I'm sorry, but when it comes to some of that "art" the emperor has no clothes on. But each to his own. If you want to spend millions of dollars on a scribble, that's up to you. Just don't ask me think of you as anything but an utter moron.
Most expensive art works are bought and put in vaults never to be seen for years, they are acquired by the rich as an investment or to secure their money as an alternative to gold or shares. You can purchase silver coins that have weird artwork too
The title of this thread doesn't make any "cents". Victor David Brennar & Augustus Saint-Gaudens are both "sculptors" aka artists. Get your hands on the original engravings for the double eagle or Lincoln cent & tell me if you still feel this way. Coins would be considered reproductions of their "art" comparable to a copy of the Mona Lisa...Which you can buy for a dollar. Try buying reproductions of their work (a double eagle or a 1909-S VDB) for a dollar.
I'll never understand the art market. You can either buy a 500 year old masterwork by Renoir or a modern silkscreen by Warhol for the same money? Crazy. How is a silkscreen even considered fine art? I do like some of the banksey stuff though.
Banksy makes sense, I like his guerrilla style as well. Art is about social commentary. Most pieces of fine art are unique. Coins usually are not unique. Thus the difference in prices.
Different media, different rules. I know almost nothing about the art market, but I'd guess that prints from a limited series cost more than reproductions that are unlimited. Or, looking at it from the other direction, I'll bet I can get a modern reproduction of a 1909-S VDB for a dollar, or something close to that. It's not exactly on-topic, but I'm reminded of a comment Joni Mitchell made on one of her live recordings: Nobody ever told Saint-Gaudens "Sculpt that double eagle again, man!" -- except when they decided to lower the relief. And as I recall, he wasn't especially happy about the request.
I think some modern or contemporary art demands premiums on "originality", or doing something for the first time. Which isn't always good, at least not to me... I'm not a fan of Jackson Pollock or this Rothko below that sold for $375.1 million. I think other paintings and works of art deserve more value (or at least more relative attention). And, Banksy's art is really neat and is often a memento of current events. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/arts/design/contemporary-art-sale-is-sothebys-record.html As far as coins are concerned, hobo nickels are pretty neat, too! http://www.masterengraver.com/hobo_nickels.shtml
Something that took no more than 20 seconds to make sold for that much. I'll never understand the art market either.
Put that on a coin 1 inch across and it isn't going to look that great either. That is a nice piece of artwork, but I don't consider it to be a hobo nickel. I really wish they wouldn't call them hobo nickels as they are really two completely different forms of artwork and should be judged differently.
I'm not an artist so I'm not all that impressed with art that I can duplicate with house paint and masking tape. But hobo nickels or carved nickels, if you like, those are impressive!
Like many coins, art has always been hyped to facilitate a market by those who have it, and those who want it. Picaso couldn't afford a pair of shoes during his lifetime, yet now his art sells for millions, because "hoarders", a term not used in the art world, but understood to us, set the market by inflating the name of a little known and unpopular artist, for years, until it was ripe and ready to be used, thus making billions. The same is done with dealers and retailers of coins these days. A market is created where one didn't exist before, not so much because the collectors all of a sudden wanted a specific coin, but because those that had them hyped the coin until the market decided they needed it. Coins and art trade basically the same.
Coin collectors will also pay big bucks for a label just as art collectors will pay truck loads of money for a label.
