NationStates Jolt Archive

The Mona Lisa was was "assessed for insurance purposes at $100 million, pior to the 1962–1963 tour" (Wiki), and I'm unable to find the prices, but I assume Andy Warhol's works are up in the hundreds of thousands/millions. Then we have the lower end of the scale: local artists, selling their work for less than $50.

I often look at pieces in my local gallery and think "there's no way I'd pay $40or that", but then I also see pieces that I think "I can't believe no one has bought it at that price!"

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for? And how much would you pay for artwork?

Time, effort, opportunity costs, meaning, etc.. They're all considered when pricing.

I wouldn't put a budget on my nonexistent spending. If I really liked something, I'd pay anything.

When people try to haggle with me to sell them one of my photos for less money, I don't really appreciate that.

I have serious problems with pricing my artwork and usually tend to under-price. I do surrealist collage and assembled sculpture, and the impact of the work is in its content, more than the physical object itself, which is generally made of inexpensive materials/techniques. It's not like pricing bronze sculpture. If I went for purely pragmatic pricing -- costs plus profit margin -- which I'm most comfortable with, I would make hardly a dime off my work. So I end up having to dance around the intangible notion of "quality," which I HATE doing because it feels so unreal to me. I see work that I think is shit priced in the $1000s, and I'm told I could be in that range, but I kind of don't want to be classed in with those no-talent rip-off artists, so I resist using their pricing methods and I stay poor. So goes my brain.

Also, I have major social-political issues with so-called "affordable art," which in usual practice means discounting a $5000 painting down to $3000 and calling that "affordable." It just really pisses me off, the way artists price themselves to be accessible only to the wealthy -- especially considering that the wealthy don't even buy much art anymore. The days of Peggy Gugenheim are over.

Artists deserve to get paid fairly for their work, but they also have to be aware of the market and control their costs to suit it. One of my professional goals is to try to yoke fine art content with commercial art production techniques -- a kind of mass production of fine art -- that will allow VERY inexpensive work to be profitable. I'm talking works under $50. I'm trying to produce art the way writers/publishers produce books, but not lose the "fine art" aspect of the content. I admit this might be a bit easier for a surrealist collagist than for a bronze sculptor or muralist, of course. But if I can make it work, then I would be able to produce truly affordable art and still earn a fair income from it. It's an ambitious goal. It might not work.

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for?
The fact that someone was willing to pay the sale price.
And how much would you pay for artwork?
It would depend upon the particular item.

"They say that painting is the panacea for all the ills of modern life, yet everyone still buys the painting that matches the couch." -Bette Midler

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for?Someone being willing to pay the price, obviously.

I think a Warhol would sell for considerably more than hundreds of thousands. One was kited for 70 mil last year.

As for price, teh best way to get a lot of money is to persuade a trustee of a big name museum to buy some of your work*. Inevitably the museum will then 'accession' some of your other sub-par pieces, because the trustee will want the value of his/her art collection to go up.

Once you are in the museum collection - mind you it has to be a decent one, like the getty, not some hippy commune thingy in vermont - it's just a matter of time before you are in some curated show/exhibition. Provided you are not dead at this point**, pretty much any scribble you produce will now be worth a fortune, because the noveau riche wanting to buy good taste, will be banging down your door to get examples of the work of a renowned artist.

*This is harder than it sounds in practice, but not impossible.

** Avoid driving drunk while simultaneously trying to have a threesome.

I often look at pieces in my local gallery and think "there's no way I'd pay $40or that", but then I also see pieces that I think "I can't believe no one has bought it at that price!"

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for? And how much would you pay for artwork?

apparently $60. thats what i paid the other week for a very nice pastel floral done by an older man who, i guess, had decided that he needed to sell off some of his older work that was hanging around his house. it seemed to me to be worth more like $300-$600 given the skill of the artist.

at a gallery you are also paying for the business overhead and the judgement of the agent who is representing the artist. if you dont have much artistic knowledge and judgement of your own, you go with theirs and trust that you arent being screwed. kind of a crap shoot, eh?

if you dont have much artistic knowledge and judgement of your own, you go with theirs and trust that you arent being screwed. kind of a crap shoot, eh?

I understand what you're saying but I've always been told this:

If you like something, buy it. Unless you're specifically investing for a return, simply buy what you like, if you have to have it and you can justify it to yourself, then you've never been conned.

local artists, selling their work for less than $50.

was this back in 1958?

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for?

The amount of bullshit your willing to buy + artist presentation - (most expensive thing you have in your house ÷ temperature - time) + total value of all current artwork owned ÷ 6

And how much would you pay for artwork?

anything over £150 isn't worth the amount of alcohol you could buy

I understand what you're saying but I've always been told this:

If you like something, buy it. Unless you're specifically investing for a return, simply buy what you like, if you have to have it and you can justify it to yourself, then you've never been conned.

well true.

but art is a minefield. you go into a gallery and see something you like that is outrageously overpriced. if you buy it at that price you are still being taken advantage of. you have relied on the gallery to price it correctly and they havent. how bad that is depends on how much you overpaid.

most people buy art for more than just their own enjoyment of it. they display it in their homes for their friends, famly and associates to see. they expect some "payback" from that, some gaining of prestige in their eyes for artistic good taste. if you dont have good taste you have to rely on the gallery not to steer you wrong.

some people DO want to buy art that has collection value. or will have collection value. or might have collection value some day. you have to rely on an art professional to help you make that correct investment. a good art gallery is as important as a good stock broker in that kind of art purchase.

In the art world, aren't you usually just buying a name? The more well-known an artist and their work gets, the more money they can demand. I mean, that's just from my no-clue observation.

Thank God there's a sensible and controlled way to price music. Though that does mean the shit costs the same as true art.

Simple answer, demand.

well true.

but art is a minefield. you go into a gallery and see something you like that is outrageously overpriced. if you buy it at that price you are still being taken advantage of. you have relied on the gallery to price it correctly and they havent. how bad that is depends on how much you overpaid. But you're not just paying for the joy you'll receive from it, you're also paying for the joy someone else is going to be denied (either from the painting itself, or the money they could have earned).

In the art world, aren't you usually just buying a name? The more well-known an artist and their work gets, the more money they can demand. I mean, that's just from my no-clue observation.

Thank God there's a sensible and controlled way to price music. Though that does mean the shit costs the same as true art.Bad comparison, actually. Music is not a rival good, whereas paintings and statues are. You being able to listen to a song will not impede someone else from listening to that song by other means. You displaying an original painting in your house will prevent someone else from doing so. You'll notice copies of art cost a lot less than the original piece. This is more comparable to buying a recording of music.

But you're not just paying for the joy you'll receive from it, you're also paying for the joy someone else is going to be denied (either from the painting itself, or the money they could have earned).

yes but if you grossly overpaid, they are laughing at you instead of being pissed that you got it and they didnt.

yes but if you grossly overpaid, they are laughing at you instead of being pissed that you got it and they didnt.Then don't buy it in the first place. Since you would have overpaid, no one else is going to buy it, and you should be able to haggle.

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for? And how much would you pay for artwork?

Market forces baby! Supply and demand dictate the price. A print of dogs playing poker? Inexpensive since you can knock those out easy. The Mona Lisa? Very rare with significant historical and name recognition.

Buying art is like buying stocks. Some art is currently "in" and thus more expensive.

As for how much I would be willing to pay for art, currently the most I have paid was $2000 for a painting by a Georgian artist. Gave it to my wife to thank her for the birth of my first child.

Then don't buy it in the first place. Since you would have overpaid, no one else is going to buy it, and you should be able to haggle.

always a good option

but it does require that you have an understanding of the worth of a particular art piece. and an understanding of the financial condition of the gallery. without that you may be trying to negotiate an unreasonably low price or end up still paying far more than its worth.

all im saying is that its a mine field.

always a good option

but it does require that you have an understanding of the worth of a particular art piece. and an understanding of the financial condition of the gallery. without that you may be trying to negotiate an unreasonably low price or end up still paying far more than its worth.

all im saying is that its a mine field.I never said that figuring out how much other people are willing to pay for it is an easy thing to estimate :D

The Mona Lisa was was "assessed for insurance purposes at $100 million, pior to the 1962–1963 tour" (Wiki), and I'm unable to find the prices, but I assume Andy Warhol's works are up in the hundreds of thousands/millions. Then we have the lower end of the scale: local artists, selling their work for less than $50.

I often look at pieces in my local gallery and think "there's no way I'd pay $40or that", but then I also see pieces that I think "I can't believe no one has bought it at that price!"

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for? And how much would you pay for artwork?

The interaction of age, rarity, quality, popularity and reputation would, I suggest, dictate price. Where local artwork is concerned, and one can detatch artistic analysis from the more blind effect of reputation, I'd imagine the whole affair is more subjective.

Then don't buy it in the first place. Since you would have overpaid, no one else is going to buy it, and you should be able to haggle.

always a good option

but it does require that you have an understanding of the worth of a particular art piece. and an understanding of the financial condition of the gallery. without that you may be trying to negotiate an unreasonably low price or end up still paying far more than its worth.

all im saying is that its a mine field.
If a person wants to buy original art, they are well-advised to become informed consumers.

When it comes to what to buy, I think it's foolish to buy art just for an investment. Predicting value appreciation of art is pure speculation because value is dependent on popularity, and popularity, even of famous artists, will wax and wane with fashion/taste. There have been a few periods when you couldn't get good resale value even for well-known Impressionists, and about 8-10 years ago, a major collection sale of Duchamps works through Southeby's netted only about $7million, after the experts had appraised the collection at $12million. You might think $7mil is good, but not if you had been banking on $12mil. Trends in art popularity are almost impossible to predict. A person would do better to gamble with their money than to buy art as an investment, in my opinion.

The only good reason to buy a work of art is because you like it. And the only good price to pay for a work of art is the one you can afford.

Now when it comes to galleries, I agree that it can be helpful to those who want to own art but don't trust their own taste/judgment to consult with experts. However, galleries are not run by experts. They are run by shopkeepers with merchandise to sell. Galleries are not museums or educational outlets. They are retail stores, plain and simple. The resume of the gallery director doesn't matter -- they are there to sell whatever works they have, and if you ask them if this or that artist is popular or good or likely to appreciate in value, they will say yes to everything, to make the sale.

Art buyers who don't feel confident that "I like it" is a good enough reason to buy something, are better advised to go to museums, take museum tours, attend museum lectures, etc., because museums are not selling their works and do offer education without profit motive.

As for the pricing in galleries, in my opinion, it is almost always too high. The NEA states that a fair gallery commission is 25-30% over the artist's price for the artwork, but almost every commercial (for-profit) gallery (all the high-reputation ones) charge 50% or more. And do not rely on gallery discounts. Some galleries will hook new buyers or reward repeat buyers by offering significant discounts, but those COME OUT OF THE ARTIST'S CUT, not the gallery's commission -- and many times, the galleries give these discounts and under-pay the artist WITHOUT getting the artist's permission to do so.

It works like this: The artist sets a price for his work and gives it to the gallery. The gallery adds their commission to the artist's price and puts the work up for sale. If buyers balk at the price plus commission, the gallery will might give a discount. But they will deduct the discount from the amount they pay to the artist, not from the amount they pay to themselves. No matter what they sell the work for, they will get their full commission on the ORIGINAL price. It's the artist who gets paid less. Legally, they are supposed to clear this in advance with artists via a gallery contract, but the majority get away with not doing that because artists do not know their rights and/or are afraid of getting blackballed from the market if they enforce their rights. I have known galleries that have no qualms about making money off the sale of artwork for which the artists themselves get paid almost nothing at all.

If buyers want to get good, FAIR prices for artwork, then in my opinion, they should avoid for-profit galleries and instead go to art fairs, open-studio events and other events where artists sell directly to the public. You will save the entire amount of a gallery commission mark-up and you might even get the work discounted to cost. Plus you often get to meet the artists and get a direct feel for what their work is about, from the horse's mouth.

I personally would use high-end galleries and museums to "browse" art and get educated, then go to non-profit (hippy) galleries and/or to the artists themselves to actually buy. Also, artist co-op galleries are a good shopping option because they are generally non-profit as well and are owned by associations of artists who show their own as well as non-member artists there. They typically stick strictly to the NEA's ethical pricing guidelines.

The Mona Lisa was was "assessed for insurance purposes at $100 million, pior to the 1962–1963 tour" (Wiki), and I'm unable to find the prices, but I assume Andy Warhol's works are up in the hundreds of thousands/millions. Then we have the lower end of the scale: local artists, selling their work for less than $50.

I often look at pieces in my local gallery and think "there's no way I'd pay $40or that", but then I also see pieces that I think "I can't believe no one has bought it at that price!"

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for? And how much would you pay for artwork?

It really depends. I spent $260 at auction once for an ukiyoe block print; I'm pretty sure it was worth much more and, if I'd had the money, I'd have paid it.

I have serious problems with pricing my artwork and usually tend to under-price.

Same here. I want it to sell, because I want exposure and I think everyone should be able to have the joy of artwork, no matter what their budget, but I also feel badly when I sell something for $20 (or $15, or $10, or $5!), that I've given away a part of me that was worth so much more.

was this back in 1958?

No. The cheapest I've sold a paiting for was $5. It was small, but it took at least an hour.

Same here. I want it to sell, because I want exposure and I think everyone should be able to have the joy of artwork, no matter what their budget, but I also feel badly when I sell something for $20 (or $15, or $10, or $5!), that I've given away a part of me that was worth so much more.



No. The cheapest I've sold a paiting for was $5. It was small, but it took at least an hour.

you should not underprice your work even to get it out there.

at a minimum it should be priced to cover your materials and labor. even if its minimum wage it should be covered. i would recommend a higher hourly wage than the minimum.

its a matter of pride, not undercutting the market in general, psychology (yours and the buyers) and getting a fair price.

you should not underprice your work even to get it out there.

at a minimum it should be priced to cover your materials and labor. even if its minimum wage it should be covered. i would recommend a higher hourly wage than the minimum.

its a matter of pride, not undercutting the market in general, psychology (yours and the buyers) and getting a fair price.

There are ways to get your art out in the public eye without underpricing it, although sometimes it means giving it away. I would rather donate something to a museum or a charity auction than sell it for less than it was worth. Besides, press is good.

There are ways to get your art out in the public eye without underpricing it, although sometimes it means giving it away. I would rather donate something to a museum or a charity auction than sell it for less than it was worth. Besides, press is good.

yeah! when you do that, they put a suggested value on it that is fair. if it goes for less, its someone's bargain. they know they got something worth more than they paid for it.

Same here. I want it to sell, because I want exposure and I think everyone should be able to have the joy of artwork, no matter what their budget, but I also feel badly when I sell something for $20 (or $15, or $10, or $5!), that I've given away a part of me that was worth so much more.

No. The cheapest I've sold a paiting for was $5. It was small, but it took at least an hour.
It's a big problem. Artists have to decide how they want their work to generate income. I'm a "fine artist" but my training was in commercial design and I tend to take a pragmatic marketing approach to it. I think a part of the artist's work has to be the income generator and other parts need to be the advertising. Each artist has to decide what part will do what job.

For instance, I know a sculptor who does big outdoor permanent installations -- takes municipal and commercial commissions and so forth. He is famous for those, and he nets profit in the tens of thousands for them, but he doesn't get all that many of them. The bulk of his income is from functional design for architects -- light fixtures, building hardware, etc. He also has a low-end marketing aspect in table-top sculptures that he shows and sells for $150 and less at art fairs and several open studios events per year. He doesn't get much from them per year, but they are almost like souvenirs of him, which people get to take home with them on impulse. Very good marketing.

For myself, I do elaborate collage constructions and life-sized assembled figures out of various materials, and I do these weird, kind of interactive, multi-part projects that run for a couple of years and people keep track of -- and those things get me a lot of attention. I use them and my gallery shows as aggressive marketing tools. But what sells are my books -- these sort of graphic short stories that I make which sell for anywhere from $5.00 to $100 in either limited or unlimited copy editions. That is what I'm trying to develop into a real business -- books, toys, games, all that surrealist junk. ;)

you should not underprice your work even to get it out there.

at a minimum it should be priced to cover your materials and labor. even if its minimum wage it should be covered. i would recommend a higher hourly wage than the minimum.

its a matter of pride, not undercutting the market in general, psychology (yours and the buyers) and getting a fair price.
Absolutely.

Even if you want to go for those $5.00 sales, you should only do it with objects that can be profitable at $5.00. Hey, even the great Joseph Cornell did that, making toy objects that he sold for $5.00 each. I sold some mini books through the Art-o-mat project, which retailed for $5.00, with $2.50 coming to me, and I designed the books to cost less than a dollar to make, just to prove it could be done. :)

http://www.artomat.org/

Same here. I want it to sell, because I want exposure and I think everyone should be able to have the joy of artwork, no matter what their budget, but I also feel badly when I sell something for $20 (or $15, or $10, or $5!), that I've given away a part of me that was worth so much more.The market price of your paintings won't be determined by how much they mean to you. The only way to prevent them from being sold for less than you feel they are worth is to set a price you're willing to accept selling them for. The possible consequence from that is that you won't be able sell the art. In the end, you have to see what's more important to you, your integrity or selling the paintings for a market price.

Then don't buy it in the first place. Since you would have overpaid, no one else is going to buy it, and you should be able to haggle.

I don't think haggling is fair, personally.

If a person wants to buy original art, they are well-advised to become informed consumers.

When it comes to what to buy, I think it's foolish to buy art just for an investment. Predicting value appreciation of art is pure speculation because value is dependent on popularity, and popularity, even of famous artists, will wax and wane with fashion/taste. There have been a few periods when you couldn't get good resale value even for well-known Impressionists, and about 8-10 years ago, a major collection sale of Duchamps works through Southeby's netted only about $7million, after the experts had appraised the collection at $12million. You might think $7mil is good, but not if you had been banking on $12mil. Trends in art popularity are almost impossible to predict. A person would do better to gamble with their money than to buy art as an investment, in my opinion.

The only good reason to buy a work of art is because you like it. And the only good price to pay for a work of art is the one you can afford.

Now when it comes to galleries, I agree that it can be helpful to those who want to own art but don't trust their own taste/judgment to consult with experts. However, galleries are not run by experts. They are run by shopkeepers with merchandise to sell. Galleries are not museums or educational outlets. They are retail stores, plain and simple. The resume of the gallery director doesn't matter -- they are there to sell whatever works they have, and if you ask them if this or that artist is popular or good or likely to appreciate in value, they will say yes to everything, to make the sale.

Art buyers who don't feel confident that "I like it" is a good enough reason to buy something, are better advised to go to museums, take museum tours, attend museum lectures, etc., because museums are not selling their works and do offer education without profit motive.

As for the pricing in galleries, in my opinion, it is almost always too high. The NEA states that a fair gallery commission is 25-30% over the artist's price for the artwork, but almost every commercial (for-profit) gallery (all the high-reputation ones) charge 50% or more. And do not rely on gallery discounts. Some galleries will hook new buyers or reward repeat buyers by offering significant discounts, but those COME OUT OF THE ARTIST'S CUT, not the gallery's commission -- and many times, the galleries give these discounts and under-pay the artist WITHOUT getting the artist's permission to do so.

It works like this: The artist sets a price for his work and gives it to the gallery. The gallery adds their commission to the artist's price and puts the work up for sale. If buyers balk at the price plus commission, the gallery will might give a discount. But they will deduct the discount from the amount they pay to the artist, not from the amount they pay to themselves. No matter what they sell the work for, they will get their full commission on the ORIGINAL price. It's the artist who gets paid less. Legally, they are supposed to clear this in advance with artists via a gallery contract, but the majority get away with not doing that because artists do not know their rights and/or are afraid of getting blackballed from the market if they enforce their rights. I have known galleries that have no qualms about making money off the sale of artwork for which the artists themselves get paid almost nothing at all.

If buyers want to get good, FAIR prices for artwork, then in my opinion, they should avoid for-profit galleries and instead go to art fairs, open-studio events and other events where artists sell directly to the public. You will save the entire amount of a gallery commission mark-up and you might even get the work discounted to cost. Plus you often get to meet the artists and get a direct feel for what their work is about, from the horse's mouth.

I personally would use high-end galleries and museums to "browse" art and get educated, then go to non-profit (hippy) galleries and/or to the artists themselves to actually buy. Also, artist co-op galleries are a good shopping option because they are generally non-profit as well and are owned by associations of artists who show their own as well as non-member artists there. They typically stick strictly to the NEA's ethical pricing guidelines.

I sell my stuff at a "collective" gallery - no commisions (if you're there to sell it), just a weekly price for a wall.

you should not underprice your work even to get it out there.

at a minimum it should be priced to cover your materials and labor. even if its minimum wage it should be covered. i would recommend a higher hourly wage than the minimum.

its a matter of pride, not undercutting the market in general, psychology (yours and the buyers) and getting a fair price.

Mmm, I agree, except about "undercutting" the market: it's the buyers that often undercut - they don't always want to pay what something is worth.

The market price of your paintings won't be determined by how much they mean to you. The only way to prevent them from being sold for less than you feel they are worth is to set a price you're willing to accept selling them for. The possible consequence from that is that you won't be able sell the art. In the end, you have to see what's more important to you, your integrity or selling the paintings for a market price.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think a nice balance would be being able to sell for what it's worth, keeping my integrity and people buying my stuff. In my city, art buyers are rare, unless of course you count mass produced prints from Ikea.

I don't think haggling is fair, personally.

What is unfair about haggling?

Capitalism has ruined art, we need to go back to the good old days of Socialist Realism....

http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/visual_arts/painting/exhibits/socialist-realism/lenin-village.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/MeetingofaVillagePartyCell.jpg
http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/visual_arts/painting/exhibits/socialist-realism/young-steel-workers.jpg

What is it that makes someone's artwork (or any creative medium, for that matter) worth the price it's sold for? And how much would you pay for artwork?

The deciding factor is what people are willing to pay for it. There is no monetary "worth" that's separate from that.

I mean I suppose you could view them as products and do an expense analysis. Cost of the paint and canvas, etc. But then cost isn't the same as price nor worth. And even then we would have the artist himself factoring in his labor hours, and his own estimation of how much money he deserves. And in the end it is only as worth as much as he can get paid for it.

Can make no sale? Literally, it's worthless.

Capitalism has ruined art, we need to go back to the good old days of Socialist Realism....

http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/visual_arts/painting/exhibits/socialist-realism/lenin-village.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/MeetingofaVillagePartyCell.jpg
http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/visual_arts/painting/exhibits/socialist-realism/young-steel-workers.jpg


LOL @ "Realism."

Here's some socialist realism:

http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/gulag.jpg

Of course, that's Stalinism, not merely socialism. The latter is a euphemism you like to use so that other leftists will not immediately despise you for being a Stalin-worshipping, mass-murder-approving, propaganda-spewing, self-parody. Just to make it clear, I recognize socialism as OK sometimes. Not your 'socialism' however.

Mmm, I agree, except about "undercutting" the market: it's the buyers that often undercut - they don't always want to pay what something is worth.


exactly. so you have to have a bottom price below which you will not go. if it cant go for....$25 or $50 (or whatever represents your bare cost of materials plus labor) then you dont sell it. when you give in to the buyer and let it go for an unreasonable price, you make it harder on yourself and every beginning artist in your area.

as your art improves over time (or maybe its a process of tuning yourself in to the current market thus making your art more sellable) at some point your art and the buying public will meet like an economic supply/demand curve and they will start paying what your art is really worth. until then you have to stand firm. even though it sucks to not be selling much.

art is a very tough business. you have to learn to be tough too. if you believe in yourself and your own potential you can survive (psychologically) through the times when it seems that no one wants your art.

Capitalism has ruined art, we need to go back to the good old days of Socialist Realism....


:D "See Comrade Lenin expound. Expound, Comrade, expound!" "See Pyotr work. Work, Pyotr, work!" :D

The best part of your post is that this actually WAS the Soviet Crap. There was actual art and design in Russia during the Soviet period, too, but I guess your fevered eyeballs missed it. Samples:

http://russographica.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/912.jpg
http://15all.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/russian_poster_002.jpg
http://www.tackleaction.com/uploaded_images/russian_movie_poster-712670.jpg

And of course, there's always Andy Warhol's 14-foot-high portrait of Mao, which was recently appraised at $120 million USD. :D Capitalism wins everytime, tvarische, because capitalism understands irony. :D

http://www.artrussia.ru/artnews.php?id=685

exactly. so you have to have a bottom price below which you will not go. if it cant go for....$25 or $50 (or whatever represents your bare cost of materials plus labor) then you dont sell it. when you give in to the buyer and let it go for an unreasonable price, you make it harder on yourself and every beginning artist in your area.

as your art improves over time (or maybe its a process of tuning yourself in to the current market thus making your art more sellable) at some point your art and the buying public will meet like an economic supply/demand curve and they will start paying what your art is really worth. until then you have to stand firm. even though it sucks to not be selling much.

art is a very tough business. you have to learn to be tough too. if you believe in yourself and your own potential you can survive (psychologically) through the times when it seems that no one wants your art.
^^ This pretty much says it all.

:D "See Comrade Lenin expound. Expound, Comrade, expound!" "See Pyotr work. Work, Pyotr, work!" :D

The best part of your post is that this actually WAS the Soviet Crap. There was actual art and design in Russia during the Soviet period, too, but I guess your fevered eyeballs missed it. Samples:

http://russographica.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/912.jpg
http://15all.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/russian_poster_002.jpg
http://www.tackleaction.com/uploaded_images/russian_movie_poster-712670.jpg

And of course, there's always Andy Warhol's 14-foot-high portrait of Mao, which was recently appraised at $120 million USD. :D Capitalism wins everytime, tovarisch, because capitalism understands irony. :D

http://www.artrussia.ru/artnews.php?id=685

fixed, the Russian word for comrade is товарищ.

fixed, the Russian word for comrade is ???????.

Thanks. I always default to that spelling which is some kind of bastardized, Germano-Polish-Czech thing. Who cares anyway? Warhol proved that that particular revolution failed -- he drove the 14-foot stake through its heart. ;)

http://15all.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/russian_poster_002.jpg


I love this!

I also really like some Soviet films, particularly Battlship Potemkin.

What is unfair about haggling?

Nothing at all, as long as both parties know when to walk away. I don't mind someone talking me down on something I am selling, but at some point, I can't do that price, I have to walk. I have to be okay with walking. Same way when you are the buyer.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand the workings of the Art World. I can only surmise the value of an artwork or an artist is based not on the quality of it but on a combination of factors, ranging from sheeple herd mentality to have the next 'big' thing, desire to flaunt wealth and Art houses & a few prominant collectors decision to inflate prices in order to make money.
How else can one explain Tracey Emin for example?

Or the current modern Chinese art darling, Yue Minjun.
Here's the google images
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=yue%20minjun&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

And a link to a site showing some of his work:
http://www.pjlighthouse.com/2007/11/15/art-artist-famous-smile-by-yue-minjun/

It doesn't take much to notice that all his paintings - and I mean all - has his face painted in a grinning caricature. The exact same pose and facial expression in every single one of his paintings. Paintings which are mostly ripped off from other, much more talented, artists.
It's an okay idea to explore for a period, but to do it for every single thing you do? And everything you do is jsut copying someone else's work but sticking your face over the top. One can't even say the paintings themselves are particularly good. The quality and talent is mediocre at best. Coupled with his inability to imagine anything else past, "I'll copy that painting and then paint my grinning idiot's face on it" for the past 20 years screams out that he is of extremely limited (if any) talent. Frankly, his art is crap.

Yet his paintings are worth millions. One, "Execution", recently sold for $6.6 million US, making him one of the most expensive living artists. Call me old-fashioned but I like seeing artists explore new areas, extend themselves, and create new work not just copy their old stuff over and over and over again. The former is the mark of a true artist, the latter that of a talentless hack.

<snip>

Yet his paintings are worth millions. One, "Execution", recently sold for $6.6 million US, making him one of the most expensive living artists. Call me old-fashioned but I like seeing artists explore new areas, extend themselves, and create new work not just copy their old stuff over and over and over again. The former is the mark of a true artist, the latter that of a talentless hack.
I agree. It just goes to show that art pricing and artistic integrity are two completely separate considerations.