25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As part of the ongoing Mashable Awards, we’re taking a closer look at each of the nomination categories. This is “Most Influential Social Good Champion” supported by Yahoo!. Be sure to nominate your favorites and join us for the Gala in Las Vegas!
Social Good is a brand new form of online giving that draws both from small non-profits and large brand cause-marketing campaigns. But like any burgeoning movement, social good requires champions to bring it to the public and promote its growth.
While “social good” and “influence” may not have absolutely concrete definitions (is influence based on Twitter followers? Raising the most money?), it is easy to see when an individual has taken on the cause of social good to create some real change.
Even though the exact parameters are a subjective call, we scoured the web for three social good activists who are using their skills to create change. We’ve highlighted three individuals who are utilizing social media and online campaigns to shape the way that we think about activism.
1. The Free Agent
Beth Kanter and Allison Fine defined the concept of the “free agent” this year in their book, The Networked Nonprofit. A “free agent,” as they defined it, is a “person who is passionate about a social cause, but is working outside of a nonprofit organization to organize, mobilize, raise money, and engage with others.” Using social media tools, free agents are able to make an impact that was once only capable within the infrastructure of an organization.
We’ve covered a number of free agents who had influence this year. Individuals like Shawn Ahmed, who posts YouTube
Kanter, a free agent herself, has played an influential role in helping non-profit organizations accept and cooperate with these social media-powered activists. Among her efforts, she facilitated a conversation at the State Department’s Tech@State Civil Society 2.0 event about how non-profits and free agents can work together.
2. Ben Rattray, Founder and CEO of Change.org
There are two hurdles that almost every cause campaign struggles with. The first is making the complexities and realities of its cause understood. The second is mobilizing people effectively. Change.org, which was founded by Ben Rattray in 2006, helps solve both.
The site has more than 100 writers who contribute in-depth reporting on 15 different causes. When people come to the site to read about a cause they’re passionate about, they also have the opportunity to take action toward that cause by signing petitions. While these cumulative actions lack the drama of a protest, mobilizing a large network toward one specific action has proved a lot more effective than a hodgepodge of independent actions.
Change.org has partnered with thousands of non-profits, and together the community has accomplished more than 100 “victories,” in which they’ve changed an unjust practice, law or policy. The organization connects activists with similar passions, and by doing so it gives them power as a cohort that they would never have as individuals.
3. Scott Harrison, Founder of Charity: Water
Charity: water uses 100% of public donations to fund water projects and is transparent about how donations are used. Both of these qualities make it somewhat of an oddball in the non-profit world — which might be exactly what the non-profit world needs.
When people donate money to most organizations, they’re not sure what happens to their donation or how efficiently it was used. When they give to charity: water, they can look up a picture and GPS coordinates of the project they contributed to. Since the organization relies on private donors for the money that makes it run, there’s no doubt about whether your donation ended up paying for somebody’s flight instead of funding a water project. The organization even covers its PayPal fees on donations.
This model of transparency and accountability has created trust and helped raise more than $20 million for 3,196 projects in the past four years. We hope that its success will influence other non-profits to do the same.
What’s Your Pick?
Who were your social good champions this year? Let us know in the comments or nominate them for a Mashable Awards. The Mashable Awards Gala at Cirque du Soleil Zumanity (Vegas)
In partnership with Cirque du Soleil, The Mashable Awards Gala event will bring together the winners and nominees, the
Date: Thursday, January 6th, 2011 (during International CES Convention week)
Mashable Awards Category Sponsor:
Yahoo! is an innovative technology company that operates the largest digital media, content, and communications business in the world. Yahoo! keeps more than half a billion consumers worldwide connected to what matters to them most, and delivers powerful audience solutions to advertisers through its unique combination of Science + Art + Scale. Yahoo! is proud to sponsor this Mashable Award because Yahoo! is focused on connecting individuals to a community of millions so they can change the world together. That’s How Good Grows at Yahoo!. Yahoo! is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. For more information, visit the company’s blog, Yodel Anecdotal.
Image courtesy of iStockphoto
For more Social Good coverage:
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/alpine-payment-systems-c270446.html
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/alpine-payment-systems-c270446.html
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/alpine-payment-systems-c270446.html
European Apple <b>News</b>: Amsterdam Retail Store, iPad to Scandinavia <b>...</b>
Several items of interest to certain European Apple fans have surfaced over the past few days, including news of a forthcoming retail store in Amsterdam that would be the company's first in the Nether.
The (old) <b>news</b> from wikileaks so far – The US is Israel's greatest <b>...</b>
That the US will do just about anything for its protégé is likewise old – yawn – news. Netanyahu manages to coerce the US into supporting Israel in its pursuance of its divine mandate for constant, international protection no matter ...
Fox <b>News</b> '12 - Wilshire & Washington on Variety.com
I expect this is just the start of an ever-more rocky relationship between the news networks, but it may be a boon to the candidates. If they don't have to spend money to get exposure, doesn't it make more sense for them to wait until ...
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/alpine-payment-systems-c270446.html
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/alpine-payment-systems-c270446.html
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/alpine-payment-systems-c270446.html
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/alpine-payment-systems-c270446.html
Michael M Thomas Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas
Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)
Mike in Nola Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.
The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.html
Of course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.
An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.
grlampton Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).
Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.
gms777 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.
Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.
obsvr-1 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers
Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.
ToNYC Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.
Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.
great point you make:
rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.
Mannwich Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html
philipat Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)
pintelho Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.
VennData Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson
YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”
It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.
Julia Chestnut Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am
The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.
But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am
And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.
It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.
BuffaloBill Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am
A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.
B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.
C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”
D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…
Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….
Greg0658 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am
interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake
I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living
ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d
ToNYC Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.
Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)
philipat Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
VennData Says:
“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”
IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?
Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
Abnormal Returns on Art Says:
November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am
To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.