Replies: 23 Comments
on Friday, July 14th, Klimt said
Carole Estrup's paintings are just another imitation of Klimt’s work. No creativity nor originality of her own. I don’t understand what is worth for imitating others work. Find your own style that makes your paintings unique!
on Thursday, July 13th, jan estrup said
Any of you care to speculate on the next wave of Kimt-ish extravagance? Try Carole Estrup's opposing view ... I think you'll find a much more optomistic use of gold ... maybe investors will, too.
on Thursday, June 29th, olivier said
Hi walt,
Don't take it personaly, it's just a general comment.I did borrow half of the money of our house and just figure out than we should have it paid in full. The money we save in investment is not as good as we thought. Buying a painting like that all together will probably send us to another media exposure, because it is all about that in my sense. Media like crasy story, next time we should all burn our houses...oh..oh...I am here...olivier it's me.
Funny story the world is so serious like...paul.
It's must be good to spent this kind of money...just on a painting. People are so crasy about money: some need to be different.
on Thursday, June 29th, Walt said
Olivier,
you assume I had any cash at the time (17 years ago) when I was just finishing my grad program and had only begun teaching four years previously. The reason we used my art as collateral was because my wife and I had no cash. But they worked a very good deal and we made out in 8 years with a $10,000 profit. The house was worth $27,000 when we bought it. We lived in it for 8 years, fixed it up as we went and sold it when the fire marshall threw me and my friend Steve out of our $170 ($85 each) a month studio loft. We bought our current house because it had a building out back that I easily converted into a studio. It's a two story Shaker style 20' x 40'garage.
But I only mentioned this because of the discussion on insurance and appraisals.
on Thursday, June 29th, olivier said
walt,
you should have pay your house cash, low down down payment if confortable is the worst deal you can make. Unless you have a 15/20 years old deal on your big time trust investments. Now double your payment as much as possible. Like for business borrowing I always refuse to put personal goods as security, just shop arround if you know what you want usualy you find it, and negociate. Anyway I am still short for Adele Bloch Bauer II
on Thursday, June 29th, Walt said
Andrew,
My experience with this sort of assessment is that the value of a collection is estimated by first noting the obvious and truly valuable pieces which sets the high end, then counting the number of lessor works and establishing an average value per piece. This sets the low end. I've seen this done in rare book collections.
I was asked once for an estimate of the value of my work once when buying a house. The value was estimated at more than the value of the house then listed as collateral. This got me the lowest possible down payment and the lowest possible mortgage rate at the time. Again they wanted to know what the highest values were through actual sales. That count was weighted against the number of works extant (those still in my collection) to come up with a total.
Insurance has always been a high end game from the very beginning when the Dutch traders were insuring their boats and the cargos. Chances were always good that the boat would sink or be overtaken by pirates. So the more you valued the endeavor (of course then adding that cost into the total value of the haul) the better your chances of making out even when the boat sank. Often they were worth more on the bottom of the ocean than during delivery.
on Wednesday, June 28th, olivier said
I thought Max Bill to be american living in Europe, never mind I can be wrong. I had an oil by this artist many years ago. Usually the right go by inheritance(?) to the family for 60 years after the death of an artist. sometime they pass it to an expert. In this case the insurance did not mind a lot since they charge the value on the assestment, and museum play with public money. I know case where insurance refuse to pay after they did the expertise of the collection (cf the little star on the contract). It's always the same they are easy to take the money it is another story once they have to pay after a problem occur. Specially when the number is high. They have been many collection where the insurance was involve to try to have the value for a fake. On top of that the family who own the right of a painter can ask for the destruction of a fake if this one happen to be illegal.
Anyway we are far from our Klimt; the more I see it the more I think it really worth such a high price. Personaly since I am not a potential buyer for this kind of money I do not make difference between $40M and $138M, and I do not really care. But the painting in question is really a great famous one.
on Wednesday, June 28th, Andrew said
Olivier, in this case the piece was by the Swiss artist Max Bill, who died a year or so before this game was played. His piece was composed of square columns, set upon each other in a sort of stonehenge way, forming arches. Even his own work was not made by him, it was subbed out to Italian marble yards, the same ones that made the fake. For thirty thousand dollars. He didn't always sign his work. This piece is the same as the one that stands in front of UBS in Zurich, implying that this billionaire spent enough time in Switzerland to get to know the artwork there. What else he did there we'll never know. Maybe went skiing?
One thing is for sure. If the collection was overvalued, he bears no legal responsibilty, since he wasn't the one who assessed it. He just fertilized the terrain, and waited for the flowers to come up.
on Wednesday, June 28th, olivier said
Andrew: as far as I know you can reproduce a painting if you do it in a different format and don't sign it with the name of the original for sure. In some case it is require to have the "reproduction" mention on the piece.In France by example it is illegal to own a fake, even if you do not sale it. You can claim not knowing about it but to do so you should not being a "connaisseur" meaning working in the art field like a dealer.
Insurance usually affix two values to a piece of art: replacement value and realisation value. First will be the price to pay to buy the piece from a dealer, second the price realised in auction. Fake are pretty much worthless today. Here it is only the number of pieces witch are of interest but for museum I doudt it. This look like more of a financial game, original are more safe to invest in.
For the Klimt the family just got a portion of the value of their sugar factory stolen during the war. I think it is fair. what happen to the 4 of 6 other Klimt own by them?
I beleive when the top end get higgher all the art community have benefice of this inflation, not to mention the publicity done to the quality of art investment.
on Wednesday, June 28th, matt said
There’s a boom in the art market.
It seems all kinds of price records have been set recently in the art world. Approximately 135 million for the Klimt – the highest every paid for a painting. 95 million for Picasso’s Dora Maar. A de Kooning sold for about 15 million at Art Basel 37. The German painter Gerhard Richter’s – Aunt Marianne- fetched about 3.9 million and a Hockney – The Splash - approximately 5 million and they are still alive and well and working!
Absurdity?
This century’s art market has overtaken all previous ones. The new rich, the “old” rich, and the super rich are all competing to become THE collector. Is this a question of new symbols of status or is it about the value of great art? Is it about the economics of supply and demand or having more money than you know what to do with it? Lastly, will these works be on public display ( the Klimt will ) or will the majority of the works be reserved for the pleasure of the owner?
I have to admit that I would love to own all of these pieces and more. The fact is the buyers have created a new league and it’s a league of its own. When I’m lucky I can buy a ticket to see this art in an exhibition and maybe even take a picture as well. That’s the beauty of art: to see the beauty and to retain the image of it somewhere; to reflect on it; to swim in emotions that come from it and to say “Man, I wouldn’t mind being in that league.”
on Wednesday, June 28th, Andrew said
There's one. During the period from 1996 to 1999 I sold sculpture to one of the biggest collectors on the East coast. Later, I was contacted by an insurance company seeking to establish value for the more than 10,000 pieces in the collection. Within the collection, there were a few imitations of not so famous but very valuable abstract works. It is not illegal to reproduce an artist's work, as long as you don't try to sell it. The originals of these pieces were each worth millions.
What would you say the motivation regarding an assessment is for an insurancde company? To collect the highest premium possible, of course. Now asking artists what they think their work is worth, will get you an inflated value, but what about those fakes? It is clear the company was not going very deep to find out what this stuff was really worth. The collector did not provide receipts for anything, because as a billionaire seeking a large policy, he expected the insurance company to take care of that themselves.
How does a high premium represent a gain for the collector? The collection was to be donated upon his death to his town's museum. How would they assess the value of over ten thousand pieces? An assessment by an independant source had already been done, and since he was willing to pay the premium, he must have believed these pieces to be worth whatever the insurance company said they were. His heirs got credit for a forty million dollar charitable donation. Complicated, yes, but high finance always is.
on Wednesday, June 28th, karma4luck@yahoo.ca">Sarah said
Well the painting was probably well worth purchasing as noted in the previous remark but although the sale was highly publicized has anyone noticed that there is almost no news about the heirs and what they plan to do with the money? HMMMMMM not sure why that is but maybe there is an interesting story behind the story? Wonder if there are any footnotes to this one?
on Tuesday, June 27th, walt said
Matt, nice to know that Lauder is doing something positive with his money. Thanks for filling in the details for us. I've been to the Neue Museum and it is worth the measley $10 or $15 to get in. Just as in baseball one has to come up through the minor leagues to get play in the big stadium. The big old world has always run on a profit motive. Nothing new there. And if one has the eyes and the heart he or she can now go to the Neue Museum and find the emotion and intelligence in Klimt's painting. Otherwise it would be sitting in Lauder's living room where only a few of his wealthy friends and family would ever get to see it which is more like in the times of kings and despots.
This process has everything to do with culture. Culture is complex and hard for us to get our arms around it. If Klimt's painting didn't have cultural value there would be no reason to hang it in a museum for the public (primary basis of culture) to see it. I recommend a visit to the museum if you get the chance.
on Sunday, June 25th, olivier said
Why a business man, a drug trafficant, a soccer player can worth that and not an artist? If you art bring as many visitors and royalties than your search engine why the value should be different? A collector who is buying such a piece know what he is doing, in any way to afford it he has another sense of business than what we know about it. I still think art is and should be well consider as a good investment. Now if I have a dollar to spend I expect to be able to spend it in whatever I decide, charity car ect why this guy should not be able to do it the same way? Sometime I have the feeling some people just have a strange idea of democracy. Who care 135 whatever it is only money, if it is lot for me what I have is perhaps a lot for others. It's good hopefully next time it will be more expensive, if he has too much we can take care of it. It's only money, money will not solve any problems, it just moove it somewhere else.
on Saturday, June 24th, Mark R Brockman said
No painting is worth that. No artist is worth that. Fact is, if some one wants to pay that kind of money and they can they will. I agree with Gabriella. Once more though, art has become more then the sum of its parts. Once more art is equated with money not emotional worth. How sad, dark and dangerous the path is that this world is headed, when only money talks and all others be silent or suffer. The corporate ideal is prevelant in the world, not the idividual worth, as long as this ideal prevails the world will suffer. How sad.
on Saturday, June 24th, Andrew said
Oh, I almost forgot, given the sophomoric nature of the comment I was commenting on. Things are worth whatever people want to pay for them REGARDLESS OF THEIR CULTURAL VALUE! That part has nothing to do with monetary value.
on Saturday, June 24th, Andrew said
It's overpriced. But buyers make a market, and things are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. As for yachts, they cost a lot to build, and the formula is pretty much the same as for anything you make...sell it for more than it costs to produce. With sports figures, they are bid for by various teams, and the same is true as with everything else...they're worth whatever someone is willing to pay for them. Actors? The same. So what's new here?
on Friday, June 23rd, David said
Of course it is underpriced
how much money makes stupid baseball players, soccer players, how much is cost for a fancy yahts, actors for 1-year and forget pop movie like titanic,
for a lot of crap which is just entertaining but completely useless,
and here is a real cultural and historical value. it is great for them to start paying a bit closer to what it really worth.
on Friday, June 23rd, matt said
Gabriella
Actually, Mr. Lauder established a philanthropic organization (Ronald S.Lauder Foundation) dedicated to rebuild Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe. In addition, the Ronald S.Lauder Foundation supports student exchange programs between New York and capitals in Central and Eastern Europe.
He also founded the Neue Gallerie located in New York which is dedicated to early 20th century art from Germany and Austria. (alot of great art by the way from these two counties) He was Ambassador to Austria under Reagan from 1986 to 1987.
It seems he has money, which can buy him what he wants when he wants it badly enough, and a heart.
on Friday, June 23rd, gabriella said
I'd be very interested in knowing if Mr. Lauder, quietly and without the public fanfare, admiration and envy that accompanies his purchase of this Klimt painting, would dedicate $135M to the purchase and installation of water-purification systems for third world villagers.
on Friday, June 23rd, jose said
Personally, Michael, this is really all beyond Art, and like Matt says it’s a matter of how badly someone with Billions to give away wants to have it. Morals don’t even come into the equation here, and as artists it shouldn’t even bother us, it’s a totally different ball-game once we start pushing up the daisies. What we have to concentrate on is getting ourselves to a point where when the daisies start pushing up people will want to grab them, and that only happens in the studio, creating Art.
on Friday, June 23rd, Matt said
135 million bucks is a lot money. For a multi-Billionaire -read Billion- what's 135 mil? So, is the piece really "worth" this much or is it a question of a billionaire wanting it so badly that money was no object? I wonder.
on Friday, June 23rd, olivier said
I have a customer who gave one of the best Klimt to a museum in New York for a value of $2M four years ago...he must be happy.
Historical paintings are like stock, and in some country they is no capital gain or if you deal better than my customer you can make a donation with a much greater income tax refund than the value you paid. A Van Gogh has been paid 10M FF fifteen years ago, well under the value because the governement classified the piece "historical" (cannot go outside the country) . Museum specially in France has no money, once they want a piece they should applied for a special funding. So this Van Gogh was bought with the a deal of 55MFF value donation of the estate.Unfortunately for this transaction the press went on and the deal was cancelled, some said it was a fake HUM!!!easy going off
Many antique dealers buy pieces in auction for the museum interested in it to have the time to find the money...profit are huge.
If you are good in business, art is of great profit. But like every where they are some risk too.
By the way The Tournesol at the time most expensive painting ever paid, brought in cash four time the price paid to the Japanese collector with exhibition ticket and his own insurance business expansion. Les Iris (second biggest price) has never been paid by this Autralian business man.
It is money world, but thanks to real customer like you, they are precious for us
