The Art Economist

I'm not so sure this is a good thing...

A new magazine titled The Art Economist will launch in January 2011 (the first public exposure event will be at Art Basel Miami Beach on December 1 – go figure). The Art Economist is advertised as a publication that "celebrates and beautifully documents the major creative and financial achievements of the world's leading living artists, examines the economics of contemporary art as a commodity and investment opportunity by listing the top 300 earning living artists and recommends new artists to watch for their predicted, eventual success."

Something tells me this isn't right.  Contemporary art as a commodity and investment opportunity?  I guess it can be for a very select few out there – i.e. people with more money than sense.  But I have always preached that art should be bought for its inherent beauty and the emotions it evokes (in the eye of the beholder).  If a collection is thoughtfully amassed over a lifetime, then, maybe, it can be seen as an economic investment.  But a high quality collection of art should be measured on an economic scale.  If it is, it will not be a collection of any noteworthy importance or substance.

That's the beauty of art:  It is not a commodity.  And those who tell you it is, should probably stick with the stock market and not the art market.

Comments

[Maureen E. Doallas]

That summery statement leaves me with a sick feeling in my stomach.
What we'll see is the usual roundup, both of artists who have "made it" and the moneyed types that buy them.

I deeply enjoy promoting the artists I get to know and whose work deserves attention, but if I thought they were making art for "major financial achievement". . . ugh!