วีดีโอ

The art of art is apparently tanking. The art of hype and scam continues to press on.

Subscribed!

Money Laund*cough*ering"

i aped in on $PEPE coin last year, made $185K in 8 months. Dumped my bag, and aped in on 50% dip with another $2K. I'm now up $85K. Why anyone would buy a canvas with some coloring on it is beyond me.

you sir, knows nothing about the art market, sorry what you state on this video is a theory, you obviously dont collect art or knows the market too well. what an idiot

I’d be interested to know what, or rather if, “NFT’s” did anything to the market negatively. My thoughts say yes, but I don’t know

Can anyone identify the museum at around 5:55 in the video or more specifically the painting on the right?

Even for $1 I won't buy any of them Narrow minded people

In my opinion the worst, least successful art, is not the work that’s aggressively bad and that I strongly dislike. It’s the art that makes me feel nothing at all. Utterly useless

Art is not tanking. Speculation can not save low end art. The masters are selling at recored high pricing. Its the piece not the market.

Insane. Great channel Chris, loving your videos

I'm not defending his artistic skills, but you go out of your way to insult him. Why did you even bother? But your info on the art market is appreciated.

Why is making things for art history supposedly superior to making things for art history? Making things for art history has lead to some very elitist BS.

Omg, I’m so glad this video is here because I’ve been so annoyed with how the last decades art is so goddamn boring.

Great presentation, as always. This video gave me the opportunity to understand his full Artistic vision, and I have only one word to describe the experience: WOW.

Who are the buyers? Who is the artist? What was the social condition at the time? There are certain conditions that increases and decreases the value of art.

If you don't like something its easier to turn and walk away. I never like to be told how to think or feel about anything by anyone.

IMO. The first paintings you showed are ugly and probably bought by a leftist BLM activist. Being a virtue-signaling wokester is slowly moving to cringe and out of fashion and so is the art.

So if I look up these artists who survived now I should see art that is moving the artform forward? Am I right in concluding this? For someone who's instinct says that this description applies to all contemporary art, where should they start looking to learn about how things are moving "forward" today. (This is my first video from the channel so I'll be watching more)

I think it's just a correction. The art market is super inflated, but every piece is still worth something, just not the current prices.

u also cant take any pohots while there

Why do I doubt that Kim Kardashian is actually "well-versed in art" . . .

Some aspects are missing: 3 years ago there was money in abundance, today you have to pay interest. What did the rich people do with money, they tried to gain more. They invest in things that are likeley to increase in price. Sometimes they invest in property at metropolitan areas. But even better is art with the advantage no taxes no customs and easily transportable. Its often money laundering. Today they have to sell all the items bought on a loan. That's why nobody wants art anymore. The true price of an item is the labour going into it. The true price of art is that you pay the artist. Every price after that is just speculation, and we have seen postage stamp collectors, telephone card collectors all gone, now worthless. It's time for art to loose it's attraction.

great video! I’ve found that learning about the rise and fall of Zombie Formalism, has been really helpful to understand the figuration craze of the last few years, which thankfully seems to be subsiding. A period of artistic stasis that was driven by market forces.

Phillip Glass and Richard Serra were both Plumbers.... So there!

What a racket.

my masterworks account is at zero

Thats called money laundering

thank you. I belong to a tiny art group. One of our members, has made it BIG. Now before every holiday season. we'd all donate a painting to a local charity for an auction. But since he's BIG, that's gone gone gone. His agent is not even a sketch for a friend as a gift. We don't mind (he buys us lunch a lot!) But his work is no longer HIS. It belongs also to the agent who guides him, and the gallery that shows his work.

Its like everything else. Once the wealth is made by the wealthy, they offload to the gullible. Doesn't matter if its stocks, tulips, nfts, or art.

I know a lot about art. But I don't know what I like.

Thats garbage, not art

Whether you call it “MFA abstraction” or “New Modernism” or “Art of the 1%” or “Crapstraction”, none of this is new. The relationship between art and capital is a continuity in history. Just read Wolfgang Ulrich's “Siegerkunst” (2016, German). Insisting on the intrinsic quality of artworks under capitalism is pointless and ridiculous. With the rise of the bourgeoisie, art ownership has always been associated with entrepreneurial risk: The acquisition of art has always been intended to secure the reputation and recognition of the collector. Discussing the superiority of criteria, tastes and preferences at this price level for works of art misses the political content of the discussion. As if the price of an artwork in these astronomical price segments provides any information about the value or significance of the artwork. An example: just take a look at the background to the CIA's support for American abstract expressionist artists. The value of art is always politically determined, i.e. socially constructed. In capitalist realism (Mark Fisher) this does not seem to be a big surprise: What art is and what art means is determined by a capitalist art market driven by economic motives of exploitation. And this development is linked to works of art as commodities and to the producers of these works - the artists. You can put it like Andy Warhol said in the Los Angeles Free Press on March 17, 1967: "If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface: of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There's nothing behind it."

Starting to binge your videos. Great informative work. I think Meijer Gardens in Grand Rapids has an installation very similar to here moss art

The lesson I'm taking from this is, being rich ain't easy. I feel like his deal to give 2% was a little too optimistic if he was leaving everything, including the art knowledge, up to the other guy, but the collector was definitely a crook for taking advantage.

I am amazed folks paid $10k for these!

Most conteporary ¨art¨ is pure speculative bubble. The emperor is wearing no clothes. If a piece of art can't be considered as such in a no capitalist system then it's not art

why aren't the collectors and critics labelled zombies? it would be more fitting. this video doesn't ring true at all, the art is being unfairly lumped into a category that is then being used as a scapegoat for the collective laziness, greed, and vanity of investors, critics, artists, and audience alike.

Why should we be beholden to “progressing art history” or whatever? Making stuff is fun.. that is enough. And if some asshat wants to spend the down payment on a house on it just to shove it in a closet, it is them I think might be more deserving of criticism. I don’t create to revolutionize art, and it seems like a trap to try to. It’s fun, and when done with care can produce work that makes people happy. Capitalism is the problem. Weeding out the bad faith actors on both sides of the transaction of art sales, including brokers and spineless gallery curators might better serve the ideal that you seem to hold. It’s your fault as much as the folks trying to launder their money for whatever reason. The business of art is a thing wholly separate from art, as you expressed in your Picasso couldn’t be a plumber BS. I know a lot of trade workers who make awesome work without concerning themselves with this entire circle jerk in the slightest.. the critics as well would serve their supposed purpose if they weren’t compelled to write to make content on a schedule to make their salary. The business of art is straight garbage all the way down and I love that some artists managed to get a 10k plus bag on an afternoons worth of work.

"I don't like Zombie Formalism because it's banal, easy, and just done for the sake of publicity." Ironic, because that's exactly how I feel about all these digital "art critics" who provide nothing substantive about the actual content, other than "it's expensive, and then it wasn't expensive, so it's bad." You all make the same unoriginal arguments over and over again. Then the comments become an echo chamber of like-minded sciolists. The great irony is some of them then say "Yea Zombie Formalism sucks, but so does your Ed Ruscha painting!". People like Theodor Adorno were make similar conservative criticisms 100 years ago. Y'all would be the same people who attacked impressionist paintings with umbrellas; only a century later do you actually have the wherewithal to appreciate artists who you would've derided.

Been looking for this channel to exist - thank you for putting together such great reports!

My 2 cents: "They wanted to short sell", maybe not the best expression to qualify a market for quick returns. Short selling is betting against a overvalued stock and takes a lot of patience and a practiced eye to achieve. Maybe "day trading" would be a better fit for what you are trying to describe.

I believe Frank graduated from Princeton?

hot take: Oscar Murillo and his works are actually really great. what greedy art world flippers did with it is another thing altogether

18:43 Never go back to the scene of the crime smh 🤦🏾‍♂️

A lot of that buying and flipping of art was done to launder money.

Maybe the real survivors are the ones who took the money and decided to quietly make art for arts sake, and the ones that are lost are the people chasing personal sales records and whoring themselves out to a slightly more educated class of speculator.

What a shame to see this devastating event.

What about the invisible dynamics in the art world? Like buyers (not collectors as you pointed out) who devalue a living artists work?

A person becomes famous, they start doing something that resembles art, usually the stuff you see in Walmart and other stores mass produced in some God-forsaken place, by 10 /15 people working an assembly line of pieces, So these famous people now put up their , say painting for sale. For some reason, they get good money for bad art. Hitler's work sells for a lot of money to a special group. So I guess the exact same rendition done by different people will pull good money only because of a name. I guess Marjory Taylor Green could get even richer after leaving office by passing some colored crap on a panel, sign it, and put it up for sale. One of my Mentors back in the 70s once said to me, when I showed him a picture of what I thought was a great piece, due to the way lines and colors were used, he said "It looks fascinating, but never confuse clever for art."(D, Cabarga)