Fine art is the new black. Individuals from all walks of life are turning to fine art as the latest investment trend–which means exactly what you think it means.
The bourgeois is in.
The middle class is snapping up Josef Albers and Rothkos like Krispy Kreme donuts at 5am. Calling the art pieces “an investment” these Johnny-come-lately’s are viewing 20th and 21st century masterpieces as the perfect addition to the stock portfolio. And are they wrong to do so?
According to a recent US News & World Report article, art collecting is not just for the rich anymore. Down-home folks who would never consider a bite of foie gras are scooping up Degas’ and Daumiers’ like crudites on a platter. Has the art world taken an unprecedented turn for the financial?
The art world is notorious for its dependence on the cash-driven, money-hungry subset of the population. But bear in mind, if you would, that though this portion of the Earth has always been money-hungry, we have never gone unsatisfied. We do not thirst for fine art with the parched throats who have nothing. We thirst for fine art because of its inherent value, not out of some desperate need. Separated from necessity only do we recognize true value.
Luxurious spending has always been synonymous with the purchasing of fine art. But when fine art become equity, and master strokes become mere dollars and cents, what are we left with? Is tomorrow the day when a Renoir is seen only for its liquidity? Is nothing in the art world sacred?
I hope my reader will not fault me for my class-derived POV. My point is simple, and, I think, valid. When the upper echelons purchase art, it is out of respect for the artist and the value of a piece. When the middle class, as this recent US News & World Report article points out, they do so as an investment for the future, with as much emotion and reverence with which one chooses a mutual fund. When beauty is stripped of art, what are we left with?
