Culture Anyone?Follow

Van Gogh himself has described the painting as a failure. Although it's still great I ca agree with him as it's nowhere near the quality of his famous works.

Also, I think it won't be auctioned off but will be added to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam.

What you don't know is that under all those leaves is a dog peeing on the third tree from the bottom.

Rijksmuseum > Van Gogh Museum

I like focused museums, so for me VG has an edge, but Rijksmuseum is great.

I like that but Museums in Amsterdam are pretty expensive and then I find it a bit too narrow a focus.

Also, the Droog store isn't a museum but they've got enough rare and amazing design pieces that it might as well be. Except that you could buy what's in the store if you're willing to spend several (tens of) thousands on a piece of impractical furniture.

I suspect an artist loathing the work has a tendency to make it more desirable, not less.

And yeah, the Van Gogh exhibit at MOMA is legit.

Art is such a volatile market that it's a combination of factors really. At the end of the day, the price of a painting has far, far more to do with the story surrounding it, than the quality of the work itself.

Long-lost painting, hidden away in an attic, hated by an artist known for being unstable, painted at the apex of his career, with an extremely romantic title?

Yeah... that's probably going to sell for a lot of money.

Because, at the end of the day, the value of a painting is its social value. Your ability to resell it has more to do with how interesting it is than how technically impressive it is.

That's not to say the quality doesn't have an impact on that price, but a lesser work with a great story is always going to outsell a greater work without one.

Yeah, but when the biggest selling point is going to be a really big selling point, it's worth noting.

This is a painting that has massive international attention, right now. Most people buying this art don't actually know much or give a damn about art. They're generally people who see a pretty painting and want the social accolades of owning it.

Being the person to own a long-lost painting is going to be a really big seller. I'd wager far more so than if this was the single best painting Van Gogh had ever put brush to.

Remember, the vast majority of the people who will be bidding on this painting will be significantly less interested in art than you are. As a matter of fact, because it's not an impressive work relative to his other pieces, the people who want the art for the art generally won't be bidding.

When no one in the room gives a crap about the quality, lower quality won't diminish the price. The international attention and the constant work of the auction house and seller, however, will.

Well most art is considered a super long-term investment. A drop in interest can still be a big profit, if you take interest rates into account.

It'll come down to how well the buyers judge the story and how it'll sell down the road. "Lost for a hundred years," is a really nice tag line to add.

It's also worth remembering that, even if this isn't one of Van Gogh's greatest pieces, it's far from being one of his worst. And the Van Gogh name essentially ensures that it will not depreciate in value, which is a risk you might be taking with less-famous names.

There's almost no chance that a buyer wouldn't make back their investment, with extensive profit, at whatever they might buy this painting at now. Short of going bankrupt in the meantime, it's about as solid an investment you could possibly make in the art field.

A solid work from a solid name with a solid backstory. Pretty much the trifecta.

Agree. Problem is that once found, the value added for having been "lost for a hundred years" diminishes over time. So that factor is going to make it more expensive (relatively speaking) today than say in another hundred years of not being lost.

I still think I bear a strong resemblance to the artist. That is all.

Are you missing an ear too?

Yes, but that is the reality of the art market. People don't want Van Gogh because he was the greatest artist to ever live (well, I'm sure that's why SOME people want Van Gogh, but I'm doubting there's a meaningful overlap between those people and people who happen to own Van Gogh pieces). People buy art because it's a status symbol and because much of it isn't going to depreciate in value over time.

At least, that's the case where these price levels are concerned. ANY Van Gogh piece is going to nab you a very, very pretty penny far down the line when you finally sell it, in 30+ years (or when your grand kids sell it, whatever). The chances that the market won't inflate to that point are very low. It's an incredibly safe investment, because the chances of his works being unwanted even a century from now are next to nothing.

So what you pay for a Van Gogh right now doesn't actually matter much when calculating the value when you sell it. Sure, it certainly matters to you right now, but the difference between 3.4 mil and 3.5 mil won't be felt nearly as much if you go to sell it in 20 years as it would if you go to sell it in 1 year. It's essentially the difference between 6.8 and 7 million.

Enough to care? Sure.

Enough to care so much you don't bother nabbing the bragging rights to this painting right now when you're in a position to drop 4 million dollars without a care in the world? Absolutely not.

And that's generally the case with the sorts of people buying such big name pieces. Bidding wars ensue over the name alone, even for lesser works. A decent work, at the apex of his career, with a solid story behind it? I would not be surprised at all if this sold for more than one of his better (but not top-15) works sold.

Because, honestly, unless it's a painting that EVERYONE knows, like Starry Night or his self portrait, most of the potential buyers couldn't give two ***** about the quality.

Van Gogh's single greatest work of art, if it doesn't have a famous title, would absolutely sell for less than this painting here. It would absolutely, strictly speaking, be the better investment, but since the higher priced option is still an extremely solid investment, who cares? There's only so many to go around, after all.