Saturday, May 15, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
DAMage Report - The only good artist is a dead artist
The only good artist is a dead artist. At least that is what some people believe as indicated by what they will spend on original artwork. Once you die your value increases a hundred or even a thousand fold ... assuming of course that you were a halfway talented and collectible artist.
A 1932 painting by Pablo Picasso sold Tuesday night in New York for $106.5 million dollars. This is a new world record auction price for a work of art. The price for Nu au Plateau de Sculpteur (or Nude, Green Leaves and Bust for those of us that butcher the french language) had been estimated at around $70 million before the sale. The painting was purchased by the Brodys in 1950 for $17,000. I suck at math - what kind of return on investment is that anyway? Something like a bazillion percent? You know Pablo is probably looking up from that special place reserved in hell for artists, yelling "WTF!"
The most expensive private sale was Jackson Pollock's No. 5, 1948, which sold for $140 million in 2006. He died at age 44 in 1956.
According to the experts that sit around calculating this stuff, "dead artists tend to retain their value better than living ones. Some insurance companies have an automatic increase of the insured value of items if an artist dies.” It makes you wonder exactly how many famous artists had contracts taken out on them by impatient collectors who were afraid they would die before the artist did.
Before the Economy decided to nose dive and took everyone including the art market down, there was some interest in the fact that certain living artists were pulling in some major bucks at auctions. Contemporary artists Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons became symbols of speculation when prices for their work soared 175% between 2000 and 2008. But then the bubble burst, especially for the contemporary art market, which experienced a fall of about 40% as speculative bidders vanished. Let's hope Hirst and Koons had stuffed their easels with some cash for a rainy day, because it is unlikely that living artists will experience that potential return on their creations... at least while they're alive.... anytime soon.
Not to be morbid but do you think the people holding onto Frank Frazetta originals are secretly rubbing their hands together and calculating how much profit they just made? There is definitely something goulish about the fact that an artist will never TRULY know the worth of their work, because they rarely achieve their pinnacle of success until they're six feet under. Doesn't do them a damn bit of good then. No wonder artists have a rep for being nutcases. We're never truly appreciated until we're dead.
Here's a thought to make it a bit more fair on the artist, who after all poured their soul into creating these great works of art: they need to tack on a death tax to their paintings when they sell them to collectors. It could be a projected percentage of value increase applied. Example: The price of the painting is $500 with a projected 1000% value death tax applied at a calculation of 100 years and.... oh nevermind - i suck at math. No wonder artists starve.
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-05-10/dead-artists-are-still-a-better-bet-than-living-ones
Also a nod of respect and sorrow at the passing of artist Frank Frazetta on Monday night. He was considered the grandfather of fantasy art. If you don't recognize the name, I promise, you'll recognize the art. He did the covers of the Conan novels as well as the gorgeous busty women chained to stone pillars that inspired more than one lusty male... and a few females as well, I'm sure. I have yet to encounter an artist who didn't appreciate his wonderful illustrations. Many of us were influenced by him on some level - whether by the fire of his imagination or his exquisite use of light and color. His passing is a great loss to the art world.
The most expensive private sale was Jackson Pollock's No. 5, 1948, which sold for $140 million in 2006. He died at age 44 in 1956.
According to the experts that sit around calculating this stuff, "dead artists tend to retain their value better than living ones. Some insurance companies have an automatic increase of the insured value of items if an artist dies.” It makes you wonder exactly how many famous artists had contracts taken out on them by impatient collectors who were afraid they would die before the artist did.
Before the Economy decided to nose dive and took everyone including the art market down, there was some interest in the fact that certain living artists were pulling in some major bucks at auctions. Contemporary artists Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons became symbols of speculation when prices for their work soared 175% between 2000 and 2008. But then the bubble burst, especially for the contemporary art market, which experienced a fall of about 40% as speculative bidders vanished. Let's hope Hirst and Koons had stuffed their easels with some cash for a rainy day, because it is unlikely that living artists will experience that potential return on their creations... at least while they're alive.... anytime soon.
Not to be morbid but do you think the people holding onto Frank Frazetta originals are secretly rubbing their hands together and calculating how much profit they just made? There is definitely something goulish about the fact that an artist will never TRULY know the worth of their work, because they rarely achieve their pinnacle of success until they're six feet under. Doesn't do them a damn bit of good then. No wonder artists have a rep for being nutcases. We're never truly appreciated until we're dead.
Here's a thought to make it a bit more fair on the artist, who after all poured their soul into creating these great works of art: they need to tack on a death tax to their paintings when they sell them to collectors. It could be a projected percentage of value increase applied. Example: The price of the painting is $500 with a projected 1000% value death tax applied at a calculation of 100 years and.... oh nevermind - i suck at math. No wonder artists starve.
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-05-10/dead-artists-are-still-a-better-bet-than-living-ones
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
DAMage Report - The Boobie Ban
Our porn loving ancestors are corrupting the current and future generations with their perversions disguised as art. It may look like a simple state seal from the 1700's but don't let that fool you. It is really a tool of the conspiracy, used to instigate the moral downfall of our country by flashing bare boobs and stirring the throbbing lust of the masses so they run a muck.
The seal depicts that hussy Roman goddess Virtus, the not so virtuous, flashing her left breast. The uninhibited wench even is the centerpiece of Virginia's state flag. Talk about an exhibitionist. But on new lapel pins Virginia's Attorney General Cuccinelli took the pornographic boob in hand and covered it with an armored breastplate. Thanks to Cuccinelli our virtue and moral dignity has been saved.... or it was until the sex-crazed populace protested and ridiculed the Attorney General for his boob banning, forcing him to abandon the TITillating crusade. What is this country coming to? Tsk. Tsk.A similar incident in 2002 involved the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft when he ordered bare-breasted statues of Justice be covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of the sculpted cleavage.
It is gratifying that the media has had a field day with the ridiculous victorian prudishness of politicians deciding to censor art while declaring it obscene. However... it doesn't alter the disturbing fact that the trend of perceiving nudity as porn and anything even remotely sensual as depraved is on the rise. Politicians like Cuccinelli merely reflect the escalating attitudes of the general population. We are getting closer and closer to the dangerous ground of puritanical censorship. You'll know we've officially arrived when fig leaves begin to strategically decorate all historical art.
It is ironic and interesting that Virginia's obscenity laws defines obscenity as:
"... that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."Until this month, the seal was seen as having artistic value. Until Cuccinelli deemed it offensive and obscene.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Amendment does not protect certain classes of materials, including those declared legally obscene. However the law does protect materials that may be indecent or simply offensive. The issue is, what exactly is the definition of obscene? If a work is legally obscene, it may be censored and its producers may be punished. If a work is not legally obscene it is protected by the First Amendment and can not be censored. The confusion from this issue begins with its foggy and SUBJECTIVE definition. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once stated that he could not define obscenity but "I know it when I see it." Stewart's dilemma illusrates the difficulty for the courts in clarifying the ground rules for obscenity.
Please. People. A bare breast does not equal porn anymore than a nude cupid on a valentine's card equals child pornography. While what people find offensive is as varied as individual tastes, the self righteous need to dictate what is and isn't perverted and force those dictates on others has to STOP. Teaching our children that nudity in art, any type of nudity at all is nasty and enjoyed only by pervs is a sure method of developing a repressed and mentally disturbed society. History has shown us clearly what happens when repression becomes the norm in a society.
Fortunately, we still have the saving grace of comedians to bring us hopefully back to our senses.
Taking the issue of State Seal indency to heart, one blog offers up a new state seal for Indiana to ensure that their nude buffalo can no longer incite unseemly lust and embarrassment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)