New Arts Minister Carmel Sepuloni has advised the government is looking at introducing an art resale scheme although why she didn’t say. This was considered back in 2007 then wisely shelved.
The fact it exists in other parts of the world is not justification. So does capital punishment, leprosy and child marriage.
The proposition is that a percentage of any artwork resold, perhaps years after its creation and sale, should go to the artist, or where applicable, to his or her estate, up to a time limit.
The first and most obvious question is why art? Why not apply it to every commodity? Imagine if it was applied to housing or public company shares. What fun/chaos that would be.
As to why only art, we know the answer, namely a sort of unsophisticated feel good snobbishness that paintings are special. They’re not. After all if you could own either paintings or a home but not both, there’d be no art buyers.
And what if one sold a painting at a loss? If such a scheme existed, justice suggests the artist owes you. Some hope pursuing that.
I know a bit about this subject. Why? Because I buy more paintings than anyone in this country’s history and possibly than anyone in the world.
I own literally thousands of paintings and employ a fulltime buyer who purchases probably 8-10 oils each week from new exhibitions constantly taking place in dealer galleries across the land.
They’re not bought to on-sell but instead to decorate our circa 1000 office suits in our buildings here and abroad. We encourage lessees to not just have a painting in their foyer but to line their walls.
So I say again, Minister Sepuloni should think again before embarking on this silly scheme.
Should she persist let her first tell the public why painters are being singled out for this scheme and not other creative types such as sculptors, architects, yacht designers and so on, let alone anyone in any activity who sells something down the line for more than they originally paid for it. She’ll struggle long and hard to come up with a sensible rationale for the very good reason there isn’t one.
9 Comments
Yes-A silly idea, and silly ideas ought not be pursued. Essentially it contradicts some of the central tenets of the first world. (Exclusive property rights and enforceable property rights)
I purchased a large run down property in a good area and am currently renovating it-were I to paint a wall in a wholly unneccessary way, purely for its artistic merit, when I sell the place-can I expect that the next few owners would be burdened by some spectral, ambigous obligation to pay an ongoing % back to me? Of course not.
I suspect this idea gets recycled by left wing artists who wake up at 40 to realise they are broke & (as is often the way), put their hands out to the “gummint” to fix that.
Perhaps thats uncharitable, as its not unique to the art world, but I wonder if the Minister needs a reminder about the concept of Willing Seller-Willing Buyer or a quick history lesson on the outcomes of enforced collectivism?
What the… These people aren’t paid peanuts, but come up with the most hare brained schemes. But, think of the employment prospects, What a gig or more likely many gigs.
Original art works are sold by aspiring artist, basically to fund their lifestyle. Unlike music, patents, writings, the original can be exactly copied, thus the creator can enjoy the royalty for relative perpetuity. When it come to original works of paint/sculpture the true value really is in the unique original format. yes, I believe where copied, prints, duplicates, then a royalty should be paid to the original creator, the the current owner of the original. Though the music industry is notorious to fleecing Artist out of their residuals.
If you have more than $50,000 in the banks, its not safe in these times.
As one probably knows already, higher value paintings seem a better alternative in these times; should the money press run out of ink. They are alot more transportable and easier to store than gold, but dont go so well in a fire.
For these reasons, big brother wants to keep a watch over these trades.
Sorry but I have to keep saying it. More Socialism/Communism/Income redistribution from the luny left.
Just have a look at Dictator Biden as he passes law after law by dictate. No discussion or democratic process. And silence from the leftist press. They would have slaughtered Trump.
Multiple utube videos on the exodus happening in the States mainly from Demcratic controlled cities. Failure of Governance/ high taxes. Idiotic ideas. All this is coming to NZ under Cindies watch.
An interesting example.
Watch “Why is Everyone Leaving California?” on YouTube
Company after company abandoning California.
Our family bought a farm in 1974 for $240k, and sold it some 40 years later for $3.8 million. Should we owe the prevoius owner some of the gain or even going right back to when the original owner cut it out of the Bush in the 1880s?
This is just lefties wanting something handed to them for no work. Would have loved go lump them with the huge debt we had when we sold as well!
On second thoughts, this is just a red herring from sepeloni, put out there to take our collective eyes off the ball, being the mismanagement of NZ in all spheres.
Bring it on ! … when will the guided tours being. Eight to 10 new oils a week. I would without doubt like to see them. Seriously, would love to view and with a guided commentary.
These socialist are cunning bastards. It has nothing to do with rewarding the artist. It is all about establishing a database of art sales/ purchasers with a view to accurate wealth establishment for the purposes of various taxation.