The Value of Art | Episode 4: Provenance

[@Jefleopard]

What I have learned from this series is that art is subjective and it is worth no more and no less than what any individual is willing to pay for it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[@ash-jy3qm]

This series is so educational and wonderful!! Thank you for making these!!

[@RitaGehman]

Thank you so much! That was fantastic!

[@erina4586]

Thank You for sharing such wonderful info.

[@sigmundfreud7903]

Probably the most important element in marking the value of something.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Very interesting and worthwhile video.

[@moppelgames1903]

What is the name of the Artist and the name of the painting at 1:48 ? The one on the right hand side with the triangles and squares.

[@JammastaJ23]

Do American art collectors generally pronounce it "pro-ve-nance" too or is it more just Europe? I had never had it pronounced that way before this. I've always just heard "prah-veh-nence"

[@patlacey5574]

How do they scientifically determine a specific year or range of year, etc., that a painting was originally painted?

[@alicoban7956]

They have some special set of equipment and labs for these works.

[@henrycastle1]

❤️

[@정길주-w9p]

멋쪄요~~

[@teixeiradasilva6299]

You know, half of your staff could do a better discovery channel than all those people working at discovery channel.

[@kevinz599]

The history of ownership of an object while part of provenance should not be confused with the definitive origin of an object (something dealers tend to count on). The older an object is the more likely it’s provenance is incorrect. The provenance (the unbroken chain of the history of an object from origination to current date) of so many items has been proven false by forensic science that it’s place in art authentication has become tenuous at best. Institutional researchers (typically at the PhD level) capable of using the powerful technology of forensic science, not dealers with a profit motive, are the real experts of art authentication. Unless provenance is substantiated by forensic science beware.

[@jeromeibanez2891]

This is all very interesting but I do actually have a question: which of the two (definitive origin vs. history of ownership) is more important? Although the answer might be subjective, I'm curious about the answer because 2 years ago I went to TEFAF in Maastricht for the first time and saw a couple of lots that previously belonged to Hubert de Givenchy. While talking to the dealer, she mentioned the rise of the price of the pieces after being acquired by Hubert. In this regard, it seemed like the definitive origin suddenly did not matter anymore in terms of pricing.

[@kevinz599]

@@jeromeibanez2891 You pose an interesting question. Consider this....only one can be true....you have a sculpture by Michelangelo that was previously owned by Abraham Lincoln. Which would you prefer to be true, Michelangelo`s hand or Lincoln`s ownership? The answer is also the answer to your question.

[@jacobohernandez6343]

Hola cordiales saludos . excelente .documental sobre arte . excelente canal . hablemos de negocios .la pintura original del chico de Rojo . Aún existe . Hay la forma de negocios .pueden buscar interesados en la obra . él hecho qué la nacional Galería de Londres aya adquirido una copia . Abra alquien quién oferté por ella felicidades

[@정길주-w9p]

좋아요

[@blackfalkon4189]

who else was led here by John Oliver's "Museums" ?

[@oblisk420]

putting so much money on the associations from a work of art seems ridiculously decadent. it's such an intangible useless thing what do you gain by owning an object that was also owned by so-and-so? a feeling of importance??

[@jeromeibanez2891]

The reason for it was perfectly explained in the video.

[@notnek202]

@@jeromeibanez2891 yeah, it’s called bs. *bs = BULL SHIT.

[@PumpkinCandleGetLit]

SNORE

[@JammastaJ23]

no one cares

[@blackfalkon4189]

check out John Oliver's "Museums"