10 reasons to buy contemporary art
 

C in terms of antique lobby, investments in "aktualschikov" - this is not an investment, and the lottery, frivolous, risky step. And must respond to competitors. However, the information background also leads to similar conclusions. What impression might get a distrustful person? It is right that too much in the field of contemporary art is held on the scandal, that contemporary artists - is not reflectors imbedded in a creator, and some media figures, the market keeps on contemporary public relations and advertising, that the typical buyers of contemporary art - is any a pretentious rich people who are unlikely to sense in the context, but try to keep up with fashion.
Read more
http://artinvestment.ru/invest/ideas...orary_art.html

The article is good, but modern is better this does not become :D

In my opinion, there is one sole reason - is that the author is alive and for him to go for podtverdzhdeniem.
Other reasons are not important ..
because as far-fetched and far-fetched.
IMHO

For me personally, not very convincing just 'cause № 7 "- The prestige of ownership, with other causes is difficult to argue.

It seems to me that separately, none of the reasons is not decisive. It works in the complex. The prestige of ownership - a piece about which to speak is not accepted, but it works. I will say more: through the purchase of art in general (and the antique and modern, in particular), some people are buying themselves a new social circle. Those who are nice to talk about art - a lot, and appreciated by those who buy.

Especially those who bought ... Buyers is a special class (previlegirovanny) among the artists (IMHO)

Thus the "social shopping" deals with much more than 50%of collectors :)

The argument, however, from this does not become more convincing, Dear Volodya: I will take it upon myself to say that hanging in the living room or Titian Munch least prestigious and yavyayutsya more reliable indication of how a refined taste and ability to pay the owner, what sets pharmacists Hurst (so more so for them it is time sales), or banks as the recently discovered unreal shit Manzoni. An additional advantage to put on the correct type of horses, El Greco, Rubens and Co. - a reduction of interior design: they do not have to be replaced because they, unlike, say, Schnabel, do not go out of fashion.

Evidence of ability to pay - of course. But in such a purchase is no special courage. And visionary. Munch someone has chosen for him. What action? Message of the what? Simply, "I like Munch?"

In my humble opinion, 9 out of 10 objects, the so-called modern art, is a profanation, an attempt to give nesveduyuschey public his "spiritual" attempts at "new" art. "Especially this substitution is harmful to young viewers, not having the basic concepts about" Who and what is hu "in this area.

In my opinion - perhaps the most important reason. The only thing that makes sense to buy from kontemporari as an investment - it objects to the e-owes its birth to the development of Technosphere.

I wish I could address that your phrase to some of our members of the forum, guess who?
:)

Of course, no one who will be there to argue. But in buying pharmaceutical herstni no visionary there is none - a collector buys a "ready" Hirst and Koons, they "made" other people (who has since had to resell them). What is already here message? As they say, about to jump out of the question, how would peel :D

P.S. In fact, the collection - it's not what you think :)
Collection - is much more expensive than mechanical cluster purchased item (see property Berger /Saint-Laurent), it is valuable coherence, completeness of coverage of interest period or genre, originality, choice and, of course, a real collector collects what you like.
If you forget about it now, it does not mean that the principle of making the collections has changed, it means that these collectors is not enough - you know, like trams :)

Dearest LCR, do not judge Vladimir so strictly. First, do not forget about the name of this site. Secondly, I think that collectors who assigns goal - to invest correctly in time may well turn into nostoyaschih collectors in the same sense of where you're talking about. Third, if we reject imposed on us sovermennogo understanding of art as "contemporary art" (the rest is, therefore, not relevant), then it is all right poses. Joy of discovering a true artist and that is important too, the process of persuasion in the other - this is hardly what one can replace

Oh no, do not think I do not judge and do not forget :)

But recognize that from a purely investment point of view, buying the well hyped contemporary artists - a risky venture, will not give examples, they all know.

Now something else: the very "social shopping" leads to the fact that the new collection is precisely because of such artists as the new rich want recognition immediately, and buying another nobody famous artist, the collector puts the future: Read the life story of Paul Guillaume, a look of the collection (http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showth...%D0%BE%D0%BC): six Cezanne, Renoir fifteen, eight Rousseau, Matisse seventeen, eighteen Modigliani, nine, Soutine, Utrillo twelve and over thirty Deren. We admire, can not help but admire? But we admire today, and at a time when he bought these things a lot more people slyly grinned and mentally spit finger to his temple.

A more recent and modest example: a few days before our departure Lena Talochkin borrowed money, went and bought a Roginsky about 20 works (which if anyone in FIG were not needed). Now the situation has changed somewhat.

And another thing: we know about Matisse and Soutine from the Collection Guillaume. Here, history has confirmed the correctness of the collector. But in the collection of William were both artists and remaining unclaimed or those whose success was ephemeral (Marie Laurence). Here you are two sides of one coin: the prize collector for the superiority of his tastes, the risk of a mistake, for which he is the belief that superiority. But both sides of the coin demand independence in the judgments and developed a taste for what can not expect from people who buy art to enhance their social Standing :)

Yes, probably, but we can not and does not recognize that buying neraskruchennogo modern artist - the company no less, and perhaps more risky. By the way, say, here's a recent example - just returned from the opening of the exhibition of Oleg Yakovlev Lazarev Gallery (you know it). Name in Russia quite neraskruchennoe, although it is promising. Whether there exist investors on its share? The big question ... (Tomorrow will try to lay out a report about the opening).

But there is no way for the new rich do not - 99%after some time say: No, it bryuliki collected and will be right, but 1%- that's for the sake of this interest and tries to let Vladimir, quite naturally couching their calls in a form appropriate content.

What are you so angry at Marie - a very nice artist for blondes, incidentally, is not so cheap. And as for improving social services. status, really, let them buy Hirst. The good news is that the man is proud of Hearst, not rings