Helppp

[stlukesguild]

I think the best question to ask is: Are they worth it to you?

It looks like you've already answered.

This is the obvious question to ask yourself: Are they worth it to you? There are many reasons that people buy art. Some buy it for prestige. Some to convey the notion that they are cultured. Some, who buy the more cutting edge works wish to suggest their own daring and willingness to take chances. Those who buy art for investment purposes must either have a very good eye... and a lot of luck... and be able to recognize which artists have the potential to become famous well before their prices escalate... or they must have some serious wealth and be able to buy "blue-chip" artists whose works will continue to increase in value.

I buy art... when I do... because I like the work enough to want to live with it, and I find the price is within my range. These are not all that appealing to me personally... but it is you that they must please. Seriously... the price is reasonable enough. As an art dealer I rarely ever sold anything beneath the $200 range... and in most instances that was a drawing, watercolor, or print. Most paintings by a mid-career artist will begin at $500 for a small work and rapidly increase into the thousands range for something larger.

[stlukesguild]

I'd find out how many hours he put into them...

That seems like a logical approach... but it does not always work out that way. Certainly, if we are considering two artists of equal reputation, the prices of one may be considerably more than those of another if, for example, the one artist paints rapidly executed watercolors, while the other spends 4 months on a highly detailed oil painting. But time is not in any way the prime measure of worth. Van Gogh often completed his paintings in a single session of but a few hours, and yet his works command prices higher than paintings that took months to complete. At the same time... it is generally frowned upon for an artist to differentiate the prices of works of equal size/medium/technique based upon the time involved... or even based upon the artist's opinion as to which piece is better. Some times we get lucky and a painting virtually falls together. At other times the process is painfully drawn out. The buyer is not merely paying for the labor on one specific work... but for the skill/talent that took years to develop so that at times a piece can just fall together. To differentiate the price of two similar and equally-sized works is also dangerous in that it imposes the artist's opinion upon the buyer. If I have two paintings for sale and one is priced 25% less than the other... merely because I feel it is not as good this immediately conveys my opinion as to its lesser merit to the audience... and this may actually conflict with the buyer's opinion. The buyer may have found the less expensive painting to be far superior, but by underpricing it, you convey the notion that his or her opinion is somehow wrong. Prices in art are largely based upon what the going rate is for art of the same or similar scale and medium by an artist of similar reputation and experience.

[aBIGsheep]

I know this guy personally, I know that he devotes a lot of his time to art. He's the kind of person that's so determined that he'll pursue it to the end.
His parents don't support him, and he's forgone the Christmas break and friends to finish all the art projects for his college portfolio.

This kid is going to be famous and his prices are just in my price range.

[Dori]

I'd find out how many hours he put into them...

That seems like a logical approach... but it does not always work out that way. Certainly, if we are considering two artists of equal reputation, the prices of one may be considerably more than those of another if, for example, the one artist paints rapidly executed watercolors, while the other spends 4 months on a highly detailed oil painting. But time is not in any way the prime measure of worth. Van Gogh often completed his paintings in a single session of but a few hours, and yet his works command prices higher than paintings that took months to complete. At the same time... it is generally frowned upon for an artist to differentiate the prices of works of equal size/medium/technique based upon the time involved... or even based upon the artist's opinion as to which piece is better. Some times we get lucky and a painting virtually falls together. At other times the process is painfully drawn out. The buyer is not merely paying for the labor on one specific work... but for the skill/talent that took years to develop so that at times a piece can just fall together. To differentiate the price of two similar and equally-sized works is also dangerous in that it imposes the artist's opinion upon the buyer. If I have two paintings for sale and one is priced 25% less than the other... merely because I feel it is not as good this immediately conveys my opinion as to its lesser merit to the audience... and this may actually conflict with the buyer's opinion. The buyer may have found the less expensive painting to be far superior, but by underpricing it, you convey the notion that his or her opinion is somehow wrong. Prices in art are largely based upon what the going rate is for art of the same or similar scale and medium by an artist of similar reputation and experience.

You're right.

I'm currently enrolled in a Drawing and Painting class at my high school. And a computer arts class. These two classes are all the experience I have in art, so I'm hardly qualified to answer such a question. However, personally, I would pay more, especially if it was a friend.

[mtpspur]

I am absolutely no expert in art but I can share this. I collect comics and some pulp magazines. Keeps me off the streets and out of the bars and it relaxes me. Now over 50 years of collecting I have discovered that whenever thepossible value of an issue became more important then the fun in reading and having the issue I lost the JOY of collecting. Seems pretty clear to me you would like to buy the paintings. Go for it. BUT if oyu are looking for the payoff on an investment then I wish you well. But Hulk #181 (1st appearance of Wolverine--and to kind--an uninspired debut at that) are about every 20 years or so. I collect Avengers--if it was money I'ld be hoarding X-Men instead. Hope this helps. Rich