
Why people collect art - pepys
https://aeon.co/essays/what-drives-art-collectors-to-buy-and-display-their-finds
======
iamben
I think a lot of the same can be said about 'art' in general, be that 'art' in
a traditional sense, or be that music, books, films, etc... Some people just
seem to have a predilection towards 'art' more than others.

I spend a lot of time finding new and interesting records. I get massive
amounts of enjoyment from finding and listening to smaller bands and music
that just never makes it to the mainstream. I have friends who have no
interest in music other than the radio in the background. I have friends who
listen to a lot of music, but only what is in the charts. I can suggest 'this
amazing band' to a friend, but the chance of them listening, much less
enjoying it is pretty remote.

Similarly, I bought a lot of 'art' when I was younger. I bought it because I
loved it, I got pleasure from it, enjoyed seeing it hanging, enjoyed talking
to people about it. Many of my friends who decorated houses hung 'art' without
any reason - it was just there, or filled a space, seemed like appropriate
colour for the place, like paint on a wall. Or often then didn't hang art at
all - instead they put up photos they've taken, or mirrors.

I guess what I'm saying; I think it's really just another example (fairly
literally, in this case) of 'different strokes for different folks'. I buy
art, you buy racing bikes. We're all different. And isn't the world so much of
a better place for it?!

------
indescions_2018
After topping out on prestige, land, wealth and power. What else is left? But
to amass a treasure horde of the rarest artefacts and masterpieces the world
has ever known.

Longform profiles of superstar dealers such as Larry Gagosian or David Zwirner
provide more insight into the psychology of those who catch the art collecting
"bug". And how it can morph into irrational idee fixe territory. Such as
Getty's obsession with the Roman Emperor Hadrian.

The Art-World Insider Who Went Too Far

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/the-bouvier-
af...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/the-bouvier-affair)

And of course, you don't need to be a millionaire to start building your own
collection. Just a keen eye, good taste, and love for making deals ;)

How To Start Collecting Art In Your 20s

[https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-start-
collecti...](https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-start-collecting-
art-20s)

The latest innovation and natural evolution of digital art collecting is
potentially the blockchain and distributed ledgers.

The Blockchain Art Market Is Here

[https://www.artnome.com/news/2017/12/22/the-blockchain-
art-m...](https://www.artnome.com/news/2017/12/22/the-blockchain-art-market-
is-here)

~~~
bookmarkacc
"How to collect art in your 20's" -> get a loan

Was hoping for creative ways to identify rare pieces for cheap.

------
jk2323
Expensive art?

1\. Money laundering

2\. Hedge against inflation

3\. Many idiots become rich. Total boring and uninteresting people. They think
having a (minor) sketch from Renoir on their wall makes them interesting or
special (it doesn't).

Source? Personal observation.

~~~
NetMonkey
I always wondered if the art galleries in my high tax country were used for
money laundering.

It seems pretty obvious: Individual A buys a piece of art for, lets says
$10,000. A couple of years goes by, and the individual puts it up for sale at
an art gallery. Individual B's company buys the painting for $100,000 - Voila,
$90,000 laundered completely legally as private sale of art isn't taxed.

All that is required is a small group of friends with companies they control.
Why the art gallery - to make it seem more legit that they are facilitating
the sale.

~~~
20180201
certainly seems plausible to me. do you think there's a reason they do this
with art more than cars, homes, watches, jewelry? portability?

~~~
coldtea
Because cars, homes, watches and jewerly don't jump in price as highly as art
pieces do. You can't buy some shitty car and sell it for 1 million a few years
later. As for selling antique cars and Ferraris and such, those are already
expensive to begin with and the margins are low.

But you can artificially inflate some BS artist's work.

------
acomjean
I have a small art collection of small pieces of art by local artists. I
generally get them at open studio events or local art fairs. I don't have a
lot of wall space.

The ones not on the wall I rotate displaying on a little stand that sits
beside the door when I leave.

I enjoy them and they seem to lift my mood.

~~~
defterGoose
+1 for this, my art collecting is basically the same, mostly prints and
paintings from local artists in the sub-$500 range. I enjoy them like most
other entertainment: as a portal into another reality. And if they become
worth something to someone else in the future and I decide I don't want them?
Bonus.

------
Gargoyle
If you're interested in this, I highly recommend the book The $12 Million
Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics Of Contemporary Art. As the promo blurb
says, it's a Freakonomics-style look the art world, covering artists, deals,
collectors, and auction houses. A ton of insight into how all the psychology
of it fits together.

[https://www.amazon.com/Million-Stuffed-Shark-Economics-
Conte...](https://www.amazon.com/Million-Stuffed-Shark-Economics-Contemporary-
ebook/dp/B0077QZ208/)

~~~
faizshah
Ha, I was just going to post this as well. I can't recommend this book enough,
it's really an eye opening discussion of how value is created in the
contemporary art market.

If you wonder why some artwork that seemingly required little skill is worth
millions or why someone would pay for an all white painting, this is the book
for you.

------
Iv
A recent scandal in France taught us that art collection is also a great way
to hide bribes. If you want to receive say one million from a Saudi gentleman,
just put one of your 100 k painting for sale and one anonymous buyer will
discover a taste in that artist and buy it for 1.1M. then brag about your
flair.

~~~
knodi123
You can do that with anything. A recent famous case in my country involved a
shady real estate mogul who bought a $40 million piece of real estate and then
turned around and sold it to a russian oligarch for $100 million. Was it a
bribe? Who can say?

~~~
oh_sigh
Why don't you just say Donald Trump?

Two reasons why it wasn't bribery: First, it wasn't just bought and then sold
- the property was bought, renovated by Trump, and then sold 4 years later.
Secondly, the Russian that bought it subdivided the lot and is set to make a
few tens of millions off of selling each subdivision:
[https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2017/10/06/rus...](https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2017/10/06/russian-
billionaire-makes-37m-selling-palm-beach.html)

~~~
landryraccoon
I feel like US Presidents shouldn’t be allowed to participate in _any_ large
scale commercial enterprise while in office. Whether it’s innocent or not is
largely besides the point, the potential for conflict of interest is huge and
there’s no way to ensure their financial incentives align with those of the
American people. Furthermore, there is a long tradition that previous
Presidents have placed their assets into a blind trust, a tradition that Trump
clearly disregards. Sure, you could argue it’s not a bribe, but it’s very
shady.

~~~
oh_sigh
This sale happened 10 years ago so this didn't happen in office.

Was Russia planting the seed in 2008 to have a puppers in the white house?
Yeah, I don't think so.

~~~
landryraccoon
I don’t see why it matters when it took place. I’m curious, don’t you think he
may have an incentive to benefit his russian business partners, both for past
and future deals they may make, at the expense of the American people? Why
wouldn’t he choose to benefit his russian business partners, at your expense,
if he has an opportunity to do so? The incentive is clearly there.

~~~
oh_sigh
Because bribery usually happens when people are in power. I've never heard of
preemptive bribes, where hopefully the bribee will run for office 10 years
later.

You know what, this just isn't worth it. You calling them "business partners"
shows me what I need to know. No reasonable person would call the counter
party in a transaction a "business partner". You realize that Trump has done
thousands of deals with people of all sorts of nationalities right? Do you
expect them to all get favored treatment, or just Russians? Is that how good
business people operate? "We did a transaction once, therefore I will favor
you and give you free consideration for no other reason"

~~~
landryraccoon
> Is that how good business people operate? "We did a transaction once,
> therefore I will favor you and give you free consideration for no other
> reason"

Suppose a person works in real estate their entire life, and then runs for
political office but still maintains their real estate business. Is it not
reasonable to assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that they have
incentives to benefit the real estate industry and in particular their own
business, over that of others? Why would they stop acting in a way that
maximizes their own personal profit?

Would we not assume the same for really any professional background? If Mark
Zuckerburg runs for President and wins, would we not assume that he would
favor policies that benefit Facebook to the detriment of their competitors,
simply because he has a strong financial incentive to do so? Indeed, would you
be comfortable with a President Zuckerberg who remained in complete control of
Facebook while in office?

Why then is it weird to be concerned that Trump has not distanced himself from
his business interests? Trump has done thousands of deals, but those deals
only benefited him and his counter parties. Those deals were not done for the
benefit of the American public at large. That's fine for Trump the private
citizen, but not Trump the President. I reasonably expect that all dealings
that a President has while in office are _exclusively_ on behalf of and for
the benefit of the American people. If he were a banker, or wall street
financier of any other type, wouldn't the same conflict of interest exist? Do
you really not think this is a cause for concern?

The default assumption should be that a person is prone to corruption. That is
the safe assumption for anyone granted power, and is the assumption of the
founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. We should not give the benefit of
the doubt to any leader. That is far too dangerous and runs contrary to the
spirit of Democracy. If you want to believe a leader is a saint above reproach
that is the realm of Authoritarianism, not Democracy.

~~~
oh_sigh
What does this have to do with a real estate sale 10 years ago?

------
TheOtherHobbes
In some cases art can be classed as business equipment, and sold without any
capital gains tax.

[https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/private-client-a-estate-
plannin...](https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/private-client-a-estate-
planning/capital-gains-tax/1074-painting-is-plant-for-capital-gains-tax)

------
RmDen
See also this Planet Money episode that came out this week
[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/episode-823-planet-
monet)

------
UncleEntity
Back when online auctions were a new thing I got me a 1932 second printing
(traditionally the first printing was cheap paper and pasted on walls while
later runs were for subscription clubs and whatnot) French advertising poster
for something stupid like $79 off yahoo auctions.

Sometimes a deal is just too good to pass up.

------
m3kw9
A lot of them do as a form of stock/investment. But I think there is a prestig
factor in there somewhere

------
sametmax
To avoid taxes ?

~~~
fwn
From the article: "Another popular explanation for collecting – financial gain
– cannot explain why collectors go to such lengths."

