Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: The beauty of the Hockney $90 million painting
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
md |
In a recent interview, David Hockney said that the extra money that has made him a rich man hadn't changed his life - "what am I going to do with it?". He loves most of all being in the studio.
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/arts/design/d...stminster-abbey.html |
|
Christopher |
Casey Sarstards wrote:
When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either!
You are wrong. look
www.gov.uk/guidance/artists-resale-right |
|
Casey Sarstards |
hedda wrote:
Casey Sarstards wrote:
When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either!
ahh but I see the flaw in your argument...art is art like a song or a recording and all those who contribute to music it get royalties.
In Hollywood residuals for films, commercials and so on are a multi-Billion $$ business with many actors living off them.
Of course a painting is an object but when you think someone like Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting in his life (although his brother supported him and bought his paintings) his works sell for $100Ms.
I'm not alone..many artists think that when a work is sold by them for say $100 and they keep working and developing and eventually become really established and the painting they sold for that $100 may now change hands for $100,000 they believe they should get a royalty as it's they who create that new value !!!!
You say you see a flaw in my view, but then go on to acknowledge the flaw in your own. Art is indeed an object. An in this case an expensive object. A hugh cost investment. Yes, singers and actors (depending on agreement) get residuals but only from initial sales. They aren't getting a second payment from resales of CDs or DVDs. Also, spending millions on a painting at Sotherbys is not the same as popping into Sainsbury's and paying £4.99 on a DVD. The former is an evenings entertainment, the latter is a big investment purchase, thus more comparable to my original example of a house, or expensive vase. As for you stating artists being up for residuals from future sales why wouldn't they be? Who wouldn't want more money? Very few. I feel my employer should pay me more for my efforts. My employer clearly does not agree. They feel the same about it as many potential art buyers would feel anout handing out their money for something they would have to share with someone else should they resell and thus reducing their return on investment. You sell something for £100, and someone later sella their property they bought from you for £10 000. That's tough. You sold it for an agreed price. You are not a victim. It was not stolen. It goes in the file "too bad"
" |
|
hedda |
Casey Sarstards wrote:
When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either!
ahh but I see the flaw in your argument...art is art like a song or a recording and all those who contribute to music it get royalties.
In Hollywood residuals for films, commercials and so on are a multi-Billion $$ business with many actors living off them.
Of course a painting is an object but when you think someone like Vincent Van Gogh never sold a painting in his life (although his brother supported him and bought his paintings) his works sell for $100Ms.
I'm not alone..many artists think that when a work is sold by them for say $100 and they keep working and developing and eventually become really established and the painting they sold for that $100 may now change hands for $100,000 they believe they should get a royalty as it's they who create that new value !!!! |
|
Casey Sarstards |
When will they get residuals? Probably never. They belong to the people who buy it off them at the agreed price at the time. No one has a future steak in artwork they sell. Potters. Cabinet designers. Painters. Architects. If they sell such items they are sold as property. Property to the person they sold it to. No one would want an arictect to be entitled to a percentages of their house. Their property. Their asset. Noone would want a potter to still own a percentage of a vase. Noone wants a painter to have that either! |
|
|
|
