Gustav Klimt is important historically, writes Mario Naves. "But in the greater scheme of things, Klimt is small potatoes. Forget Modernism: If $135 million is considered a commendable investment for a picture by a minor artist, what price tag do we put on a painting by Fra Angelico, a sculpture by Donatello or a drawing by Durer? The question is undoubtedly lodged in the overexcited minds of museums, collectors and auction houses the world over."
Is there any stage when work from a full-time (real, professional, legitimate – pick your description) artist can be considered anything other than an investment? Remove the question of whether the art is good or bad and respectively a good or bad financial decision. Is the purchase of art always considered an investment from the accountant’s standpoint? Who is qualified to say what is and is not an investment in the future art market? – DN