I've only looked over their painting selection, but I have seen far nicer works go for far less at Skinner's and Sotheby's auctions (in and near Boston).
If this site jives your interest at all, I highly recommend looking through an art auction catalog. You can find GORGEOUS 18th and 19th century pieces for excellent prices (Less than $2000) at many auctions.
(It's worth noting that everyone likes different things, and its entirely possible I am unimpressed with Amazon's offering because its different than most of my aesthetic expectations, and not because the art Amazon is offering is unimpressive.)
I won't speak to the quality of art on the Amazon site as I browsed rather shallowly and don't have anything nice to say. Rather I will comment on the presentation.
This is certainly a time when Amazon's one size fits all store presentation falls flat. There is a whole field of expertise involving the presentation of art, and they haven't done a great job of making it look appealing.
Then again, maybe it's appropriate that a search for Warhol paintings share a layout with a search for Campbell's soup:
Probably not much. After a certain amount, selling art is a relationship business and the seller's reputation is paramount. Artsy is very well connected and do a great job in their presentation.
Other sites tend to make "viewing" part of the experience, and I'm guessing this doesn't actually lead to sales most of the time. Anyway the best way to view a painting is in person.
Making the commercial aspect of buying art just like any other purchase is appealing to me (instead of a mediated experience). I think the benefit of this is similar to the buy it now button on eBay; its for people who just want to buy and don't want to mess about.
For expensive art this is just going to be a friendlier alternative to auction. For cheaper stuff it could make buying original art like any other purchase. For that you need a good returns policy that every one trusts. Who is better than Amazon for that?
That's an interesting thought concerning what leads to sales. Galleries don't really A/B test, and aesthetics and appearance are perhaps more important than sales.
I wonder if Amazon will be able to create bridges to the galleries in the same way that a site like Artsy might? The fine art world cares a great deal about the image it projects—will galleries want to be on Amazon (will people spend 10s of thousands of dollars via 1 click shopping)?
Part of me is excited about this as it might knock the crazy fine arts world down a few notches. I highly recommend the documentary with the late great Robert Hughes "The Mona Lisa Curse." It explores the extreme amount of capital that flooded the art world, drove up prices, and led to a world of less than stellar art. Maybe if Koons or Hirst start selling on Amazon, things will start to even out.
I'm not sure it's altogether bad news for Artsy. On the one hand, it makes negotiating deals with galleries more difficult, but this move validates Artsy's central premise to its investors – that there's money to be made helping people find art.
I want to agree, but I can't help but not find their current layout to fit perfectly with what and how people will experience the Amazon shopping experience. If people are reviewing / analyzing art to potentially buy / see how much they like it, they aren't going to be in a mindset to take in the whole viewing area - they will be focused on the bounds of the art, else they will shop differently and perhaps not be able to appreciate the art if and once they had it on their own wall - because unless they live in an art gallery, there will be other living things around them, and so they would need to focus on the art within the same scope of view.
Link to poor people art please? (And please don't let it be Homer Simpson art---i.e. garbage smashed together. And I don't count digital prints as art.)
Check ebay, check etsy, search google for specific types of art if you know what kind of stuff you're looking for. Art in other (poorer) countries is also far cheaper than art in first world nations.
Of course, well known artists will command serious prices, but for every well known artist, there dozens of other lesser-known artists with comparable quality and styles that you can get a lot cheaper.
Or commission your own art if there's something specific you're looking for. Once again, if you're looking for something down by a specific person, you're going to pay for that brand, but if there's a styler you're looking for, you should be able to find someone to do it for a lot less.
Completely agree. If you know where to look and know what you like, there are tons of lesser known artists that can very well be just as good as every other artist. I saw a good post on Quora [1] that recommends you look at University student art shows as a really good tactic. I happen to know a lot of artists sell their art on eBay and not every one of those sells for the price that same artist would sell the piece for at an art show.
Group shows at a small gallery, or benefit auctions for local arts-related organizations are another idea. You can get access to more mature work that way.
You don't generally want solo shows at galleries, but at group shows, people will show smaller works. You have to be well-informed enough to know the gallery and their artists, of course.
Benefit auctions often feature works that local artists have laying around in their studios and donate to the auction (partly for the tax write-off, although that is monitored now). You have to be confident of your eye, and choose the right auction, one that is connected to local artists with actual talent.
All of the above requires footwork and an independent interest in contemporary art. This disqualifies 99.9% of people.
I cannot agree more. There will be a lot of so-so, but... there will be some stunners as well. Not sure where all these people end up, but there are some amazingly talented young artists out there... many of whom can and do produce better art than most of what you will purchase at an art auction. They just don't have the name or the history yet!
Often a single collector or gallery will make all the difference for a young artist. One single person that buys enough of their art for them to make it on that part-time coffee house job and still pursue their art.
Seriously though, if you want cheap art then visit some art student graduation shows or visit the cinema. Amazon has probably moved into this area because it is high margin and they'll get a big cut and compete with eBay, not through any desire to democratize fine art, so I doubt they'd want the prices low.
Attend a "con" where artists go to sell their work. I picked up some good art in Hyper Japan in London a week ago. A print, but the original is digital and it was signed by the artist (DestinyBlue on Deviant Art). Bonus: getting to meet the artist.
What price range do you consider "poor people art"? If an artist (even an amateur) spent say 20 hours on an original piece that you absolutely loved, how much are you willing to pay today to that artist?
I'm not an art purist, but I'd speculate that you run into issues with sheen and shadowing with medium like oil paints, which have a 3D shape on the canvas. It would be difficult to accurately capture & faithfully reproduce.
There are price selectors on the left to filter by under $100, up to $250, etc. If you're looking for originals at that pricepoint, you might be limited to abstract pieces that are quicker to produce.
Outside of this site, there are studios in China which will replicate pictures or paintings quite affordably - I have a 2000x1000mm copy that cost more to stretch than commission (The original: http://luxxurylivving.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Francoi...).
Another option is to hit up student exhibitions at high school or college level and find rough gems.
What I discovered is I may be too poor to own art but I can create it for people who are rich enough to own it. With time and the right opportunities I can increase the price until my name == expensive art.
Thanks. In a related note, if you can get your hands on high-res digital versions of these prints, http://www.phdposters.com is great for cheap poster printing.
For anyone who thinks they might ever own art, first, I highly recommend it. I love art. I don't even know why. But it makes me happy. I think what it comes down to is pride and satisfaction that in some way, my society has makers, one of whom made this thing to put it in the world, ultimately. That's the only reason it was made. Art is art. And everything else, is everything else.
Second, read Don Thompson's The Twelve Million Dollar Stuffed Shark.* He's an economist who took a deep dive into the very dysfunctional world of expensive art. What he leaves you with is a better understanding of the situation: screw investment. Saatchi buys art because he loves art. Yes, he's built a fortune on it, but he also has the largest collection of undisplayed art, and it's estimated the average value of any piece in his collection may be no more than the world-wide average. But he plays his role well, and his role, an ad man, integrates very well with the scene.
If you want art, buy it. But I recommend buying local. Art is the ultimate buy-local situation. My brother is an artist. That's as local as it gets. And his is the best art I own.
I'm starting to realize a little of Saatchi's situation: if you want to show, really show, those favorite pieces, then you have to give them a lot of wall space. Which means a lot of stuff, good stuff, ends up in crates. You realize you're willing to sell it just because it breaks your heart for it to not be shown. But you'll be damned before you let it hang on a wall where it wouldn't be appreciated at all.
If you don't know many artists (if it wasn't for my brother's inside access, I would know none), I think this Amazon Fine Art thing is a fine place to start. Check the under $200 category. There's some really great pieces in there.
The other things are craigslist and gallery mailing lists. Sign up. You'll learn if your city tends to do openings on Wednesdays, Thursdays, etc. The whole scene tends to get into sync. Meet some artists. If you have something particular, a desk, a portrait, I don't know many artists who are unwilling to work on commission. Guaranteed money is hard to come by in the art world.
A lot of collectibles' value comes not from the objects themselves but from the exceptional contexts which spawned the objects
Wouldn't you pay more for a prop that was actually used on the set of your favorite movie instead of an identical reproduction?
Wouldn't you pay more for an object that was a key during an important historical event even though there are many objects like it used by unknown people in unknown contexts?
Wouldn't you pay more to collect an original tool invented by your favorite pioneer scientist even though there are much better versions of this tool in use today?
Wouldn't you pay more for works by an artist that invented new innovative techniques than artists who just reuse others' techniques even if the later artists arguably get better results because they are using the techniques after they have matured and have been perfected?
Art is a racket. Not art as the human endeavor of expression, or art as the appreciation of beauty. Art as a business is ABSOLUTELY a racket in the same way that dutch tulips were a racket once upon a time. Nothing wrong with that at all in my book.
I've worked for a string of online art retailers and publishers over the the last decade, and I'm a bit baffled by this move by Amazon.
I just don't think it's a very good way to browse for art. That said, if you know specifically what you want, it's a pretty good way to connect with galleries.
My guess is "soon" we'll have a 500 dpi full color e-ink kindle to admire rentable art. And perhaps a giant e-ink kindle to hang on the wall for exactly that purpose.
One of my long term "in my infinite spare time" projects has been to build a nice small (well, what passes for small now...) HDTV size digital picture frame and rotate artwork on it. I figure if I can keep the capital cost under a couple hundred bucks (no problemo) and power consumption under a hundred watts (aka about $100/yr, also Probably no problem) then I'll do it. This is all well within my ability to do it, other than spare time.
I don't want a COTS digital pix frame because the API (if any) sucks and you can't buy one bigger than roughly a postcard whereas I want "big artwork" sized. Also I want high res.
Another interesting idea about "real art" is most TV user interfaces have the lamest most uncool backgrounds and "artwork" I've ever seen. I'd like a nice piece of real art instead. A big digital clearinghouse would help.
You could use Flickr's API to acquire the images. Filter on interestingness, favorite tag and size. If it is only for your personal use, there are no limitations -- otherwise filter on license.
The geek in me agrees, the art collector in me doesn't.
For me at least, the moment you display "art" on screens, its significance is diluted. When it's not "permanent" it feels like decoration or worse, a screensaver.
Having said this, some of those in the art establishment have the same point of view about a recent project I was involved in which brought art from the UK's public collections onto 22,000 billboards across the country. Whatever gets art in front of people can only be a good thing.
Oh wow. I have been thinking of exactly the same idea. To that end, I just started playing around with Raspberry PI to see if it can work out. Looking online, seems they also have color E-Ink available which should make the cost even less.
About a decade ago I had a 24x7 linux based fileserver / LDAP / NFS / mp3 jukebox / misc box available at home which had nothing plugged into the VGA out... so I installed "zgv" (which is still available) because it is a console mode graphics viewer which can do slideshows. So I didn't have to bother with all of X on what was fundamentally a home fileserver. I had a very simple shell script to clean out a directory, wget pictures from all over the net (I had the local wx radar, and street scene webcams in Ireland, all kinds of stuff like that) and dump all the downloaded files (including 404 errors and the like) into the directory. Then I ran each graphic file thru a processor mostly so it would eat 404 errors and failed downloads and the like so they disappear rather than mess up the slideshow also to resize to the proper res. Then zgv in slideshow mode would display each pic for X seconds, and do it Y times, such that it took about 15 minutes to run, or maybe it was a half hour. Then rinse and repeat forever. Even with some abstraction and file renaming to force the order in the slideshow, we're talking about a "two screenful" bash script, it wasn't much.
The analog VGA output was fed into a gadget that converted certain VGA resolutions into composite video (This is why I was using imagemagick filters to resize the images, my converter didn't work well at certain SVGA compatible resolutions which "zgv" would use..) That composite signal via some modulators went all over the house. There's a lot more to that story. I basically had a crude cable TV plant in my house. A handful of highpass/lowpass filters and some cheap composite to NTSC modulators costs less than you'd think.
If I had to do it over again I'd probably steer toward X windows for the graphics, I'd bother to actually figure out how to auto-start the system rather than log in by hand at each (rare) reboot to run the script (probably outta inittab, errr.. systemd I guess). Given modern screensavers and the like it might amount to just boot up GDM/KDM/somethingDM and let a script update the screensaver directory of pictures... I have not kept up with modern FOSS developments WRT digital picture frames, the whole software setup might just be an "apt-get" away now. Or if not, it should be. Some double buffering so I could download and process the next set of "slides" such that the transition would be smooth and instantaneous when it updates, would be nice, and probably not too hard.
Color eink is not really available. I have a small BW eink shield and vaguely postage stamp sized display for an arduino. The price was unpleasant. I thought it humorous that to show the durability and no-power required of the e-ink they ship it displaying some Chinese characters rather than blank. At this time I think we're stuck with LCDs although Amazon, with its special history and relationship with e-ink could probably sell the worlds first actually shipping color e-ink digital picture frame. Which is my suspicion about the whole "amazon art" thing.
I want a "huge" picture frame. Not a little commercially available thing or even a hacked up laptop. So I'm probably stuck with TVs/Monitors (not much difference anymore) for now.
If you come across e-ink prices for TV-sized formats (e.g., 30-60" diagonals), let me know. At the right price, I think there are a lot of interesting things that could be done.
And huge lag on updates - not fussy. I'm thinking about wirelessly controlled A-frames outside businesses advertising specials that are updated by phone.
Or a wall-mounted household calendar, understandable at a glance. Or black and white business metrics.
<ramble>
Art is so completely subjective. In a house I bought, we found a painting by an artist named Marshall Merritt - we see his paintings being sold for $10k - very similar in size and composition. But when we had it appraised, the appraiser told us $300. Go figure.
Aside from a portrait of my wife, my favorite art purchases have been from Robert Tinney, who did the covers for Byte Magazine from the early 80s. He sells his "limited edition prints" directly. But the point is not that it is an investment, but that I actually just really find pleasure in his work. His is the only art that I've bought online - and only then because I already had a copy of the work in question as a magazine cover!
</ramble>
I notice that the Amazon works are all sold and shipped by individual galleries. I wouldn't be surprised if you could purchase directly from them for considerably less than via Amazon.
This seems pretty incredible, unless there is something not entirely straightforward about who has actually made them. $1200-$2000 for an original limited edition Salvador Dali or Marc Chagall print, seems like a steal. Maybe I just don't know much about how less rare artworks of well-known artists tend to be priced though...
Prints are cheap. These are not signed, "signed on plate" means the engraving plate was signed but that does not mean the print was supervised by the artist so they are semi mass produced. But even signed prints by moderately well known artists are cheap as they are very unfashionable.
The expensive one is signed in the bottom right, and also has some kind of red block print in the middle bottom.
It says it is a woodblock print, so these are the "originals". But print pricing is very dependent on external factors. An artist may produce 100 prints when he starts, but then when he gets famous (or after his peak when he needs $$$), someone gets him to create another 5000 prints from those same blocks. Both sets may look identical, but if someone can identify something that proves yours is 1 of 100 rather than 1 of 5000, it is much more valuable.
Also, as a practical matter, Dali prints are very often faked, so buying it from a real gallery who can provide a provenance is for the best.
Given all that, the details given on the Amazon Art page for this print are completely insufficient for anyone who is going to spend that much on a print. I would not buy one at a tenth that price without seeing it in person.
If you refine your search to exclude prints, you can find original Dali for $78,500[1]. I'm not finding a lot of information on the "limited" nature of many of these lithographs, though.
I'm a fan of society6 -- sure it's not expensive art, but you can buy some pretty cool stretched canvasses for $85-$150 depending on the size you want. Of course you're also getting printed somewhat mass-manufactured stuff instead of one-of-a-kind pieces.
I really wish they would separate Archival Ink-Jets from the rest of traditional printmaking. As someone who runs these printers professionally (trade show , not fine art) and does classic printmaking, I just don't respect the output the same way. There is craft in printmaking, and in some methods a limitation on total number of prints possible. Ink jets are mainly making sure your printer is color calibrated and doing a little color correction while doing a run. Archival Ink-Jets should be another category priced somewhere between mass produced posters and original art. It's especially a problem at art and wine festivals...
quick question: does anyone know of a service that serves free (as in »free beer«) art (paintings, photography, illustrations etc.) to download in high resolution so you can print them yourself?
Not a unified one, however most museums have decent interfaces to their collections these days. I would highly recommend the Met Museum in New York's catalog, for instance. Some produce limited resolutions or force you to decode some kind of image-slicing, but in general you can get super high resolution copies for free that would be suitable for personal use.
Google images is great for that. Search by keywords, then set the minimum resolution under "Search Tools". 8 megapixels should be enough for a good print. 20 megapixels - for huge ones.
Quick tangential question - What's the best way to shop for nature photography prints? Most of these sorts of dedicated art stores seem to exclude nature photography.
Honestly? Yes, I'd seen them, but I passed them by quickly for the same reason I ignore other "perfect" domains like "www.books.com" or "www.photography.com".
You might also want to take a look at http://photo.net -- not everyone sells prints directly on the site, but it is a great way to discover photographers.
Have any of you ever purchased fine art or original art online? How was your experience? I feel like there's a huge gap between people who buy art and those are online. Namely, a lot of the collectors and old money art buyers who decorate their mansions tend to have their own system and contacts for buying art. Of course that's all changing, but I feel like a big chunk of the market (50-75 year old women) are generally not buying art online.
it's funny that this might be Amazon's solution to s similar set of problems that Paul Graham wrote about here: http://paulgraham.com/bronze.html
I wonder if the art market can really be disrupted in this way, or if there's something intrinsic about buying art in a gallery that makes it "unamazonable"... (who orders a $10,000 painting online?)
I think it's still quite amazing what they're trying to do.
This will also strongly reinforce their perceived value as "secure & legit". I mean, $1M+ Warhol on Amazon?! This is big! http://amzn.to/1ctu0w2
Am I the only one excited/seeing the potential?
Snark aside, I would think there are fairly stringent quality controls on making sure that everything listed (and priced!) as an original actually is. Amazon's not going to mess around with their reputation when people are shelling out five (or six, or seven, or...) figures for Warhols.
If anything, I think this really allows me to see how much art costs. For example, I find it amazing that I can search through Salvador Dali's works and buy one of his sketches. I probably won't but I can think of a lot of people who would.
If this site jives your interest at all, I highly recommend looking through an art auction catalog. You can find GORGEOUS 18th and 19th century pieces for excellent prices (Less than $2000) at many auctions.
Here's a Skinner's online catalog:
http://issuu.com/skinnerinc/docs/2655b_paintings/1
(It's worth noting that everyone likes different things, and its entirely possible I am unimpressed with Amazon's offering because its different than most of my aesthetic expectations, and not because the art Amazon is offering is unimpressive.)