And so it came into existence by the devaluation issue. Given the general pathos of power grows stronger, as well as its leadership, hard to believe it. But the issue emerged - means, in the air, spilled some anxiety, which is not satisfied that the shares fell and oil prices. She, anxiety, requires more understandable threat. Devaluation - not shares, it figures to be at all exchangers. What? Away from rubles somewhere. In other money? But they are behaving nervously.
What to invest? That's like gold just for such cases. But his pass back? Subject liquidity of gold is not disclosed to the press entirely. About People's mutual funds and then write any more. But, thinking about the gold, we make a step toward eternal values, the importance and, indeed, the eternal values which have already commented on the occasion of Pope Benedict. It's nothing that he Catholic theme of investment in these values (in liquid eternal values) remains poorly understood, and therefore relevant.
For example, it would be interesting to discuss the possibility of investment in family values with the possibility of obkeshivaniya on need. Or, for example, can invest in the categorical imperative with the possibility of cashing in the event of force majeure. Okay, it's not easy, but there is quite usual option of investment in the eternal values - is an investment in art. It is now they must prove their relevance.
But this is not about any art. Unlikely to be liquid investments in the opera. Speech on visual matters, about the pictures, etc. This topic was relevant and without the crisis, now the attention to it reached its apotheosis. Zhukova and Abramovich Marina Grove, the importation of millions opuses on "Red October". That's unless Senator Gordeev produced in Perm purely spiritual project "poor Russian. In other respects, the world of fine arts theme dominates the growth of the value of the paintings, that is, the market component of the art.
So, now everything should be invested in the picture. But it seems that this is just not happening. Why? Probably so, that is invested, only having in mind that the more expensive art purchased in a year or ten in terms of economic recovery and rising inflation. But why not invest to get away from the crisis of loss? Yes, there's another logic, there is no quiet rise in the price of the Beautiful, and the calculation that the perfect can become a financial haven. The reason is not growth, and liquidity, it is quite another matter. For example, after the crisis may change the tastes of the population, and the market will change. For example, if prior to his prized artists with hedonistic sensation of life, the crisis will make wiser buyers, they want something harsh or metaphysical. Alas, such arguments seem biased and about. And then the market is directly dependent on voluntarism and private strategies for intermediaries, What kind of liquidity.
In addition, the existing artistic reputation is not evaluated continuously. Disarray of their dynamics. Estimates relate only to the rumors, figures discretionary sales or auctions. But auctions do not cover the whole market, besides working with the same intermediaries. Their share here is so great that an objective assessment of the artist can be no question.
What to do? We must finally bring the eternal values of the market. Create a system that would conduct ongoing audits and evaluation of eternal values in a visual form. Then it will be clear and liquidity, and the dynamics of stock artists. What kind of safe investment in the art can be said until such a system, no? Art Market should be a market and live by the general laws. The phrase "action artist" is used in a figurative sense, should be used specifically.
Work is complicated. All more or less clear when it comes to the classics. For example, the market shares have Aivazovsky. Depending on market conditions Aivazovsky rising or falling, and all they see. Yes, there's the question: Is there a mind set Aivazovsky works, summarized in a single name, or some pictures? Real market option would be the first: traded shares Aivazovsky as such, and the paintings themselves can be anywhere. It's not about the artistic side of the phenomenon, but purely on the possession. Person in possession of shares "Norilsk Nickel" in nature does not own or nickel, or combine. So the important thing is that the proportion Ayvazovski accessed on the market, and they could buy-sell. As the dividend share of the profits can work on a demonstration of the paintings in museums, for example. All the same, few people care about dividends, they'll always symbolic. Then it is clear - action is adjusted in the course of life. At that price influences a lot, even if they change the value of the paintings of the author in the course of re-sale, as well as a variety of critical and insider opinions. Once again: The market absolutely do not care who it yourself work, he plays with the shares of the artist. Technical aspects of the organization of such exchanges do not seem insurmountable.
Little more complicated with the living artists who have not made anything of the market. But it should be and risky investments? There is an initial issue (in accordance with relevant standards), the new author gets a listing - and forward. This option gives the artist a chance for personal development, emissions will allow him to provide working capital for procurement of material, will provide its cost of living, etc. Of course, report on relevant expend available in a transparent form of shareholders.
All this presupposes the existence of different markets and different indexes. For example, on the art of the XIX century, the Russian avant-garde, the Impressionists, by Socialist Realism. Similarly, as a single stock market is the Dow Jones 30 Industrials, and there are 20 and Dow Jones Transport. There is a combined NYSE Comp, but there is another exchange, with its index of Nasdaq Comp. There are regional platform as the Johannesburg All Share, or even a separate market Treasury 10-Year Note. All this diversity is not entirely alien to the art, and what the artist did not venture? Mayakovsky also wrote that it works. He was a socialist enterprise, and now the artist must be a market.
Only after this art can be a real liquid. But seeing the dynamics of the shares, you can adequately discuss the risks and prospects. As is now clear what are the implications of the crisis for a certain artist? Where will be cheaper, for some style? Klimt, presumably, will stand, but Nalbandian could face problems. What first refused Russian, such as banks, from the old or new art? How to behave prices Socialist Realism, Will not that interested him was possible only in times of prosperity? What art, what artists should be supported by the state, because if you start falling share of national art, it just defaulted on train spiritual commitments?
If the market - all will become clear. Shares will go up and down, gallery owners, curators and arts journalists will take specific games to increase-decrease. Because life is short but art is long - this fact and the natural answer to the question of how to protect their savings. If properly organize the process, then this is where the beauty of the world and finally save.
Andrei Lev, Glavred "Polit.ru»
Эти 6 пользователя(ей) сказали Спасибо SergeiSK за это полезное сообщение: