What Art Investors can Learn from Gold Investors Pt. 3

gold knox What Art Investors can Learn from Gold Investors Pt. 3In my last post I began to make comparisons between the gold market and the art market from an investment perspective.  Today I want to begin winding up this series of posts by looking at one of the most important, but also one of the most controversial qualities, which is common to both art and gold, and which is crucial to both the gold and art market.  And that quality is beauty.  Gold undoubtedly has an intrinsic beauty, and hence an intrinsic value, that makes it attractive to a large number of people.  Just take a look at how many people wear gold jewellery and you will get an idea of how popular gold really is.  The World Gold Council summarises the allure of gold quite nicely with the following statement:

“Since the beginning of time, the intrinsic beauty, warmth, sensuality and spiritual richness of gold has earned it pride of place as the favourite metal of jewellers. Gold has inspired craftsmen to create objects of desire that unite us with our emotions. In the Middle Ages, alchemists attempted to use their magic to make gold from other metals. They believed that gold was a source of immortality, and so it was used in medicines designed to fight old age and prolong life.”

With art, however, the debate continues to rage as whether or not art actually does have intrinsic value.  I think that it is time for me to settle this debate once and for all.  Some art does have intrinsic value and some art doesn’t.  Let me explain.  Many people struggle to define beauty when it comes to art, but I don’t find it that difficult.  As art is a visual medium it would make sense that beauty, in relation to visual art, must therefore involve the art object it’s self.  What else would it involve,  I hear you ask.  Well, a lot of art these days involves much more than the visual component of art (ie. the art object). Take conceptual art for instance.  Conceptual art may not even involve a visual component at all; the art object is usually replaced by a concept.  You may have noticed that contemporary art often involves a component other than the art object, even if the work is not conceptual, and even if there is an art object.  If you go to any contemporary art gallery or museum, you are likely to find that many of the works are accompanied by lengthy explanations that on needs to read to fully appreciate and understand the visual component of the work.  Combine this fact with the fact that many modern and contemporary art objects would NOT be considered beautiful by most people (if by anyone at all) and one begins to understand that visual art is no longer about beauty, or the art object for that matter. The purpose of art underwent a fundamental change with the onset of the modern era.  Social, political, philosophical and cultural issues infiltrated the art world to an extent that had never been witnessed before.  When it came to priorities, beauty began to take a back seat during what was essentially a second renaissance that saw the role of the artist change from that of an artisan to something more akin to a cross between an avant-gardist, an activist, a revolutionary and an entertainer. Professor Terry Eagleton famously said that `to the avant-garde truth is a lie, morality stinks and beauty is shit’. The task of art, he believes, `is to be a hammer, not a mirror…Art’s job is to unleash contradictions . . . to shatter and wound.’

Eleni Gemtou of the University of Athens summed up the situation relating to beauty and art perfectly in her paper “The Role of Beauty in Art and Science’ in which she said: ‘Many are the works of art that have been created in order to satisfy philosophical and intellectual concerns, to provoke, to alert or even to serve social, religious and political objectives. In these cases, beauty and aesthetic satisfaction are either coincidental or completely absent.’ Gemtou then goes on to say ‘In the first half of the 20th century, art disengaged from its role to represent reality and to express beauty. Artists and movements expressing various world-perceptions, such as Fauvism, Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism etc. abolished traditional styles and introduced the principles of two – dimensionality, deformity, splitting and the projection of the process on the completed work. Form functioned as a revolutionary vehicle, while the subject in many works of art acquired a secondary and even a non-existent role (abstraction)’ (THE ROLE OF BEAUTY IN ART AND SCIENCE by Eleni Gemtou)

To be continued………

Part 2:

http://artmarketblog.com/2010/05/07/what-art-investors-can-learn-from-gold-investors-part-2-artmarketblog-com/

Part 1:

http://artmarketblog.com/2010/04/30/what-art-investors-can-learn-from-gold-investors-artmarketblog-com/

 What Art Investors can Learn from Gold Investors Pt. 3**Nicholas Forrest is an art market analyst, art critic and journalist based in Sydney, Australia. He is the founder of http://www.artmarketblog.com, writes the art column for the magazine Antiques and Collectibles for Pleasure and Profit and contributes to many other publications

share save 256 24 What Art Investors can Learn from Gold Investors Pt. 3

Related Posts:

Tagged with:
 
Plugin from the creators ofBrindes :: More at PlulzWordpress Plugins