I sometimes struggle with the issue of owning anything let alone something as alive (to me) as art. BUT I feel art is made to be viewed and I’d rather it be on my wall than in some boardroom collection or locked away in a storeroom. Ok, it risks being damaged (and in my house with 3 preschoolers thats always possible) and for major works there is the issue of insurance and expense – just look at the fuss over the Hammond that got damaged in Christchurch.
Actually I have a long term buying plan starting with prints/etchings/lithographs. My (realistic) wishlist would include Dick Frizzell of course and maybe Otis Frizzell as well. I would also want some NZ photographers (Westra especially) but I think my prize of a Clairmont block print is possibly within my reach if I budget. I should probably just continue to pay the power bill and feed and clothe my children though :-). I was recently tempted by this:
But I got all concerned about ownership after seeing Orlando Clairmont at the auction on TV. I don’t actually doubt its provenance (you can put me right on that of course) but someoneiknow would probably suggest I hang it in the garage anyway. EDIT: See my update.
It gets to the point when an artist is ‘collectable’ or an ‘investment artist’ or lets face it – dead – that someone is probably going to frame a shopping list they wrote and auction it which is when you have to think about true value and profit. Recently an original Clairmont block print sold on Trademe for around $600 – it was a small Christmas card obviously not intended as ‘a work’.
So for now we are content to have some of my feeble efforts, some handmade prints, and a few art gallery t-shirts to show for our collecting. Which brings me to daughter #2 who says “Daddy” whenever she sees this:
as her experience of Frizzell is on a T-shirt of her father’s.
*Burglars note – they aren’t worth much