A tricky question. There are strong arguments on both sides.
- Don't individuals have the right to buy whatever they choose, even if it's something other people would love to look at but can't? After all, there are thousands more remarkable paintings for people to look at, so what does it matter if a small fraction of them are stashed away somewhere inaccessible?
- On the other hand, shouldn't the public have the right to view famous masterpieces whenever they like without their being squirreled away for the benefit of half a dozen lucky people? Why should we be deprived of a celebrated painting people want to study more closely and marvel at?
A bit of a shame as we can't make shedloads of money out of selling them to the highest bidder. The Van Gogh in the article mentioned was last sold to a Japanese paper tycoon for $62.5 million and today would probably fetch about $300 million.
I think a compromise solution would be for private collectors to be obliged to exhibit their art works publicly for at least a few months every year, to give people a chance to see them. Anything else is just selfish hoarding.
Pic: Portrait of Dr Gachet by Van Gogh. Thought to be owned by an Italian family.
Nick, I have no problem if private people collect famous paintings.I feel more concerned by "stolen art". The museums are full of stolen art of many countries. , a real scandal. Art today is a financial investment.Who is to blame ? Those who sell or those who buy ?
ReplyDeleteHannah
Hannah: Yes, stolen art is another scandal. It should be returned to wherever it came from. And yes also, art has become a financial investment and famous paintings are sold for ludicrous amounts of money.
DeleteArt eventually gets donated or loaned to a museum or gallery so I don't think much about it.
ReplyDeleteNow, ask me about people hoarding wealth earned from national resources and I'll answer differently. Gina Reinhardt comes to mind
Kylie: I agree, people hoarding wealth is a much bigger outrage. All excessive wealth must have been stolen from other people in some way or another. Fortunes don't grow on trees.
DeleteGina Reinhardt, the Australian multi-billionaire is a case in point. No one "earns" A$29 billion.
It would be interesting to trace it back to the first buyer and what the artist earned. Many seem to have died before they became famous, though. I’d like to hear an artist’s perspective on the topic.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: Van Gogh only became famous after his death in 1890. One source says that 11 of his paintings were sold in 1891 for about 400 francs each (then £16, now £50).
DeleteHi Nick.
ReplyDeleteI think there are certain objects which are part of our common culture and which have a historical importance to society as whole.
To me, its like someone saying they'd want to buy the beach or mountains and no-one else can enjoy these things.
Until relatively recently, it was quite common for everyday people - on good salaries, mind you - to buy wonderful works of art. Picassos or cezannes could be brought by the common people, obviously quite expensive ... but do-able. Now, art has morphed into something unhealthy and turned into an investment vehicle for the billionaire class of our society - which is just a joke. But that is a recent phenomenon.
It's outrageous to me that any painting can fetch over a million - nevermind the eye-watering sums you cite.
With van Gogh, it leaves a particularly bitter aftertaste for me, because he could hardly sell anything in his lifetime. It was his enduring melancholy and sadness, that he felt that nobody valued his art. Moreover, he saw his art works as a means of paying his bills or gifting them to his dear friends. He gave the above Dr Gachet painting to Mr & Mrs Gachet, who were his neighbours, merely as a gift for their friendship.
Liam: Yes, it's a tragedy that artworks have got so expensive. So many artists are virtually ignored in their lifetime, and struggle to sell anything, but then after they die, when it's too late, suddenly their work is appreciated and becomes worth a lot of money (and now an investment opportunity).
DeleteIndeed Nick,
DeleteAnd thank you for shout out on your blog. 😊
You are right about the absurd prices. In the 1970s my husband could buy 'unfashionable' art for a reasonable price...not cheap, but reasonable. Now art has become a market.....and to me the worst example of that is the Saatchi stable of 'artists'....make a market in them and wait to make a killing as prices rise.
ReplyDeleteFly: And I bet a lot of the private collectors aren't even very interested in art, only in whatever commodity is increasing in value.
DeleteThere are lots of people who would like to tour lots of homes just to see what they contain. Should everyone be required to open their homes to the public once a year? I like to see how other people live but let's not take it to extremes. Just because it is called art does not give us the right to see it.
ReplyDeleteLinda
Linda: Good points. Though of course homes are rather different from artworks. Wanting to have a nosey round someone's home isn't the same as studying a work of art. But I agree, nobody has the right to see an artwork, and there are thousands of other wonderful paintings to enjoy.
DeleteArt has become the plaything of the wealthy. At least pictures are available.
ReplyDeleteJoanne: The plaything of the wealthy indeed. If you just have a few spare million to get rid of....
DeleteAck, art is just another financial industry. The owners of works not available for public view probably make a mint from reproductions?
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: Certainly all the famous paintings have become a financial industry. And yes, collectors can have the best of both worlds - hang on to the paintings but charge for reproductions (indefinitely).
Delete