Comments on: Art Prices Fall 35%, Collectors Paint Less Rosy Portrait

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:59:42 +0000

Oh, I just thought i\’d add this. No one at Brandeis ever goes to the Rose art museum. Students only got angry when they thought they may lose it, but never before that was there a mass audience viewing the art. Also, all the cool stuff isn\’t on display. It\’s kind of a useless museum

By: Rocco

Rocco — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:57:56 +0000

How can a university sell its art collection. That goes against the whole premise of universities, especially ones dedicated to the liberal arts. They should be providing the most avenues possible for their students to receive any type of education including art education. Its an important part of being a well rounded person

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:55:40 +0000

I really think this is a good thing because it makes people reflect on the value of art. Art is a unique commodity if you can even consider it a commodity. Its value should not derive from how rare it is or how skillful it is, but people shoudl appreciate art for its beauty. Beauty has no monetary value. It is something in and of itself. The philosopher Schopenhauer discusses this extensively in his works. Art is a vision into the world as it should be, beyond rationality and beyond comprehension. It is a purely expiriential moment beyond normal understanding. Art should be available for the public and seen for what it is. Perhaps if it is less valuable then people will be able to see past art as an investment and see it for its beauty

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:48:26 +0000

So, I’m a student at Brandeis, and I just thought i’d give my perspective. Aside from the fact that Brandeis is no longer liquidating the art museum, it is an interesting issue when they were considering it. While it may seem crazy to sell in a bad market, the problem is that in good markets, there is no need to sell the art. When things are good, people hold on to these things because there is no harm to doing so, and money is coming in from other places. That’s why selling art now makes a lot of sense. It may be counter intuitive, but this liquidation actually is the only time that you could get away with selling artwork. Imagine if a school like yale started selling art in a good market. People would admonish them for being against hte arts. While this did happen to Brandeis, at least they have an excuse now: its necessary to maintain the operation of the university.

By: Jessie

Jessie — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:45:28 +0000

This is a buyers market for art. People aren’t going to stop liquidating their art collections because if you need the money, then you need the money. Even if its at a loss, the money is necessary right now. This means that everyone who can afford to buy this art (and lets be honest, although the rich are hurting, they still have a lot of money and many saw this crash coming) should buy up art like there’s no tomorrow. They will get massive returns in 5-10 years when the market is doing much better.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:42:42 +0000

Of course art sales are down. Who can afford to buy a 10 million dollar picture when people and companies are losing money all over the place. If I could afford to buy masterpieces normally, then I would certainly cut them out about now. People should just hold on to art, when the economy inevitably recovers, people will start buying again.