A Conversation for Ask h2g2

Artwork Valuation

Post 1

U14993989

Why should a "work of art" one day be worth 90% less the next day based on some new information on the personal life of the artist?
E.g "Rolf-harris-paintings-worth-90-less-following-guilty-verdict"
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-07-01/rolf-harris-paintings-worth-90-less-following-guilty-verdict

What does this tell us about the value of art and "art for art's sake" - if anything?

Ps some are buying up cheap Rolf Harris artwork with the hope of a rebound in the market at a later date.


Artwork Valuation

Post 2

Pink Paisley

It tells us that art is no less of a commodity than anything else. It is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it irrespective of it's quality.

I'm convinced that Van Gogh wasn't that good - look at hands in his paintings. Look at his (what I perceive as) poor perspective. Now compare them to any number of contemporary artists who struggle to sell their work.

But then I don't like Van Gogh's style and will look for any evidence to support an unpopular view.

But his work attracts massive amounts of money. Now he's dead.

Equally, Rolf Harris' work is rather crude in it's execution, but became popular almost certainly because of who he was. So will become unpopular because of who he is.

Supply and demand.

Rather oddly, if you could buy one of Adolf Hitler's paintings, it would almost certainly cost you an arm and a leg. Because if who he was.

PP.


Artwork Valuation

Post 3

Pastey

Market economy.

Quite simply put, everything is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

If people want it, it can sell for more. If people don't want it, it will sell for less, if it actually sells.


Artwork Valuation

Post 4

Pink Paisley

Simulpost. It seems that we have sorted that one out then. smiley - rofl

PP.


Artwork Valuation

Post 5

Pastey

Yup, next question please smiley - laugh


Artwork Valuation

Post 6

U14993989

smiley - ok

Next related question:
Are there any cases of a forger being better than the original painter ... and are forgeries always significantly less in value than the original ...


Artwork Valuation

Post 7

Pink Paisley

I suppose it depends on what you mean by better. Probably the best known forger of modern times would probably be Tom Keating. He would turn his hand to all sorts of styles so must have been pretty adept technically. However, in his own right he was not particularly successful. Perhaps he just didn't have an eye for composition.

PP.


Artwork Valuation

Post 8

Pink Paisley

And Tom Keating's work was just as valuable as the original. Until someone knew that it wasnt an original.

PP.


Artwork Valuation

Post 9

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

Rarity plays a part, too, though we see it more in books and recordings than in paintings. The glut in 78 rpms was drastically whittled down during the 33 1/3 rpm, audiocassette, and CD eras, until 78s gradually became more valuable. Very few people collect them, and the few who do have the privilege of charging a lot for rare recordings that are still in good condition.

As for paintings: Vermeer and Rembrandt did not leave behind large bodies of work. Plus, they are long dead, so won't be adding anything new. And, time takes its toll on the ones that have survived.


Artwork Valuation

Post 10

KB

Paintings are a bit different from books or recordings, though. They are individual pieces of work, while books and recordings are mass produced. A painting (as opposed to a print of a painting) is more analogous to a medieval handwritten manuscript than to a post-Gutenberg printed book.


Artwork Valuation

Post 11

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

Okay, good point. Sadly, I don't have much of a background in art. I'm just flailing around trying to come up with something valid.


Artwork Valuation

Post 12

Pastey

Some violins trade on being copies. They're documented as copies, sometimes copies of copies, and are seen by some to be better quality than the originals.

There was one painting that was thought initially to be by a famous artist (I *think* it was Matisse) but bizarrely wasn't valued too highly. When it turned out to be a fake, the value shot through the roof.


Artwork Valuation

Post 13

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

There's an enjoyable novel called "The Art Forger," which is about a talented art copyist who is asked to forge a painting that was stolen from the Isabella Stuart Gardner Museum in Boston. There are many twists and turns in the book, so I won't spoil the surprise for anyone who might like to read the book. smiley - winkeye


Artwork Valuation

Post 14

Sho - employed again!

I always thought the point of the "value" (intrinsic or otherwise) of Van Gogh's work was that it is a kind of anti-Vemeer/Rembrandt. The colours are very different, the way the paint is applied etc. The representation of what he painted must have been quite shocking to see at the time, compared to the near photographic quality of Vermeer.

As a teenager I much preferred van Gough for that reason. More recently I have come to appreciate Vermeer's craft much more highly - there is a painting (I'm pretty sure it's by him) of an old woman frying eggs. The uncooked egg white in the pan is staggeringly brilliantly done - but I can't find a copy anywhere. So possibly it's by Rembrandt or other Dutch type.

Rembrandt still leaves me a little cold due to a trip to the Hermitage in 1979 during which the Russian guide could not get enough telling us how the Russians got their hands on all those dingy, dire, brown paintings. I really didn't appreciate them at the time and whizzed past them to get to the impressionists. Now it would be the other way round.


Artwork Valuation

Post 15

U14993989

Could it be the Old Woman Frying Eggs (1618) by Diego Velázquez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Woman_Frying_Eggs


Artwork Valuation

Post 16

Sho - employed again!

I'm not sure - it is dark and broody as is the picture I remember,but the eggs in that one by Velaázquez aren't brilliant. But thank you - it might be the one and my memory might be rubbish smiley - magic


Artwork Valuation

Post 17

tucuxii

Supposedly Van Gough (whose work I believe is that of genius) swopped his works for drinks at his local bar in Arles and quite a few masters were nor recognised in their own time.

Rolf Harris is hardly an old master so I guess the value of his daubs rested on his celebrity which was based on his fake "nice guy" image.


Artwork Valuation

Post 18

tucuxii

Of course Caravaggio was a murderer and an absolute brute but somehow I don't think that Rolf's wobble-board will be rediscovered in 400 years time and declared a work of genius.


Artwork Valuation

Post 19

Pink Paisley

I have been a fan of Richard Dadd for many years. He murdered his father when mentally ill, believing him to be The Devil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dadd

I suspect his paintings are worth a fortune.

PP.


Artwork Valuation

Post 20

paulh, vaccinated against the Omigod Variant

I went through a surrealist phase when I was in my 20s. Dali, Chagall, etc.

I never figured out why cubism was so celebrated, though.


Key: Complain about this post