Why not Contemporary Art?

This might seem a bit of a sideline off the main topic, but in persuading you that ancient art is the best investment, you may be asking yourself why everyone is caught up with contemporary art at present?



According to Forbes Magazine, Legendary Hedge Fund Manager Michael Steinhardt 'recognised the value' of antiquities and assembled one of the world's biggest collections. Now the biggest is not necessarily the best and I hope he took sensible advice on which antiquities to buy.



Similarly, when the British Rail Pension Fund decided to nivest part of their portfolio in the Art Market, they stuck with tried and tested markets, namely Old Master Paintings and Antiquities. They did not rush into the purchase of contemporary art.



Charles Saatchi has been instrumental in persuading the UK art market that contemporary is not just fashionalbe, but also a good investment. However, unless you have the influence to buy up entire degree shows and manufacture the next Banksy, it will always remain a risk.



In a recent discussion with a member of Tate's board who decide on purchases I learn't that even museums are trying to second guess who the next big artist will be. Unfortunately they are spending their collections budgets on unknown artists, then getting lumbered with worthless artworks as the artists career nosedives and they dont have a disposal policy that allows them to get shot of the works.



This is not a diatribe against the Tate however, but a warning that even arts professionals cannot reliably control such an amorphous beast as the art market. In 2004, the Arts Council commissioned a report to find out why more people do not invest in contemporary art. The report, 'Taste Buds' by Morris Hargreaves Mcintyre found that even high net worth individuals are intimidated by the dealer system and confused by the scale of the contemporary market.

If you are a novice and wnat to know what makes a good investment I would say this. Contemporary art does exactly what it says on the tin. A Banksy may cost you £20,000 at auction today but when he's no longer fashionable he may be worth £20.00. That's not to say it will definitely happen, but its a frightening possibility.

Of course If you are a museum curator playing with tax payers money or donations from wealthy patrons, you can afford to take the risk. After all you won't go to prison for a bad investment. Smuggle antiquities out of a source country and you can at least expected to be arrested at gunpoint when reentering the country

I will get to the ethical and legal considerations shortly, but first let me just say there is something magical about holding a complete predynastic pottery vessel that still shows the fingerprints from when the clay was wet during the manufacture that has survived for five thousand years or more.

If Egyptian antiquities were collected by Roman emperors and we have based our civilization, not to mention our art on Classical traditions, I think it is fair to say this is at least a tried and tested accepted standard of aesthetic beauty that is unlikely to become unfashionable any time soon.

As a rule of thumb, on average antiquities rise 10% in value every year and double in value every ten years. This is of course for significant artworks. Buy a scarab from a dealer and you are paying retail price against wholesale auction price so it is unlikely to ever be worth what you paid for it.

I like and admire Banksy's work (the streat cleaner steaming the cave paintings off the walls is my favourite) and even some of Damien Hirst's art I find quite interesting but if I have to put my money where my mouth is I will still choose a classical statue or Egyptian relief any day of the week.