Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[laklak]

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like. I really like this:

[klr]

In this Socialist utopia of access to the common prole, what kind of prices are artists to expect for their work? I guess copyrights and trademarks are out?

What would happen is I would hoard my own work, provided I was motivated enough to keep working.

Worse than that, those who ran those socialist theme parks decided what was "acceptable" art in the first place.

[Coito ergo sum]

These were and are now status objects. They are 'jewels' to be collected by the richest of us. Their true artistry is almost irrelevant, though I will grant you that some of them were executed by true masters of their 'craft' - which is what it was about prior to the modern era.

Their value is based on their rarity and desirability - they are effectively market currency of the highest order. In a few cases, such as the Mona Lisa, this actually makes them 'beyond value'.

Of course as a dyed in the wool socialist I think these should be owned collectively. That is a political and economic issue rather than an artistic one. As with so much other wealth today, these objects are owned by those who have the most power and control. Whether that is right is about your own subjective view on what ownership is about.

Well? Who gets to decide which art is owned collectively?

"owned collectively" is a fiction. It is either not owned by anyone or owned by the State. There is no such thing as "owned collectively by everyone." That's equivalent to being owned by nobody.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Matisse then?

Another one I never really got. I have seen a handful of his works that I quite enjoyed but most is just... more meh.

Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel?

Now him I do like! The surreal in the real. lovely stuff.

(Although I did need to google to remember who he was!)

John James Audubon?
Van Gogh?
Arnhem Aboriginal dot and x-ray?
William Turner?
Norman Rockwell?
Navajo sandpainting?

Audubon is OSSUM! I saw an exhibition of his work once - I love the way that he managed to put so much obvious love into what were, officially, technical illustrations.
Van Gogh too - a direct link from his tortured psyche to canvass.
I am not over familiar with aboriginal art, although i did see an exhibition of a modern, Australian artist (name escapes me) that paints in a traditional style but with modern techniques, materials and subject matter.
Turner is a firm favourite. They have an extensive collection at the Tate Britain and I usually visit when in London.
Rockwell I like, although, when it comes to depictions of contemporary American life, I prefer Edward Hopper.
Navajo sandpainting I am completely unfamiliar with. Native American culture just doesn't cross the Atlantic.

[Pappa]

These were and are now status objects. They are 'jewels' to be collected by the richest of us. Their true artistry is almost irrelevant, though I will grant you that some of them were executed by true masters of their 'craft' - which is what it was about prior to the modern era.

Their value is based on their rarity and desirability - they are effectively market currency of the highest order. In a few cases, such as the Mona Lisa, this actually makes them 'beyond value'.

Of course as a dyed in the wool socialist I think these should be owned collectively. That is a political and economic issue rather than an artistic one. As with so much other wealth today, these objects are owned by those who have the most power and control. Whether that is right is about your own subjective view on what ownership is about.

Well? Who gets to decide which art is owned collectively?

"owned collectively" is a fiction. It is either not owned by anyone or owned by the State. There is no such thing as "owned collectively by everyone." That's equivalent to being owned by nobody.

Unless there was no state.

[tattuchu]

Jesus Christ, what good is being rich if you can't spit on the poor?

[Coito ergo sum]

These were and are now status objects. They are 'jewels' to be collected by the richest of us. Their true artistry is almost irrelevant, though I will grant you that some of them were executed by true masters of their 'craft' - which is what it was about prior to the modern era.

Their value is based on their rarity and desirability - they are effectively market currency of the highest order. In a few cases, such as the Mona Lisa, this actually makes them 'beyond value'.

Of course as a dyed in the wool socialist I think these should be owned collectively. That is a political and economic issue rather than an artistic one. As with so much other wealth today, these objects are owned by those who have the most power and control. Whether that is right is about your own subjective view on what ownership is about.

Well? Who gets to decide which art is owned collectively?

"owned collectively" is a fiction. It is either not owned by anyone or owned by the State. There is no such thing as "owned collectively by everyone." That's equivalent to being owned by nobody.

Unless there was no state.

That's impossible. If there is no State, then nothing can be owned collectively.

If you disagree with that assertion, I'd like to hear what that Stateless society looks like - how does it function? Are there laws? Can anyone grab the artwork at any time? Why not? What's to stop them?

My contention is that there is no such thing as "no state" unless you're talking about pure anarchy, where there is no government, no law, and only self-governing individuals. And, if that's all there is, then nothing is owned collectively, is it? Things just aren't owned at all, or they property rights are obtained by the power of the individual to posses something.

[Pappa]

These were and are now status objects. They are 'jewels' to be collected by the richest of us. Their true artistry is almost irrelevant, though I will grant you that some of them were executed by true masters of their 'craft' - which is what it was about prior to the modern era.

Their value is based on their rarity and desirability - they are effectively market currency of the highest order. In a few cases, such as the Mona Lisa, this actually makes them 'beyond value'.

Of course as a dyed in the wool socialist I think these should be owned collectively. That is a political and economic issue rather than an artistic one. As with so much other wealth today, these objects are owned by those who have the most power and control. Whether that is right is about your own subjective view on what ownership is about.

Well? Who gets to decide which art is owned collectively?

"owned collectively" is a fiction. It is either not owned by anyone or owned by the State. There is no such thing as "owned collectively by everyone." That's equivalent to being owned by nobody.

Unless there was no state.

That's impossible. If there is no State, then nothing can be owned collectively.

If you disagree with that assertion, I'd like to hear what that Stateless society looks like - how does it function? Are there laws? Can anyone grab the artwork at any time? Why not? What's to stop them?

My contention is that there is no such thing as "no state" unless you're talking about pure anarchy, where there is no government, no law, and only self-governing individuals. And, if that's all there is, then nothing is owned collectively, is it? Things just aren't owned at all, or they property rights are obtained by the power of the individual to posses something.

Hook, line and sinker.

[rachelbean]

Most the artwork, at least the modern art, at LACMA and MOCA is privately owned and on display as a gift by whatever person/family. I am very grateful to them for it as well since I've seen some amazing collections. I do think it should be up to an individual who owns it if that is the case or not, because the artist is really the one with the right in the first place to decide to keep/display/sell it

[amused]

Back to the OP, since so much 'art' is a con, I thinks it's great that the rich throw their money at it and get that money back into the hands of people who can use it.

[charlou]

In this Socialist utopia of access to the common prole, what kind of prices are artists to expect for their work? I guess copyrights and trademarks are out?

What would happen is I would hoard my own work, provided I was motivated enough to keep working.

The term "prole" came up as sarcasm earlier in the thread, but my impression from your post here, where you said, "One comment that may make me sound like a snob--I am one BTW--I don't think your average prole will be interested, let alone be able to appreciate the better quality art, fine art. So why should they be given access to something they aren't interested in?", is that you actually believe a person's income and social position has a bearing on their ability appreciate art? And you think your snobbery somehow validates that point?

[charlou]

Most the artwork, at least the modern art, at LACMA and MOCA is privately owned and on display as a gift by whatever person/family. I am very grateful to them for it as well since I've seen some amazing collections. I do think it should be up to an individual who owns it if that is the case or not, because the artist is really the one with the right in the first place to decide to keep/display/sell it

Yes.

I wonder if there might be covetous sour grapes (hehe ... wine merchants, not withstanding ) among some people, wrt feeling a right to access to privately owned art.

Ani's thoughts have impressed me most ... and he's not even opined on the OP directly ... wonderfully expressed ideas that brought up sentiments I'd felt but not articulated myself.

[Hermit]

Devogue, art is a commodity that is traded like any other. Artists produce it like vintners produce wine - and like them they sell their product to anyone who has the money. On what grounds should private ownership of art be circumscribed that other products are not? If it is the right of delectation, where do you draw the line as to which products fall into that category, and which ones don't?

Sorry for largely repeating what has already been said, but it seems Devogue has yet to reply to those issues.

[Gallstones]

In this Socialist utopia of access to the common prole, what kind of prices are artists to expect for their work? I guess copyrights and trademarks are out?

What would happen is I would hoard my own work, provided I was motivated enough to keep working.

The term "prole" came up as sarcasm earlier in the thread, but my impression from your post here, where you said, "One comment that may make me sound like a snob--I am one BTW--I don't think your average prole will be interested, let alone be able to appreciate the better quality art, fine art. So why should they be given access to something they aren't interested in?", is that you actually believe a person's income and social position has a bearing on their ability appreciate art? And you think your snobbery somehow validates that point?

I was born and raise white trash.
I admitted to being an art snob--I earned it.
One's income and social position do not have a bearing on their ability to appreciate art, their efforts do.

[charlou]

In this Socialist utopia of access to the common prole, what kind of prices are artists to expect for their work? I guess copyrights and trademarks are out?

What would happen is I would hoard my own work, provided I was motivated enough to keep working.

The term "prole" came up as sarcasm earlier in the thread, but my impression from your post here, where you said, "One comment that may make me sound like a snob--I am one BTW--I don't think your average prole will be interested, let alone be able to appreciate the better quality art, fine art. So why should they be given access to something they aren't interested in?", is that you actually believe a person's income and social position has a bearing on their ability appreciate art? And you think your snobbery somehow validates that point?

I was born and raise white trash.
I admitted to being an art snob--I earned it.
One's income and social position do not have a bearing on their ability to appreciate art, their efforts do.

What's your definition of prole, then?