Just lately a Christie’s art deal became the highest market of all time. The sale included works by Jackson Pollock, Roy Lichtenstein and Jean-Michel Basquiat, among others in addition to total made $495 million. The deal established 16 ” new world ” auction data, with nine works providing for more than $10m (? 6. 6m) and 23 for more than $5m (? 3. 2m). Christie’s said the record breaking sales reflected “a new era in the art market”.
The very best whole lot of Wednesday’s sale was Pollock’s drip painting Amount 19, 1948, which fetched $58. 4m (? 32. 3m) – practically two times its pre-sale estimate.
Lichtenstein’s Woman with Flowered Cap sold for $56. one particular million, while another Basquiat work, Dustheads (top of article), went for $48. 8 million.
All 3 works set the maximum prices ever fetched for the artists at market. Christie’s described the $495, 021, 500 total – which included commissions – as “staggering”. Only four of the 70 tons on offer went unsold.
Additionally, a 1968 olive oil painting by Gerhard Kadi (umgangssprachlich) has set a new record for the top auction price attained by a living artist. Richter’s photo-painting Domplatz, Mailand (Cathedral Square, Milan) sold for $37. 1 million (? 24. 4 million). Sotheby’s described Domplatz, Mailand, which depicts a cityscape coated in a method that advises a blurred photograph, as a “masterpiece of twentieth Century art” and the “epitome” of the artist’s 1960s photo-painting canon. Put on Bryant, founder of Napa Valley’s Bryant Family Vineyard and the painting’s new owner, said the work “just knocks me over”.
Brett Gorvy, head of post-war and modern-day fine art, said “The impressive bidding process and record prices placed reflect a new age in the art market, ” he said. Steven Murphy, CEO of Christie’s International, said new lovers were helping drive the boom.
Myths of the Music-Fine Art Price Differential box
When I came across this article I used to be surprised at the prices these artworks were able to obtain. Many would barely evoke an optimistic emotional response in me, while others might only slightly, but for almost all of them I absolutely don’t understand how their prices are reflected in the effort, and vice versa. Obviously, these pieces were not planned for folks like me, an artist, while wealthy customers certainly see their inbuilt artistic value clearly.
Therefore why doesn’t music entice these varieties of costs? Is it even possible for a bit of recorded music, not music memorabilia or a music artifact (such as an unusual record, LP, bootleg, T-shirt, record artwork, etc. ), to be worth $1, 500, 000 or more? Are actually all musicians and music composers doomed to have difficulties in the music industry and claw their way up into a job in music? If one painting can be respected at $1, 000, 500, why can’t a track or piece of music end up being valued similarly? Seemingly, the $. 99 every download price is the highest price a track is able to control at market value, whatever its quality or content, and the musician or composer must accept this value as a result.
The financial equation looks something like this:
1 painting sama dengan $37 million
1 track = $. 99
Occasionally people say that a song can change the world, but no person at any time says that about works of art. So theoretically, if people want change $. 99 is the price we need to pay for it.
Right now here are a few statements that should help us clarify what the monetary or value incongruity between painting and music is based upon.
(1) There are fewer artists than musicians.
(2) Performers are much less gifted than painters?
(3) That is much easier to create music than it is to paint.
(4) The community values paintings more than music.
(5) Paintings are more beautiful than music.
(6) Paintings are impossible to copy unlike music.
(7) Painters work harder than musicians and composers.
(8) Blah, blah, blah.
Hardly anyone agrees with all of these claims and yet all, or at least some, would have to be true to ensure the price of paintings to so greatly exceed the expense of music. Furthermore, I doubt that skill collectors and great artists have to deal with as much legal red tape as do performers when releasing their work in to the public domain, so why aren’t the rewards equal, if not increased for musicians who may have to work almost all the protecting their work as in producing it. Artists and composers, however, actually should do more than authenticate their work and obtain accurate appraisals concerning what their work is well worth, nevertheless they get paid less. The equipment costs by itself for musicians is much higher than it is for painters.
Maybe it can fame, and not money, musicians are after? That would describe why most musicians settle for the reduced pay they receive from record deals and digital downloads. Perhaps, that’s also why many of them are touring more often to increase their recognition and not their prospects. But wait a tiny, that’s where musicians actually make almost all of their cash from live performances and the selling of goods, but not the music. I guess that is why many musicians see themselves not as composers, but somewhat as performers and artists.
Read this : HD Wallpaper
Exactly what do artists do, who don’t see themselves as entertainers, but instead as composers who create music as a fine art? Because they as well have a strong desire to make a living to support themselves in their chosen profession, thus there should be a specialized approach whereby they present their work to music lovers or artwork collectors in search of assets and curators for unique pieces to place in their private art galleries.