A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter
In preparing to write a short bit about the devastating effect of overexposure on a work of art – that is, how value tends to drop dramatically when a single work of art has been offered for sale multiple times over the course of a handful of years, I came across this small black box. And it is challenging that notion head-on. Let me back up and explain.
One of the key factors in a work of art’s value is its freshness to the market. If it’s been in the same collection for a generation or two (or more), demand tends to rise significantly over, say, if the same work of art is offered for sale a year or two after being sold. Sure, there are exceptions to this to be sure, particularly in the contemporary art market; but widely speaking, fresh works are king.
Sales venues like Ebay have challenged this notion, but not significantly: if a work of art is offered for sale and fails to meet reserve or garner an opening bid, the future value is still hurt, but there are not any lasting sales records to haunt it – Ebay’s completed auction records only last for a few months or so. Still, I’ve watched paintings that might have had significant value get completely pummeled by a seller’s repeated unsuccessful attempts at selling it. For that reason, I never recommend offering a work of art on Ebay more than once.
And now, Caleb Larsen’s A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter. A single work of art which, by way of its own internal programming, puts itself up for auction every week on Ebay. As an appraiser, my head is spinning. What happens to value when ownership is so fleeting as to only last a week? Motivation to sell is not a factor at all in this equation; it is part and parcel of the work itself. But what motivates the buyer? When I first became aware of this piece by way of Felix Salmon’s article, it was listed at $1500. Before the end of the auction, the price was upped to $2500, but failed to sell. It’s current auction ongoing, it started again at $2500, and bidding is up to $4250. Methinks that a rise in press coverage may be a large component of its rise in value. Therefore, the more publicity that this work receives, the higher its value? The seller, after all, isn’t “dumping” it back out into the market; the work itself, by design, is placing itself back out into the market.
According to the artist’s response to a question posed within the descriptive text of the auction site, “The perpetual state of uncertainty and the instability of ownership are primary components of the work”.
A work of art for the times, to be sure. And I will be watching with confoundment at how the market responds.
1/29/10 Update: Bidding on the piece closed yesterday evening at $6350 with 19 bids. It is currently en route to its next owner, and will presumably be set to auction itself again as soon as an ethernet connection is established. Wonder what the opening bid will be? Apparently that is at the discretion of its new owner, but I would still recommend an opening bid lower than the sales price.
No comments yet.
