drum course
Introduction: The Highest Art Auction in History
Recently a Christie's art sale became the highest auction in history. The sale included works by Jackson Pollock, Roy Lichtenstein and Jean-Michel Basquiat, amongst others and in total generated $495 million. The sale established 16 new world auction records, with nine works selling for more than $10m (£6.6m) and 23 for more than $5m (£3.2m). Christie's said the record breaking sales reflected “a brand new era in the art market” drum course
The utmost effective large amount of Wednesday's sale was Pollock's drip painting Number 19, 1948, which fetched $58.4m (£38.3m) – nearly twice its pre-sale estimate.
Lichtenstein's Woman with Flowered Hat sold for $56.1 million, while another Basquiat work, Dustheads (top of article), went for $48.8 million.
All three works set the highest prices ever fetched for the artists at auction. Christie's described the $495,021,500 total – including commissions – as “staggering” ;.Only four of the 70 lots being offered went unsold.
Furthermore, a 1968 oil painting by Gerhard Richter has set a brand new record for the highest auction price attained by a living artist. Richter's photo-painting Domplatz, Mailand (Cathedral Square, Milan) sold for $37.1 million (£24.4 million). Sotheby's described Domplatz, Mailand, which depicts a cityscape painted in a method that suggests a blurred photograph, as a “masterpiece of 20th Century art” and the “epitome” of the artist's 1960s photo-painting canon. Don Bryant, founder of Napa Valley's Bryant Family Vineyard and the painting's new owner, said the job “just knocks me over” ;.
Brett Gorvy, head of post-war and contemporary art, said “The remarkable bidding and record prices set reflect a brand new era in the art market,” he said. Steven Murphy, CEO of Christie's International, said new collectors were helping drive the boom.
Myths of the Music-Fine Art Price Differential
When I stumbled upon this information I was stunned at the values these artworks could actually obtain. Several of them would hardly evoke an optimistic emotional response in me, while others might only slightly, however for almost all of them I truly don't understand how their costs are reflected in the job, and vice versa. Obviously, these pieces were not created for people like me, an artist, while wealthy patrons certainly see their intrinsic artistic value clearly.
Why doesn't music attract most of these prices? Could it be even feasible for an item of recorded music, not music memorabilia or a music artifact (such as a rare record, LP, bootleg, T-shirt, album artwork, etc.), to be worth $1 million or even more? Are typical musicians and music composers doomed to struggle in the music industry and claw their way up right into a career in music? If one painting may be valued at $1 million, why can't a tune or piece of music also be valued similarly? Apparently, the $.99 per download price is the highest price a tune has the capacity to command at market value, no matter what its quality or content, and the musician or composer must accept this value as such.
The financial equation looks something like this:
1 painting = $37 million
1 song = $.99
Sometimes people say that the song can transform the world, but no body ever says that about paintings. So theoretically, if people want change $.99 is the price we ought to pay for it.
Now here really are a few statements that will help us clarify what the monetary or value discrepancy between painting and music is situated upon.
(1) You can find fewer painters than you can find musicians.
(2) Musicians are less talented than painters?
(3) It is simpler to create music than it's to paint.
(4) The general public values paintings more than music.
(5) Paintings are more beautiful than music.
(6) Paintings are impossible to copy unlike music.
(7) Painters work harder than musicians and composers.
(8) Blah, blah, blah.
Hardly anyone agrees with all of these statements and yet all, or at the least many of them, would have to be true in order for the buying price of paintings to so greatly exceed the cost of music. Moreover, I doubt that art collectors and great painters have to cope with as much legal red tape as do musicians when releasing their work into the public domain, why aren't the rewards equal, or even greater for musicians who've to work almost as much protecting their work as in producing it. Musicians and composers, however, actually must do more than authenticate their work and obtain accurate appraisals concerning what their work may be worth, but they receives a commission less. The equipment costs alone for musicians is much greater than it's for painters.
Maybe it's fame, and not money, musicians are after? That would explain why most musicians settle for the reduced pay they receive from record deals and digital downloads. Perhaps, that's also why many are touring more regularly to improve their fame and not their fortunes. But wait one minute, that's where musicians actually make most of the money from live performances and the selling of merchandise, however not the music. I guess for this reason many musicians see themselves never as composers, but instead as performers and entertainers.
So what can musicians do, who don't see themselves as entertainers, but rather as composers who create music as a artwork? Simply because they too have a powerful desire to earn a living to support themselves within their chosen profession, thus there should be a specialized approach whereby they present their work to music lovers or art collectors in search of assets and curators for unique pieces to invest their private galleries. Suppose that, a recorded piece of music that few have have you ever heard which can be displayed and played only on a specified music player in a private art gallery or collection.
In thinking about how a musician can follow the example set by painters in the fine arts, I've isolated 4 principles that will help to really make the spectacular financial rewards they've reached feasible for the musician. So let's analyze a number of the characteristics that govern the market for artwork and see how musicians can apply these concepts for their creative, production, and marketing processes.
The Ideal Vehicle for Music as Fine Art
Here are 4 principles and practical ideas for musicians who want to elevate their music into the realm of artwork by following the example of the painters of the past and present.
1) Strive to make unique music or music collections.
The composer must design experiments with sound or compositional techniques. Some music belongs in the realm of the public, while other music solely belongs in the realm of fine art. It's really not too difficult to inform the difference. The difference is clear when one compares the environmental surroundings of the nightclub and the music one finds there with the elevated environment of the ballet or opera and its music. The difference is certainly not one when it comes to types of music, but instead in the composer's sonic fingerprint. In other words, not everyone thinks Jackson Pollock was a great painter, but everyone acknowledges that it took him years of development to achieve a spot where his style might be born. It's the design of the artist or composer that will call out to the attention of wealthy patrons, the respect of peers, and the exclusive admiration of the music appreciator. In music, the design of the composer, aside from genre, I call 'a signature sound.' It's the signature sound that music and art collectors would want to own and for that they might be willing to pay for or bid up the cost of ownership to a higher price.
2) Develop a music gallery.
This might be modeled following the art gallery where one or several artist put their focus on display. The difference with the music gallery is that you would have a hall filled up with listening rooms or stations. These showings wouldn't be live performances, but rather will be in effect sound installations. You might also separate one hall into several compartments for different composers. The music showing will be an exclusive event provided to serious music and art collectors who actively seek out sonic experiences and buy what they like. The purpose of the music gallery will be the same since the art gallery – to provide the public a sample of the artist's talent, to provide critics something to write about, to possess other composers touch upon the job of a peer, and to create buzz in the art world. Bear in mind that it shouldn't be the big event that drives the buzz, however the music which makes the event.
3) Turn your music into a real asset.
The most obvious difference between a painting and music is that certain is a real artwork and one other is not. In other words, one of many defining characteristics of a painting is that the medium and the art are one. Unlike music, where the music must certanly be transferred onto another object like a cassette tape, vinyl, CD, or mP3 player before it may be perceived, whereas with a painting (or sculpture) an item has been transformed into art. So how can it be or can it be even feasible for a cassette, CD, or download to be transformed into art? The cassette and CD are more similar to a photograph of a painting, rather than a true expressions where the medium and the art are one drum course.