or family violence.

crappy viewpoint. again..it depends on the art. but by all means let us not get riled about blowing up 60,000 year old aboriginal art. that can be remedied with a few ads by the mineral council and a subversive govt.

>The other viewpoint is that high art is unique, irreplaceable, and therefore needs to be a very high priority.

Where are you getting this stuff?

Some other aspects include:
>* The Mona Lisa wasn’t famous until it was stolen, in 1911, and even more famous on its recovery in 1913.

Da Vinci has been an important artist since the times. He was a rock star of Renaissance Italy.

>* The push for very high prices for some artwork only began in 1958. Before that, nobody took art auctions seriously.

ref?

• In 2004, twenty thousand artworks were stolen from French chateaus and churches. more than double that in 2003, and topping the number stolen in Italy for the first time.

that mostly proves the marketability.

>* Artworks are swapped for drugs in the drug underworld, as a substitute for cash. Drug lords have been known to use return of artworks as a way of getting a reduced sentence.

Marketability.

>* Just about every famous artist has had an artwork stolen. Including six, I think, Van Goghs. Possibly as many as eleven Vermeers.

And why is this surprising? How many tradies havent had something stolen from their ute? (I had some work disappear at art school. Admits more materials were stolen than art. Including a beautiful brush I bought in Paris.

>* A museum had a painting stolen that was insured for $14 million and spent $8 million in three or four instalments to get the painting back from the crooks by intermediaries, so the museum made an overall profit of $6 million.

and Art is the only field where this has happened?

• After a theft, a painting becomes clean again after different lengths of time in different countries. In Japan it is two years. Much longer for Nazi thefts.
• In 1897, British troops in Benin looted the artworks there. The Benin government nearly went bankrupt buying some of them back from the British Museum.
• What price is considered theft? Paying 10% of the value? 20%?

I don’t think you can have this discussion without talking about colonialism. That museum DV has never heard of is built on stolen art.

I am not impressed with assumptions made in this opening post.

Moll likes his assumptions.

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

How seriously should the crime of art theft be treated?

I suppose it depends on value. And importance. And cultural importance.

>>One viewpoint is that it’s only swirls of paint on canvas, so needs to be a much lower priority for the police than either defrauding someone of their life savings or family violence.

crappy viewpoint. again..it depends on the art. but by all means let us not get riled about blowing up 60,000 year old aboriginal art. that can be remedied with a few ads by the mineral council and a subversive govt.

>The other viewpoint is that high art is unique, irreplaceable, and therefore needs to be a very high priority.

Where are you getting this stuff?

Some other aspects include:
>* The Mona Lisa wasn’t famous until it was stolen, in 1911, and even more famous on its recovery in 1913.

Da Vinci has been an important artist since the times. He was a rock star of Renaissance Italy.

>* The push for very high prices for some artwork only began in 1958. Before that, nobody took art auctions seriously.

ref?

I am not impressed with assumptions made in this opening post.

Ref is book “museum of the missing, the high stakes of art crime”, by Simon Houpt.

The reference to 1958 is on Page 15, paragraphs two and three of Chapter 1. “If you want to find a single moment when everything began to change … late on the evening of October 15, 1958”.

The reference to 1911 is, well it’s in there somewhere.

Feminists should take note. Women are vastly underrepresented in the occupation of art thief. And that seems to be the only common factor among art theft. Otherwise, nearly every one is different.

Women are vastly underrepresented in pretty much everything. With art theft, they probably don’t bother because they wouldn’t get as much money for it /s

I have a book on stolen art on the shelf.But I haven’t read it yet.

sarahs mum said:

I have a book on stolen art on the shelf.But I haven’t read it yet.

Collecting library late fees?

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

How seriously should the crime of art theft be treated?

I suppose it depends on value. And importance. And cultural importance.

>>One viewpoint is that it’s only swirls of paint on canvas, so needs to be a much lower priority for the police than either defrauding someone of their life savings or family violence.

crappy viewpoint. again..it depends on the art. but by all means let us not get riled about blowing up 60,000 year old aboriginal art. that can be remedied with a few ads by the mineral council and a subversive govt.

>The other viewpoint is that high art is unique, irreplaceable, and therefore needs to be a very high priority.

Where are you getting this stuff?

Some other aspects include:
>* The Mona Lisa wasn’t famous until it was stolen, in 1911, and even more famous on its recovery in 1913.

Da Vinci has been an important artist since the times. He was a rock star of Renaissance Italy.

>* The push for very high prices for some artwork only began in 1958. Before that, nobody took art auctions seriously.

ref?

I am not impressed with assumptions made in this opening post.

Ref is book “museum of the missing, the high stakes of art crime”, by Simon Houpt.

The reference to 1958 is on Page 15, paragraphs two and three of Chapter 1. “If you want to find a single moment when everything began to change … late on the evening of October 15, 1958”.

The reference to 1911 is, well it’s in there somewhere.

Feminists should take note. Women are vastly underrepresented in the occupation of art thief. And that seems to be the only common factor among art theft. Otherwise, nearly every one is different.

It does sound like an exaggeration but I do get it. Things did change up post war.

Dark Orange said:

sarahs mum said:

I have a book on stolen art on the shelf.But I haven’t read it yet.

Collecting library late fees?

It was present that I got when I was knee deep in reading. I should open it and some others at some stage.

sarahs mum said:

Dark Orange said:

sarahs mum said:

I have a book on stolen art on the shelf.But I haven’t read it yet.

Collecting library late fees?

It was present that I got when I was knee deep in reading. I should open it and some others at some stage.

I was speculating on the potential irony of it being stolen art itself.

I’m still struggling with the concept of identifying the components that give art its value.

The cost of materials, of course.
Whether the size and colour fits the purchaser’s decor.
The emotional impact.

But then the value of art gets murky. The above doesn’t include any sense of “rarity”.

There’s the story behind it, the history. It almost seems that the value of a piece of art is measured by the number of words written about it in obscure journals.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m still struggling with the concept of identifying the components that give art its value.

The cost of materials, of course.
Whether the size and colour fits the purchaser’s decor.
The emotional impact.

But then the value of art gets murky. The above doesn’t include any sense of “rarity”.

There’s the story behind it, the history. It almost seems that the value of a piece of art is measured by the number of words written about it in obscure journals.

It’s pretty simple supply and demand. If more than one person wants to own it its value is going to rise.

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m still struggling with the concept of identifying the components that give art its value.

The cost of materials, of course.
Whether the size and colour fits the purchaser’s decor.
The emotional impact.

But then the value of art gets murky. The above doesn’t include any sense of “rarity”.

There’s the story behind it, the history. It almost seems that the value of a piece of art is measured by the number of words written about it in obscure journals.

It’s pretty simple supply and demand. If more than one person wants to own it its value is going to rise.

And you’re trying to equate a works monetary value with its intrinsic value. Two entirely different things.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m still struggling with the concept of identifying the components that give art its value.

The cost of materials, of course.
Whether the size and colour fits the purchaser’s decor.
The emotional impact.

But then the value of art gets murky. The above doesn’t include any sense of “rarity”.

There’s the story behind it, the history. It almost seems that the value of a piece of art is measured by the number of words written about it in obscure journals.

It’s pretty simple supply and demand. If more than one person wants to own it its value is going to rise.

And you’re trying to equate a works monetary value with its intrinsic value. Two entirely different things.

I’m actually trying to distinguish between monetary value and intrinsic value, and not succeeding as well as I’d hoped.

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

It’s pretty simple supply and demand. If more than one person wants to own it its value is going to rise.

And you’re trying to equate a works monetary value with its intrinsic value. Two entirely different things.

I’m actually trying to distinguish between monetary value and intrinsic value, and not succeeding as well as I’d hoped.

Does it help if I add the word cultural?

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

It’s pretty simple supply and demand. If more than one person wants to own it its value is going to rise.

And you’re trying to equate a works monetary value with its intrinsic value. Two entirely different things.

I’m actually trying to distinguish between monetary value and intrinsic value, and not succeeding as well as I’d hoped.

some part of the answer is likely in the answer to the proposition what is artlessness

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

there’s art fraud also, imitating genuine works and passing them of as the real thing

happens in Australia, in fact I remember a story way back, some lovely old lady tried to deprive a young couple of their bond on a rental property, over some mostly fabricated and frivolous claim of damage to the property, to which the young couple responded by visiting the old lady and dared ask questions as to why she might rob the young couple of their bond. Now, as the story goes, which is likely completely made up, the old lady used some distractions like you’re getting your pregnant wife upset and then attempting to close the door, but inconveniently their was a foot wedged in the door and more questions, to which the lovely old lady went off and said she was calling the police, to which one of the young couple told her to bring the phone book to them and they’d find the number for her

anyway, to cut a long story short, the young couple didn’t bother going to any further trouble to get their bond back, but some justice came about maybe a decade later when a name was mentioned in a news report related art fraud

like I said, just a story

I don’t understand, sorry.

I can’t figure it out either.

In a nutshell

Transition is one half of the anonymous couple

They killed that old lady , never paid a cent of rent and she’s still under the floor boards to this day

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

And you’re trying to equate a works monetary value with its intrinsic value. Two entirely different things.

I’m actually trying to distinguish between monetary value and intrinsic value, and not succeeding as well as I’d hoped.

Does it help if I add the word cultural?

I don’t see the relevance, unless you’re talking about pre-contact art of for example Mesopotamia or Benin or Australia, and its later descendants.

> some part of the answer is likely in the answer to the proposition what is artlessness

I’ve noticed a common factor in all the art in art galleries – balance. Every good piece of art has balance, no matter what the genre or emotional impact.

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m actually trying to distinguish between monetary value and intrinsic value, and not succeeding as well as I’d hoped.

Does it help if I add the word cultural?

I don’t see the relevance, unless you’re talking about pre-contact art of for example Mesopotamia or Benin or Australia, and its later descendants.

——

later descendants like…Banksy?

>Transition is one half of the anonymous couple

chuckle

yeah nah, gist of the story may have been about if a wronged person sees the wronger on TV involved in a bigger wrong, apparently found by the official finders of wrongs and then being punished by the official punishers of wrongs, for matters related selling first australian art that were meant to be genuine, that wasn’t really done by first australians, or the first australian indicated, something like that, that sort of naughty, so went the story

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m actually trying to distinguish between monetary value and intrinsic value, and not succeeding as well as I’d hoped.

Does it help if I add the word cultural?

I don’t see the relevance, unless you’re talking about pre-contact art of for example Mesopotamia or Benin or Australia, and its later descendants.

——

later descendants like…Banksy?

He seems to be suggesting that for culture to be of any significance it must be more than 5000 years old, which seems a little odd.

I’m an art for art’s sake man, I don’t do money.

Bubblecar said:

I’m an art for art’s sake man, I don’t do money.

Same here, although if someone offered me $10 million for one of my works I’d probably accept it.

Bubblecar said:

I’m an art for art’s sake man, I don’t do money.

If someone makes selections and creates something I am likely to call it art.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

Does it help if I add the word cultural?

I don’t see the relevance, unless you’re talking about pre-contact art of for example Mesopotamia or Benin or Australia, and its later descendants.

later descendants like…Banksy?

He seems to be suggesting that for culture to be of any significance it must be more than 5000 years old, which seems a little odd.

Not suggesting that at all. I’m suggesting that I totally fail to see what “culture” has to do with the intrinsic value of art. Unless we’re talking about bacterial culture.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

later descendants like…Banksy?

He seems to be suggesting that for culture to be of any significance it must be more than 5000 years old, which seems a little odd.

Not suggesting that at all. I’m suggesting that I totally fail to see what “culture” has to do with the intrinsic value of art. Unless we’re talking about bacterial culture.

Many people value artefacts that are the products of earlier cultures, so those artefacts have an intrinsic value for those people. If other people do not value these things, that does not affect the value placed on them by those who do.

> sarahs mum said:

> later descendants like…Banksy?

Then you mean either artist’s name or genre rather than “culture”?
Or do you mean that Banksy is highly cultured?

mollwollfumble said:

> sarahs mum said:

> later descendants like…Banksy?

Then you mean either artist’s name or genre rather than “culture”?
Or do you mean that Banksy is highly cultured?

No.
I am saying that Banksy’s work is reflective of what culture we possess in these times.

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

> sarahs mum said:

> later descendants like…Banksy?

Then you mean either artist’s name or genre rather than “culture”?
Or do you mean that Banksy is highly cultured?

No.
I am saying that Banksy’s work is reflective of what culture we possess in these times.

Oh!

I hadn’t though of that!

I’ve never thought of art reflecting culture; but you’re right, it does.

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

> sarahs mum said:

> later descendants like…Banksy?

Then you mean either artist’s name or genre rather than “culture”?
Or do you mean that Banksy is highly cultured?

No.
I am saying that Banksy’s work is reflective of what culture we possess in these times.

Oh!

I hadn’t though of that!

I’ve never thought of art reflecting culture; but you’re right, it does.

:)

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

No.
I am saying that Banksy’s work is reflective of what culture we possess in these times.

Oh!

I hadn’t though of that!

I’ve never thought of art reflecting culture; but you’re right, it does.

:)

Kind of a humorous picture

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

Oh!

I hadn’t though of that!

I’ve never thought of art reflecting culture; but you’re right, it does.

:)

Kind of a humorous picture

It’s called ‘Action painting II’ Mark Tansey. 1984.

My favourite Tansey.

The Innocent Eye Test.

The cow is looking at a painting by Paulus Potter, painted in 1647. He had sketched cows and worked up the painting from those sketches. Some of cows represented were painted from studies of other cows. Composites.The next painting for her to look at is a Monet haystack. Also present academic art judges. And livestock judges.

sarahs mum said:

My favourite Tansey.

The Innocent Eye Test.

The cow is looking at a painting by Paulus Potter, painted in 1647. He had sketched cows and worked up the painting from those sketches. Some of cows represented were painted from studies of other cows. Composites.The next painting for her to look at is a Monet haystack. Also present academic art judges. And livestock judges.

Note the mop.

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

My favourite Tansey.

The Innocent Eye Test.

The cow is looking at a painting by Paulus Potter, painted in 1647. He had sketched cows and worked up the painting from those sketches. Some of cows represented were painted from studies of other cows. Composites.The next painting for her to look at is a Monet haystack. Also present academic art judges. And livestock judges.

Note the mop.

He should also have a shovel :)
.

sarahs mum said:

My favourite Tansey.

The Innocent Eye Test.

The cow is looking at a painting by Paulus Potter, painted in 1647. He had sketched cows and worked up the painting from those sketches. Some of cows represented were painted from studies of other cows. Composites.The next painting for her to look at is a Monet haystack. Also present academic art judges. And livestock judges.

Now that’s a clever way to judge the intrinsic value of art.

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

My favourite Tansey.

The Innocent Eye Test.

The cow is looking at a painting by Paulus Potter, painted in 1647. He had sketched cows and worked up the painting from those sketches. Some of cows represented were painted from studies of other cows. Composites.The next painting for her to look at is a Monet haystack. Also present academic art judges. And livestock judges.

Note the mop.

He should also have a shovel :)
.

> One viewpoint is that it’s only swirls of paint on canvas, so needs to be a much lower priority for the police than either defrauding someone of their life savings or family violence. The other viewpoint is that high art is unique, irreplaceable, and therefore needs to be a very high priority.

I’ve borrowed a video from the library called “The price of everything – lays bare the absurdity of the art market – a documentary for people who like Monet, Money, or both”.

It looks at the value of art in detail, with many interviews with all the most famous modern American artists, with famous collectors, and with high value auctioneers and marketers.

From artists there are comments like “Art and money have no hook-up at all”, “The best artist is not the most expensive artist”.

From collectors, we have insights like “There’s a lot of money out there and there’s a limit to where you can put money” and “buying art for more than it is worth put me on the map” and “At the higher reaches of the art market it’s an entire different ecosystem out there, where art is absolutely an asset” and “there are wolves in sheep’s clothing, sheep in wolves clothing, and everything in between”.

From an art marketer “The value of art is quality + clarity + consensus”. By “clarity” I think she means “and that tells an unambiguous story”. The role of this marketer is to place the background of the artwork in a context that increases its value, and to broker deals between seller and buyer.

One of the best questions an artist can ask is “Is this art?”

Perhaps art ownership should be thought of like a marriage. Where there is a piece of art that a collector MUST have, or just a piece of art that they like. The divorce comes later.

The art market is likened to both the real estate market and the stock market. The stock market calculation “who’s the most undervalued artist” also applies to the art market. There is even a futures market for paintings now, an artist may promise to sell a painting at a future date and that promise can be sold for a profit.

One technique that has been found to increase the value of art is to make a small number, eg. three, of artworks that are identical apart from colour.

One technique that has been found to increase the value of art is to make a small number, eg. three, of artworks that are identical apart from colour.

I’m working mostly on editions of 15 that are variable. Same plate. Different colours or printing method. I’ll mark 3/15 E.V.

If you looked you could probably find a Picasso or Matisse etching for much the same price. But they would be coming from editions of 500 or more and the only thing the artist was involved in was working the plate and signing the prints.