3 thoughts on “The wisdom of András’ crowd?”

  1. I’m with Ian on this, based mostly on the disdain and ridicule my artworld-veteran friends have for the knowledge, and more importantly appreciation, of art that many market newbies exhibit. Remember, just because you don’t know an artist’s market history doesn’t mean you can’t gamble on his prices rising. In fact, it might make you more likely to try.

  2. The only estimates I had them do was the Klimts which, on average they guessed with amazing precision.

    Yesterday, However, the question was the budget of the NEA. Answers ranged from 50 million to 3 billion.

    It made me think: What if your average members of the art world, the people crowding the salesrooms and the galleries, were given a routine quiz about really basic stuff, like records, size of sales, pictures that had held records. I bet you would find that, for the most part, most people in those salesrooms are flying without a radar.

    I mean, sure, it’s on artnet. But last night people were flabbergasted to hear 15 records were broken. And those were experts. The majority operates with incomplete pricing awareness, especially when it comes to the past. I showed students record-holding artworks from the past century. They couldn’t name any picture further back than 1990.. There is scant historic sense of pricing trends informing people’s judgments.

    Maybe that’s a good thing, otherwise people would probably a bit more jittery about the values we’re seeing now.

  3. Hmmm.

    Just because they have no understanding of market pricing history doesn’t mean it is about the Art. It may not be about product speculation (i.e. about the money) but that isn’t the only option.

    The other is that it is fashionable to be buying Contemporary Art (intentional caps) now, and ‘impressive’ (intentional no caps) to be seen to be spending large sums of money. Neither of which has much to do with a deep appreciation of the work itself.

Leave a Reply