Does anyone really believe that the most selfish generation in American history will leave anything behind? Boomers will outlive their financial resources and become a burden on their children, before ultimately leaving them with nothing. Death is their last chance to steal our economic future.
Growing up our home was filled with books, magazines, music and art. Some were purchased in the 1930's when my mother was in college. Others over the years at fund raising art auctions etc. Each added beauty, color and memories as I grew up. I still remember visiting friends homes empty and sterile of art or books (stay off the good couch!).
As an artist and teacher I collect artworks in mediums I tend not to work in but appreciate their beauty and content. When people buy my work I am always happy it is going to a good home.
Art for me is something that adds to my life. Never the same as I view and appreciate it at different times of day or location. It is my hope that my work gives pleasure and thought to the homes they now hang in, not just a cancelled check to display on the wall.
3
"Good art," as has often been said, is in the eye of the beholder. My wife and I have collected pieces of art from around the country and display it proudly. Some is "valuable," some is not. All, however, is valuable to us. When we are gone, our collection will go to a relative who can do with it what she pleases. That relative will not get rich by selling it, but she will have a piece of us that added to the richness of our lives.
3
To sum up: our cultural tastes tend to change over time? OK, got it.
2
If it's ancient to 19th century art, we can only hope the young understand and take care of it or give it to a museum. If it's 20th or 21C art, let's hope they take it to the dumpster rather than burdening some poor art museum with it. The artist of the former periods had to have some skill as well as vision while this is not required from the latter. The 20/21st C art is sold as fine art by dealer's to rich cultural illiterates who try to keep up with other rich cultural illiterates. The Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.
2
Actually, with the rise in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other aging related health conditions, the wealth transfer will more likely be from parents to long term care facilities.
10
@Amy Raffensperger ain’t that the truth!
3
This newspaper and its left-wing following are obsessed with the wealthy. Green with jealousy. Marry into it!
3
I don't have my own jet airplane or oilfield but my folks bought a somewhat expensive work of art in the 1980's. The work was by a world famous artist. After their home & car it was probably their most expensive purchase. It turned out to be a fake & thankfully they got their money back. That turned me off to buying art. Now I go to auction houses & museums & just look.
3
As a side thought, but on a smaller scale -
I have more and more of the same insight regarding classic cars.
Prices seemed to have fallen in most cases except the 'super high end' vehicles.
I don't think the next generation wants what we wanted.
8
@R Rogers
Maybe, but there is a pretty good body of evidence, that they want those things, but can't afford them, except for the ultra wealthy who are more able to afford these things than ever, but are more interested in ugly oil wells and tacky digital devices. Long live taste!
@idle-mind I don't agree. You have seen the 90's Japanese cars sky rocket in price (think NSX, Supra, GTR, etc), and classic Mustangs and the like really fall in value. THe younger generation can now afford what was cool when they were younger, just like when their dads finally got that 69 Charger he always wanted.
1
If the younger generation doesn’t want it they can sell it. Of course a flood of stuff, will drive the prices down.
3
Tax it. We can no longer accept miserly elites.
10
Wow! So maybe nobody wants to buy a Warhol? That'll be the day...
1
Tax this $15 trillion windfall of unearned income!
5
I’d certainly sell any Warhol. The internet has out Warhol-ed Warhol...he’s Theodore Dreiser pt.2. I’d bet his drawings will be worth more than most of his paintings in 30 years. I’d unwind my Roy Lichtensteins as well. Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami, Jeff Koonz - all terribly overvalued. Let the great resource extractors buy them all and spirit them away to their penthouses in Dubai.
5
The great wealth transfer that concerns me is the one to the super-rich who will be the only ones able to but art. No longer does, "You can either buy clothes or buy pictures," hold. One can either afford neither or all of each that one desires.
1
The purchase of art is more often than not an ego trip. People like to be able to say they on this or that by some artist that the listener may have heard of. What people really forget about the fact that nobody owns the art. It used to belong to someone else and it will belong to someone else, eventually. As for being a good investment, I doubt it. I know there is an entity that is investing in pieces of the great masters and the average person is able on a sliver of the painting statue or whatever and will weep some sort of benefit when it sold.
The pitch that the salesman has usually dwells on the opportunity to share in an aesthetic masterpiece. That's the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever heard. The reason people invest in something is to make money.
The latest chunk of amazement from the art world is the banana taped to a board by duct tape. Give me a break! Based on the follow the leader mentality of many people who collect art I am sure that one of the great investments now is duct tape and bananas. But those folks are going to be in for a very big surprise the really good pieces done with bananas are going to be done with Gorilla Tape. So let's all rush out and try to corner the market on gorilla tape. What do you think?
That's about it for now.
1
I hope they don’t want it, and that they will donate it to public institutions so that the rest of us may enjoy it.
5
At the high end, there is always the question regarding how many purchases are
about the art, and how many are about laundering and moving money.
Meanwhile, for those of us not living in the stratosphere, there are more talented artists in the world than you can imagine selling inspired work at prices normal people can afford.
14
@Chickpea
Yes, I recently 3 purchased 3 prints from a local artist that I just really liked. I think I spent $40. I enjoy looking at her work more than any Warhol piece.
I also paint for fun and a few of my works have been framed and hang in people's houses. I assume they enjoy them!
5
Warhol will retain his value I think. He really was a genius. Of his generation, I think Lichtenstein is most vulnerable to devaluation.
2
@Sally Surely you jest!
1
As a young person I worked in art museums, and I would have literally died for the idea of "art." I was clueless. Now, although art and artists still have their own small place in my life, I find it ridiculous and offensive that the prices for certain collectible artists are so out of proportion. $53 million for "Double Elvis," which looks like a $20 Personality Poster I might have thumb-tacked to my bedroom wall in the the 60's? I'll take the cash, thank you, and use it to fund environmental protections in the Amazon.
22
Hopefully the younger generations will not only have an interest in art but an interest in their fellow man and put their money to use helping others as well.
11
A new period of well-structured representational art, inspired by historical masterworks from Eastern and Western traditions, is emerging now. Already it has produced masterpieces. Will the next generations of collectors described here recognize it? Or, will entrenched taste and market forces keep this new, powerful movement on the margins for some time? I can't wait to see!
2
Thanks to 2017 Trump 'give to the rich' Tax cut, much of this wealth will never be taxed as the estate tax is being phased out. This was the real gem in the entire tax cut bill. Net result is that the rich will get richer while everyone else will become poorer. The growing inequality in Anerica and other countries will only serve to build political and social pressures for real change. As happened in the Russian revolution born out of inequality and corruption of the czarist regime, the change came in the form of revolution and much bloodshed. This can be avoided but the rich are too busy getting richer and spending to notice.
6
"But will they want it?"
If they are smart, they will turn away from "art" as defined by PC museums and custodians of socially permissive forms of expression. They will develop their own aesthetics, their own sense of beauty and buy works from local, "unrecognized" artists that speak to them.
7
@Kai Hopefully, they will also develop an interest in the history of art, and the countless great and groundbreaking works that led us to this point. Without knowledge and appreciation of past achievements, all art loses value.
19