Hobbies: What drives art collectors to buy and display their finds?

[C C]

https://aeon.co/essays/what-drives-art-c...heir-finds

EXCERPT: [...] Debates about why people collect art date back at least to the first century CE. The Roman rhetorician Quintilian claimed that those who professed to admire what he considered to be the primitive works of the painter Polygnotus were motivated by ‘an ostentatious desire to seem persons of superior taste’. Quintilian’s view still finds many supporters.

Another popular explanation for collecting – financial gain – cannot explain why collectors go to such lengths. Of course, many people buy art for financial reasons. You can resell works, sometimes reaping enormous profit. You can get large tax deductions for donating art to museums – so large that the federal government has seized thousands of looted antiquities that were smuggled into the United States just so that they could be donated with inflated valuations to knock money off the donors’ tax bills. Meanwhile, some collectors have figured out how to keep their artworks close at hand while still getting a tax deduction by donating them to private museums that they’ve set up on their own properties. More nefariously, some ‘collectors’ buy art as a form of money laundering, since it is far easier to move art than cash between countries without scrutiny.

But most collectors have little regard for profit. For them, art is important for other reasons....

[scheherazade]

I have always found it quite interesting to discern where the line becomes drawn for 'art' as compared to other works of similar style and content by any number of individuals.

It would seem then, that some other measure (or several) become the determining factors.

The message, the medium and the maker all seem to have relevance to the benefactor and serve to broaden their base within the society of the day, hence the advantage of displaying their collection to the confirmed and the potential converts.

Politics and religion are hugely invested in art as are many who challenge these establishments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaticans-art...s-digital/

Art collections might possibly be considered as more civilized forms of competition and contest.

[Secular Sanity]

Tom Wolfe argued that it’s all flimflam and status.  I would have to agree to some extent.  People do have the tendency to believe that status is transferrable, name dropping, designer brands, for example.  Originals are more expensive, and therefore, more money equals more status.

This video is great, though. He said that when you like art you don’t just like the physical thing.  You like the story behind it.  He said that the philosopher Denis Dutton in his wonderful book "The Art Instinct" makes the case that, "The value of an artwork is rooted in assumptions about the human performance underlying its creation." And that could explain the difference between an original and a forgery. They may look alike, but they have a different history. The original is typically the product of a creative act, the forgery isn't. I think this approach can explain differences in people's taste in art.

Why Do We Like What We Like?