People today have paid $20 Million or more for a Damien Hirst (an artist I do not like), which is enough money to fill a room with world class antiquities or purchase a world class ancient coin collection. But in 100 years what will be worth more, the Damien Hirst or this bust? Almost certainly the bust, some art styles come and go as fads, but antiquities have an importance that will never diminish.
I would not agree. A huge premium is paid for artists who are the first of a kind. So, an original bronze by Polykleitos of Argos (400BC) would be as valuable as the Mona Lisa. An exact Roman copy after that original, is worth many tens of millions. A Roman bust that more or less copies Greek style by a second rate sculptor is worth millions, because people want decorative old stuff. But Damien Hirst's Last Supper 13 paintings, example below, also shown in their overal pharmacy setting, will probably beat the decorative Roman sculptor, not just today, but even more in centuries to come. This is because he was the first to conceive of showing us, through art, the paradox that we consume what's in a pharmacy, yet it looks as different from food as one could conceive, its packaging conveying "this is not food". This made me think, and his choice of pastel colour schemes and design layouts, wholly original yet harking back in a nostalgic way to real pill boxes, but signed as Cornish Pasty and Peas, intrigued me. I could say the same about any modern art, or indeed any ancient art. Idea conceivors, from Polykleitos to Van Gogh, to Hirst, will always be at a premium, even though fashions may fluctuate.
It doesn't actually matter whether or not you or I like Hirst, from an aesthetic viewpoint. It matters, for value, that there will be enough people who know to recognise first of its kind art, that really makes you think, and place a higher value on it than on decorative art, which is what I'd consider many Roman copies after Greek style. Decorative art is valuable, but there's limits to how high a value you can place on an ancient copy-after, when one can buy a modern copy-after in a garden centre for a hundred dollars (below pictured, garden centre Venus de Milo, GBP 79.99).
Yes this is a
very good post. But who knows what aesthetic preference the future will have? From a purely value point of view. On an aesthetic level, I personally would take the
Roman decorative artist over Hirst. But that is just my view! Of course though, Hirst is one example, but if you take others, anyone deemed as the an important artist--as it is different with each person--righfully deserves a
price higher than a non-masterpiece from
antiquity. But this all goes down to personal aesthetic ponts of view. I know some who would value an Egon Schiele or Gustav Klimt at $100 Million+ and despise Hirst (which, to
his admirers defence, is known as a controversial artist, and thus would not likely achieve unanimous praise), or one who would value a Leonardo at $500 Million but think a Jackson Pollack isn't hardly worth mentioning. Now I don't really have too extreme views on art as mentioned, but I do know that I don't particularily like Hirst's aesthetic much (I like some pieces more than others, but am not in love with
his work at all). Whether Hirst's innovations, aesthecics, or any other aspect of
his works be respected and deemed as valuable is too hard to predict, but I feel that
antiquities, as
rare objects of human historical value, will not go through potential booms and busts of general interest or admiration. Also just for the record I like Pollack's
work and I just used him as an example.
But with all this said, I
still believe (maybe you would agree?) that the art of aniquity is availible at a very
fair price on the market considering their
rarity, not to mention pure historical value, as many
antiquities provide (if even just a little) insight on the past that is not availible anywhere else, even if it is only a small detail, such as a unique design, or each individual artist's touch.
Antiquities have a certain extra ingredient of historicality to them, although renaissance paintings, 19th century paintings, or even 20th century paintings have some elment of this too.
And we must also respect each individual artist too. A
standard decorative Greek artist in some respets (at least in my view) commands a level of respect over a great many artists today. I have a mass produced greek/roman
terracotta sculpt that I find greater aesthetic value in than 90% of art I have witnessed that has been made in the 21st century. Again this is my opinions, and my opinions do not dictate the market. Whether an artist like Hirst will be considered as important is unknowable. Many of the most well known playwrights of Shakespeare's time have fallen into obscurity, for example.
