Monday, February 13, 2012Partly Cloudy 0°C
Arts

Putting A ($2 Million) Price On Art

Posted by Andrea Methot / May 27, 2008

$2 Million Tom Thomson PaintingWhile you were at work yesterday, maybe feeling a little guilty about that $5 latte you just bought, a man named Ash Prakash was down on King St., spending almost $2 million on a painting. This painting pictured, in fact - Tom Thomson's Pine Trees At Sunset.

You've probably come across this story already, because it's smashed Canadian art auction records. Estimated to go for $900,000 to $1 million, by the time all was said and done, the final price tag was $1,957,000.

But the thing that gets me is a little detail dropped into CTV's story: that 12 years ago, this very same painting went up for auction at $65,000, and didn't sell.

(You'll have to watch the video to hear that fact; it's not mentioned in the write-up.)

What causes a painting to skyrocket in value like that? Some are citing Thomson's mysterious death, but that was in 1917, so you'd think this would have caught our attention sometime before today.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a lovely little painting (and little is the right word - it's only about the size of a regular piece of paper). And I get that Thomson was a major influence on the Group of Seven and so his work is a major part of Canadiana.

But call me crazy, I just can't wrap my head around this idea that the total value of a piece of art isn't in the art itself, just in how much people want it. Because that has nothing to do with art: it has to do with marketing.

The truth is, Thomson's painting sold for such a high price because Thomson is hot right now. And for some reason, I find that a bit sad. Especially when you think about the artists in Toronto who do amazing work and struggle to make a couple thousand bucks.

Anyway, if you've got an extra $2 million kicking around, another Thomson painting goes up for auction tonight. Come on - it'll only cost you the price of a latte a day for the next 1095 years.

Discussion

12 Comments

anon. / May 27, 2008 at 10:09 am
user-pic
That's crazy. If you have 2 million dollars, there are better ways to support the art community than blowing your wad on one painting.
Hans Lucas / May 27, 2008 at 10:16 am
user-pic
This man is not "supporting" the art community per se. This is an investment for this man. He's not buying the painting cause he thinks it's nice (maybe he does) but the painting was estimated at 65,000 a few years ago and now it is worth $2 million. Who knows how much it will fetch in a couple of years. Canadian painting have been skyrocketing in price lately.
anon. / May 27, 2008 at 10:40 am
user-pic
You're right...I shouldn't have assumed such a benevolent intention as 'supporting the arts.' But doesn't that kind of suck? All this money being thrown around in the NAME of art, but none of it really FOR art. :S
Gloria / May 27, 2008 at 11:03 am
user-pic
Value determined by buyer's conceit? Would that be the free market?

Art can't be examined as just objects of beauty; they're also historical artefacts, unique in time and space. What makes a shard of ancient Athenian pottery so much more valuable than a pot you can buy at IKEA?

So it's a small painting, nothing more than a sketch. Should paintings' value be judged on their dimensions? On how much paint is used? On how many hours of labour were expended? Should it be worth more if it's highly finished, and less if it's blobby and vague?

This painting sold for $2 million, but what about the Mona Lisa, which is so regularly described as "priceless"? What makes that so much much special than any other masterpiece, or the painting hanging in the local gallery around the corner?

It is about marketing, but it always has been, because art is still a commodity.
Ratpick / May 27, 2008 at 11:07 am
user-pic
That's a stunning painting. Let's not presume that the buyer is somehow less sophisticated about art than we are.

I would think that bidding up the value of famous Canadian art could only help up-and-coming artists.

OCAD students take note -- work on your technical skills and quit planting fake bombs/barfing on paintings, etc!

Hans Lucas / May 27, 2008 at 11:31 am
user-pic
I don't mind if this painting was strictly purchased for investment purposes. Different people buy art for different reasons. And yes it could potentially help future Canadian artists in that "people" might take extra notice of what's coming out of this country. I think that the worst thing for art is not to have an audience. And while some might look at this painting and say "Holy shit 2 million for that" others will see it and say "Holy shit I've never seen this painting before but it's beautiful". Bottom line is that people care and it's a good feeling.
Liz / May 27, 2008 at 12:22 pm
user-pic
There a lot of worse things to spend two million dollars on.
Roger / May 27, 2008 at 01:36 pm
user-pic
Tom Thompson's got a lot better paintings than this one, which doesn't do much for me. I think the buyer got ripped off.
andrea. / May 27, 2008 at 01:57 pm
user-pic
@Gloria - I don't really disagree with what you're saying. I guess it's just that every once in awhile I find a number so staggering (like this one -- less than $65,000, to $1.95 million in just 12 years) that it reminds me how truly artificial the whole process is.
James / May 28, 2008 at 12:40 am
user-pic
Who cares how much he paid for it, 2 million, 20 million... as long as it ends up in a gallery where the public can view it, I think that would be most important. If it's going to collect dust in a vault somewhere, that's the real problem I see.
andrea. / May 28, 2008 at 09:47 am
user-pic
James - sorry to break it to you, but I understand it's for his private collection. :)
Jacq / May 28, 2008 at 03:34 pm
user-pic
I love the painting, but HATE art ending up in private collections. At least let other people look at it and enjoy it.

I possess no art, but I'd let people see it if I did, at least part of the time.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal