Pricing art work

ValHaller

NAR wrote: »

I'm with artytarty here, there are some crazy figures being bandied here. I bet the principal hopes to get it for about £50 or £60, which should be graciously accepted. Let's be realistic the artist is a kid!

Don't be so patronising.

If he had not kept it in his office, but had expressed an interest in buying, then taking £75 as the NMW price, I would be suggesting settling for £125. Now he has kept it in his office, the price has to be higher. Norma says £750. I say aspire to £525. I would not say Norma is wrong - and I would say that the argument that 'the artist is a kid' is a particulalrly pathetic argument to suggest that Norma is wrong.

The right price is based on the fact that the principal has taken possession of it.

Pthree

I can walk around the Tate Modern and look at stuff I wouldnt give you £1 for that sells for hundreds of thousands! I also have a couple of original pieces which I bought because I loved them and have paid anywhere between £30 and £2500 for.

Its worth what someone will pay for it, the age of the artist has nothing to do with it. Dont under value talent.

Remember one day it may be worth a fair bit!

meritaten

if the principal wants to buy it then the work is exceptional. £75 is way too low - I have paid more than that for an unknown artist work just cos I like it! refuse to sell and tout it round some galleries and see what they say.

StumpyPumpy

ValHaller wrote: »

Don't be so patronising.

If he had not kept it in his office, but had expressed an interest in buying, then taking £75 as the NMW price, I would be suggesting settling for £125. Now he has kept it in his office, the price has to be higher. Norma says £750. I say aspire to £525. I would not say Norma is wrong - and I would say that the argument that 'the artist is a kid' is a particulalrly pathetic argument to suggest that Norma is wrong.

The right price is based on the fact that the principal has taken possession of it.

IMO everyone is reading a lot into what could be a simple act. He may have taken 20 works into his office. He may have them all in a pile on the floor. He undoubtedly knows that after the exhibition ends, the works get dispersed and become a pain to trace. It may just be a secure location because otherwise other students nick (or deface) them once the exhibition is over.

I'm amazed at how many people seem to be able to put a value on an unseen canvas by an unknown artist. The age of the artist is, I agree, irrelevant, but the general market isn't. £750 (or £525) can buy an awful lot of good art. Good art by established and recognised artists as well as unknowns.

Just as a for instance, (I'm not trying to compare styles or abilities here as I haven't seen the OP's son's painting either) but take this original oil painting:

It isn't big, but only philistines and corporate offices buy art by the yard. It is painted by a famous name - Ariana Richards (Google it ); who is "recognized as one of the “Young Guns” in the world-wide contemporary traditional art community." and is a multiple award winner. And it can be bought direct from the artist today for $1,050 aka £683. I happen to be a fan, so I know how much her work sells for (and how quickly) So it was easy for me to use her work as an example, I'm sure I could find an English example if I could be bothered looking.

Don't get me wrong - It would be great if it sold for a lot of money (and £750 is a lot of money) And I'm not ruling out the chance that he is the next Michaelangelo or Banksy even, but I think people are getting a bit carried away on this thread.

The OP was asking about pricing based on materials and work effort, which is fair enough, but now people are seemingly providing a price based on artistic merit or value in the market place, without even seeing the work or knowing how the style connects with current art world trends. Instead it appears to be based solely on massive assumptions about another person's thought processes.

Bottom line remains the same. The value of the work is how much the Principal is prepared to pay (unless someone on this thread wants to make a counter offer!). The best way to find this out, or at least to get a ballpark figure is to ask him.

SP

stiltwalker

NAR wrote: »

I'm with artytarty here, there are some crazy figures being bandied here. I bet the principal hopes to get it for about £50 or £60, which should be graciously accepted. Let's be realistic the artist is a kid!

I've done craft fairs since I was 12 (definitely more kid than 6th form) in various guises and mediums. I found that I started selling better and more consistently once I started truly valuing my own work - so pricing for material and time and adding a hefty measure for skill/experience (not wishing to blow my own trumpet unduly).

My two pennorth would be that it is all to easy to undervalue your own work and that age has b*gger all to do with it!

Pthree

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

Bottom line remains the same. The value of the work is how much the Principal is prepared to pay (unless someone on this thread wants to make a counter offer!). The best way to find this out, or at least to get a ballpark figure is to ask him.

SP

I really want to see it now, I do have a some walls to fill!

eskimo26

Some of these valuations are a joke, for a couple of hundred you can get a limited edition print or photograph by a well known artist.

I saw some andy goldsworthy stuff for £350 at a london show when i was at central st martins and wasted my time going to those things with friends.

I see unknown local artists exhibit in hospitals and library shows and most of those are priced at £75 to £150 on average.

By all means if the canvas is very large or if he wants to keep it, etc. then put a little premium on it.

But the Principal might be looking to buy a bargain and he'll lose interest if you go to high, part of art is picking up bargains when artists are looking to get started and be noticed.

It might pay off if they get big and it might not, i would be very flattered if i was him and don't insult the Principal with an inflated art market price.

Also i'll echo the fact he needs good photo for his portfolio!

ValHaller

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

IMO everyone is reading a lot into what could be a simple act. He may have taken 20 works into his office. He may have them all in a pile on the floor. He undoubtedly knows that after the exhibition ends, the works get dispersed and become a pain to trace. It may just be a secure location because otherwise other students nick (or deface) them once the exhibition is over. (1)

I'm amazed at how many people seem to be able to put a value on an unseen canvas by an unknown artist. The age of the artist is, I agree, irrelevant, but the general market isn't. £750 (or £525) can buy an awful lot of good art. Good art by established and recognised artists as well as unknowns.

Just as a for instance, (I'm not trying to compare styles or abilities here as I haven't seen the OP's son's painting either) but take this original oil painting:

<snip> (2)

It isn't big, but only philistines and corporate offices buy art by the yard. It is painted by a famous name - Ariana Richards (Google it ); who is "recognized as one of the “Young Guns” in the world-wide contemporary traditional art community." and is a multiple award winner. And it can be bought direct from the artist today for $1,050 aka £683. I happen to be a fan, so I know how much her work sells for (and how quickly) So it was easy for me to use her work as an example, I'm sure I could find an English example if I could be bothered looking.

Don't get me wrong - It would be great if it sold for a lot of money (and £750 is a lot of money) And I'm not ruling out the chance that he is the next Michaelangelo or Banksy even, but I think people are getting a bit carried away on this thread.

The OP was asking about pricing based on materials and work effort, which is fair enough, but now people are seemingly providing a price based on artistic merit or value in the market place, without even seeing the work or knowing how the style connects with current art world trends. Instead it appears to be based solely on massive assumptions about another person's thought processes. (3)

Bottom line remains the same. The value of the work is how much the Principal is prepared to pay (unless someone on this thread wants to make a counter offer!). The best way to find this out, or at least to get a ballpark figure is to ask him. (4)

(1) Why would the principal be holding on to art? Your explanation is plausible, but it would be far more natural for the Head of the Art Department to do this

(2) Well, I ain't that struck on it. I'd put it on the same wall as this


And there is probably skip loads of A level project art I would rather have on my walls. But that is me.

(3) The point which people are making is that to price the artwork in question by time and materials is to undervalue it. This does relate to the principal's thought processes far more than to 'current artworld trends'. No one is particularly assuming the principal's thought processes. What is being offered is possible models for his thinking - which relate to how much he might be prepared to pay. To ignore those possible models essentially puts the pricing back to time and materials

And I am still of the view that the right price is based on the FACT that the principal has taken possession of it

(4) Of course the best way to get a price is to ask the principal how much he is prepared to offer. But if you start from the time and materials perspective, you are going to end up striking a deal at £40. I would say it would be better not to sell at that sort of price.

StumpyPumpy

ValHaller wrote: »

(1) Why would the principal be holding on to art? Your explanation is plausible, but it would be far more natural for the Head of the Art Department to do this

But equally valid suppositions to say that a) as we don't know the size of the college, the Prinicipal might be the Head of the Art Department, or the AD Head may not have an office or the AD Head might think it is rubbish. My whole point is that neither you (nor I) know any of this. The prices suggested might as well be created by letting the cat walk over the keyboard. Why stop at £750? What makes that more reasonable than £7,500 or £75,000?

ValHaller wrote: »

(2) Well, I ain't that struck on it. I'd put it on the same wall as this


And there is probably skip loads of A level project art I would rather have on my walls. But that is me.

My point was that you can get a lot of good art for £750, not whether the Richards painting was more to people's liking or not. I will buy all the original Tretchikoff paintings you have for £750 each. Not because I particularly like them, but because I know how much the current art market values them at. And you have no idea whether you like the Tretchikoff less than this one because you have never seen it.

ValHaller wrote: »

(3) The point which people are making is that to price the artwork in question by time and materials is to undervalue it.

And my point is that that is not necessarily true. Lots of artists, ancient and modern spend more on materials and time than they get for their work. Van Gogh famously only sold one painting in his lifetime, just before his death, even though he had his brother as an agent and was commissioned by his uncle, amongst others. The OP was asking for a valuation of the work involved not the work itself - which in my opinion is the only thing you can do - sight unseen.

ValHaller wrote: »

This does relate to the principal's thought processes far more than to 'current artworld trends'. No one is particularly assuming the principal's thought processes.

Errr...

ValHaller wrote: »

What is being offered is possible models for his thinking - which relate to how much he might be prepared to pay. To ignore those possible models essentially puts the pricing back to time and materials

Yes, because the only quantifiable thing at the moment is time and materials. And that is what the OP was asking about.

ValHaller wrote: »

And I am still of the view that the right price is based on the FACT that the principal has taken possession of it

Which comes full circle back to the FACT that you are trying to act as a mind reader and determining the Principal's reasoning, and putting a random price tag on it, when the better course of action is to simply ask him.

ValHaller wrote: »

(4) Of course the best way to get a price is to ask the principal how much he is prepared to offer. But if you start from the time and materials perspective, you are going to end up striking a deal at £40. I would say it would be better not to sell at that sort of price.

Why would it not be worth selling at £40? I don't understand your logic. It is a fair assumption to say that when the painting was created, it wasn't done for a profit motive, but to pass the course. The money spent on materials was to that aim. Thoughts of recouping them probably never crossed his mind. We don't even know what his attachment to the piece is. He might have none, he might have lots, that in itself should have a greater influence on the price, than random guesswork. But if given the chance to recoup the creation charges, and if he has no attachment why shouldn't he sell it at that price? Why would it be "better" to keep it?

You seem to be confusing desirability with value. And your notion of this specific desirability is pure speculation based on a single action of an individual of whom you have no personal knowledge. How good will this budding artist feel if he asks for £750 and he gets laughed at? And then spends 6 months trawling around galleries getting laughed at too? I'm not saying that will happen. But it might. What if the Principal bites his hand off and immediately gives him £750? That might be a hard one to take too. As I have continually said: we have not seen the piece, so how can we judge its artistic merit? We are not the Principal so how can we know how much money he has to spend? Yet that is what everyone seems to be doing.


SP

FatVonD

I'm assuming it's good, it isn't a GCSE piece but A level and for the OP's son to opt to take an art A level to me says that he has some talent and probably intents to continue down the creative career choice path.

The principal is the principal of a college (not the headmaster of a school) where presumably art is one of their speciality subjects and where there will be many talented students all pooled together in one place but the principal has chosen the OP's son's work therefore I believe it has some worth, certainly more than minimum wage.

I work in a creative industry, freelancers are paid between £120 and £170 for 8 hours work (so an average of £18.75 per hour.) If the OP's son spent 10 hours working on it at that hourly rate then even without materials that comes out to £187.50 and that's taking it just as a 'jobbing' piece of artwork rather than something that may or may not be collectible. Talent should NOT be paid for at minimum wage and the OP's son shouldn't undersell his talent.