Russian art market for contemporary art in terms of marketing - Форум по искусству и инвестициям в искусство

Сергей Дородный · 25.12.2013, 08:57

It is a pity that the author did not pay attention to my remarks about the first film , considering their apparently " non-constructive criticism " in the spirit of " art is not for sale." And kept a false premise for the second article.

Over the previous article , I have drawn attention to the fact that art is ( currently ) is not a commodity in the scientific sense , ie nature .
( I certainly could be wrong, but it was , in my opinion , the only theoretical objection to the discussion of the first article.
The remaining comments were like " But Bob sells more." )

Based on the non-market nature of art automatically to carry on trade in works of art terms and techniques of marketing pointless.

Therefore, the art market turnover and prices - lame because many traders do not want to (or can not ) understand what they sell , and try to trade "by weight ."

Pointless teoretezirovat about a phenomenon , if not detected original nature of this phenomenon .

For example marketing question: why artists do not want to sell the painting for 500 if formal cost "production" made 150 ?
This does not answer the commodity logic.
Can I answer this question in the logic of marketing?

Похожие темы
Тема	Автор	Разделы	Ответов	Последние сообщения
Prospects for the Russian market	sportsmen	Investing in Art	44	18.10.2011 00:00
Centre for Contemporary Art AURUM celebrates the anniversary of its activities on the art market	banzay	Exhibitions and events	7	18.10.2010 22:54
Artprice Annual report on trends in the market of contemporary art	LCR	Investing in Art	37	11.06.2010 21:44
Vladimir Ovcharenko of the market of contemporary art in Russia	Евгений	Investing in Art	44	04.02.2010 07:09
The heart of the market of contemporary art continues to beat	LCR	Art Kaleidoscope	1	22.01.2010 19:09

25.12.2013, 08:57	Язык оригинала: Русский #9
Сергей Дородный Старожил Регистрация: 17.07.2009 Адрес: Москва Сообщений: 593 Спасибо: 1,280 Поблагодарили 955 раз(а) в 370 сообщениях Репутация: 1841	It is a pity that the author did not pay attention to my remarks about the first film , considering their apparently " non-constructive criticism " in the spirit of " art is not for sale." And kept a false premise for the second article. Over the previous article , I have drawn attention to the fact that art is ( currently ) is not a commodity in the scientific sense , ie nature . ( I certainly could be wrong, but it was , in my opinion , the only theoretical objection to the discussion of the first article. The remaining comments were like " But Bob sells more." ) Based on the non-market nature of art automatically to carry on trade in works of art terms and techniques of marketing pointless. Therefore, the art market turnover and prices - lame because many traders do not want to (or can not ) understand what they sell , and try to trade "by weight ." Pointless teoretezirovat about a phenomenon , if not detected original nature of this phenomenon . For example marketing question: why artists do not want to sell the painting for 500 if formal cost "production" made 150 ? This does not answer the commodity logic. Can I answer this question in the logic of marketing?