RE: Another Cocktail For You
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I thought to myself now something come on I don't know if it's the right comparison. Maybe with these paintings it is like with, for example, electronic equipment. you pay not for the beauty of the picture but for the reputation of the author? Just like we pay more for well-known brands of equipment than for their quality alone. Of course, not in every case, because for sure many of these works are actually beautiful.
0
0
0.000
You're not wrong there. Most of those buying famous paintings are doing so as store value, not because they like it. Plus it's a question of prestige. But this is also a double edged sword, because an artwork worth as much as it is offered for it. If you buy it for $20m and next year you can only get $15m or $10m for it, you're underwater big time. It's a game for the very upper class :)
I can’t imagine taking on that kind of risk — but at the same time, it’s hard to even picture it when you’re not operating within the financial range where such investment amounts are even conceivable.
Returning to art, I’d like to briefly refer to photography, which I engage with far more often than other artistic fields. I’ve been reflecting on how people generally perceive different types of photographs. The most popular images don’t always go hand in hand with high technical quality, attention to detail, or adherence to compositional principles. Thoughtfully conceived and carefully planned photographs often gain recognition mainly among those who truly understand photography, while for a broader audience, images that are simply “pretty and colorful” tend to resonate more.
Is painting similar in this respect? To reach a wider audience, does one need a high level of technical mastery, or is it enough to create something visually simple and easy to absorb? I’m not sure if I’m expressing this clearly, but it’s difficult for me to put it into better words.