Tästä maasta tulee äitiys pakkaus. Sekä kotimaista vispipuura. Et sitpä sitten välipalaa pienille tai isommille, niin kotimaista tuote perheistä löydöt maistuaan jokaisen ruokahetkeen. Kotimaista, tästä maasta ja S ryhmän ruokakaupoista. Meille akria eläinvakuutuksessa on tärkeää, että lemmikilläsi on mahdollisuus parhaa sen hoitoon. Eläinvakuutuksessa me tarjoavat sopivan turvankkaikenlaisiin tarpeisiin. Sinä valitset vakuutuksen laajuuden, me tarjoamme maksuttaman etä eläinlääkärin sekä nopean suora korvauksen klinikan kasalla. Luöllisää, akriapistefi. On Dr. James Deneen, ja on seuraava peräärviä intonistamme, että maistaa hienoa hienoa hienoa vasten. Ja on tärkeää, että on jälkeen 45- ja on tärkeää, että on tärkeää, että 2008. James Deneen on tärkeää, että seuraava on tärkeää, että seuraava on tärkeää. Kura on aika totuda, että olen minun peumpinri�. Alice näin紅in edes kuulle on alta,いつ können vuot čiimなんか. Paulina kena olen piratea voi vahva nutrit. Paulina kehittää O Achot結 kohtaillionsilyäkkunan. S Bronze! spokespersonoriaalell - etteä Speaking - Saamme magia. Alex Pertomiteen rigiot perigauk chcia kansaksi tehdivinä. - S converted Josユhoj saljuille mitä selbraảilla. modus k also, kulokana, raydam jumpana ja arvus marched. Niille perskyllä tällä pooliin mahtaisiin nämä henää vuottaisessa todella. Niille moleksi onżej applied paikallisik noinoit gu Fifthiveela precisin. Balmainsädlyös edelleen miksi ajata Grundasim Television N Weight ( docta Wohnan understandable when there was "wyrm ağ"��는en) ja signרכimchnitts likatetaminen mu estetymisen Siberia. Lepisintän minu為lla taupaa todella muillä. niitä voi nopeat我的 exciting. Dr. James Dunneen pitää niitä uudelleen niitä. Onko niitä? Tämä on johonnus. Tämä on sellaista 1984. Suomessa on tärkeää, että on tärkeää tärkeää, ja tärkeää tärkeää. Niille on tärkeää, Jameyden näitä, ja miten se on tärkeää? Okei, onko? Neil adell eligible normally traumatic life. On hyd ―vasta hyvää yntä, ettäτό on pankee tarpeen valmiosta ja pitää olla uudelleen va still Machiee. ―Tä on tullut muuta, että olen järjestelmässä. ―In järjestelmässä, että olen järjestelmässä, että olen järjestelmässä, että olen järjestelmässä. ―Tä on järjestelmässä, että olen järjestelmässä, että olen järjestelmässä, että olen järjestelmässä. modeledעל uses, mutta pää sacarjokiitta pboti. Dr. James Denis. Vividä flykenttiin lisää, sen maximut royttimmat dragging chiikä partly asia. Sen neverthelessался on liksom saada vlastmasti. Miten visata. Saadaan, missä olcockilm惜 hän sieltä hauser THOMme. Hän tekevi sitä, jos待た se, manque pitäisi haicleilla. Mä olen järjestelmässä ja käyntä seuraavaa. Mä olen järjestelmässä, että olen järjestelmässä. Mä olen järjestelmässä. Se on jo mitä se, että se on hyvä idea. Miten se on järjestelmä, että se on järjestelmä. Denis on järjestelmä, että se on järjestelmä. Miten se on järjestelmä, että se ei ole järjestelmä. Tämä on johtyä, että se on järjestelmä. Ja se on järjestelmä, että se on järjestelmä. Se on järjestelmä, että se on järjestelmä. Miten se, että ne on järjestelmä, järjestelmä, järjestelmä, järjestelmä, järjestelmä, järjestelmä. Tämä on järjestelmä, että se on järjestelmä. Päri tiedes janu harms, cracked, olevan nostalsettavaan ottaisiin laudella passeokokeessa applyingettavassa preferences. Éä olet supplied müssteava. Tämä on koko ajan. Tämä on jälkeen, joten se on jälkeen. Päri jälkeen jälkeen, joten se on jälkeen. Päri jälkeen, joten se on jälkeen. Tämä on jälkeen. Tämä on jälkeen. Tämä on jälkeen. 99.9 % of the artist that you see at galleries and exhibitions will never increase. The art market is a fascinating, sexy, intellectually compelling, unregulated global market. In the second episode, we looked at the market from the perspective of the artists. It is extremely unregulated and subject to all kinds of monkey business that I can't fully understand. I think the whole thing is vulgar. There's this phrase that was coined by a friend of mine called LPM lies per minute. And in this final episode, we explored how contemporary art became such an elite product. It initially started off by Leo Castelli who is the godfather of the gallery world. We'll look at the disruptors trying to change the market. I would say that the artist was the godfather of the gallery world. Trying to change the market. I would say 99% of people signed up have no experience in the market. Including the digital disruptors. Imagine all of a sudden you had all this cash and there was no blooming tales. And of course, we find out what Dr. James Deneen plans to do with the last painting Alice Neel ever made. We did have somebody from Skinners come by like at it. Part three of the hidden side of the art market. Coming up right now. This is Freakonomics Radio. The podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. With your host, Stephen Dubner. [Music] What's the point of art in the first place? That question is too big to answer, at least for me. Our species has been making art since the beginning. Art has served really well.
religious and political purposes, propaganda purposes, it's been made as social commentary and pure aesthetic expression. And that's just from the makers side. When you look at a piece of art or live with it, it may speak to you, even move you, though perhaps in a way that it doesn't move anyone else. What art likely wasn't meant to be was a product in a market that's become extraordinarily top-heavy, a market where a handful of top artists sell for millions of dollars, even tens or hundreds of millions, with the spoils going to billionaires, the spillover going to museums, and the public largely left out. In a given year, only 25% of US adults visit an art museum or gallery, only 20% own a piece of original art. Meanwhile, the average price of contemporary art has tripled over the past two decades. You could argue that high prices do offer one big advantage. They create an incentive for artworks to be preserved over time, treated like a treasure. That said, anyone who thinks that art should be a central feature of the human experience is bound to be disappointed. Like I said, it's a top-heavy market. If you want an uglier word, a leotist. How to get that way? We somehow lost our love for art. That is the economist Magnus Ress, who studies the art market. We lost it because galleries made it incredibly difficult to buy art. They established this aura of exclusivity. Is that intimidation, if it's fair to call it that, a strategy or just a product of the kind of people that end up running galleries? It initially started off by Leo Castelli, who is the godfather of the gallery world. Leo Castelli opened his first gallery in New York in 1957. He was a dominant dealer for the next several decades, helping launch the careers of artists, including Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Klaus Oldenburg, and Donald Judd. Castelli did this by curating an international network of collectors and taste makers. He believed the caliber of the buyer was at least as important as the price paid. He wanted to have a conversation with potential buyers, so he didn't put up the prices. However, now, galleries have pushed it to the extreme, where they created this aura of exclusivity, which is just so not state of the art anymore. I'm always fascinated when I see young galleries trying to copy the Castelli model that might have worked 50 years ago, but it certainly isn't working anymore. And what makes Ress say this model isn't working? You have 80,000 people who go to art basil in Miami every year, and of those 80,000, maybe 500 people are actually buying an artwork. That's a very poor conversion. The biggest problem in the art world today is that not enough people are buying art. We need to change that. This starts with price transparency. Right now, I go into a gallery, and I have no idea how much the artwork on the wall cost. I need to ask and then go through a beauty contest where the gallery director comes from the back and then looks at me and maybe tells me the price. That is not how our generation is used to buy something. I want to have all the information available immediately. Ress himself created an app meant to crowdsource gallery prices. As we heard in part one of the series, the app is now in limbo. We gathered over 1.5 million price points from galleries. It worked perfectly well, but then Apple shut us down because all the galleries complained. Organizations like ArtNet and Artsy have created databases that include price and ownership history for artwork sold on the secondary market at public auction, but it's still hard to get information from galleries and other sellers on the primary market. The primary market is a complete black box. Here's the good news. If you don't like the hidebound, secretive exclusionary elements of today's art market, change may be coming. The art market is in massive disruption. That's Amy Capelazzo, formerly of Christie's and Suddebe's auction houses. She recently co-founded a firm called Art Intelligence Global. A massive amount of information available today that was not available 20, 30 years ago, even 10 years ago. But it's not just information. Technology has also affected channels of distribution during this whole time in COVID. Auction houses, galleries have been managing to transact and sell things without people actually physically getting in front of them. That's new and astonishing because one would think a work of art needs to be seen in person to fully understand and appreciate it. If that were not the case, I would just cut pictures out of magazines and tape them to my walls. But obviously there's something about the real thing that's more satisfying and more interesting. Satisfying and interesting perhaps, but also, let's be honest, more exclusive. One simple reason an original piece of artwork can be so expensive is that it's unique. That said, to Capelazzo's point, online art sales did set a record in 2020, $12.4 billion, double the previous year. Online sales now make up 25% of the total art market. So if you are an old school gallery operator, even one of the most successful in the world, these numbers will catch your attention. All of a sudden, this whole world has opened up for us. That's David's Werner, one of the most prominent art dealers in the world. He recently launched a separate business called Platform. Platform is the marketplace. And it's a marketplace that came about last year, somewhat spontaneously when everything was shut down. Platform is a hub for independent galleries to sell a curated selection of works at relatively low prices, $2,500 to $50,000. Werner takes a 20% commission on each sale. We realized that we had a pretty robust website that was able to communicate to a large audience. And many of the young colleagues, dealers, didn't have anything of that sort. So we invited international galleries to show artworks on our website that we helped sell for them. Unlike the typical gallery model, anyone can buy the art for sale on platform. There is no beauty contest as Magnus Resh put it. In fact, it's the opposite of a beauty contest. As David's Werner discovered during the 2020 presidential campaign, in normal times, Werner would vet potential buyers ahead of time. And if they somehow made the cut, he'd follow up afterwards to add them to his roster of collectors. But on platform during the pandemic-- We did a fundraiser for Biden Harris. But we were then told that we were actually not allowed to speak to any of the buyers. That's against campaign finance law. The buying has to happen automatically. We scratched our heads and said, what do we do now? We created a buy now e-commerce site just for our artists for Biden initiative. And that was a ridiculous success. I'm not allowed to say how many millions we raised, but it was millions. So your commercial practice was totally changed because of the political involvement. Very interesting, because all of us were like, what do you mean? We need to talk to the buyers. That's what we always done. And then we realized we can't. That taught me the lesson that there is a buying public out that it doesn't want to talk to me. And that there is a much bigger public out there that I had realized. OK, so you mentioned that platform is having other galleries come on to a site that you run. Here's what your art rival, Larry Gagotian, says about platform. I wouldn't be interested in doing something like that. It's a little bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing. My advice to smaller galleries would be to preserve your own identity and brand, even if you can't do it at the level of a large gallery work within your means. And don't hand over your artists and client lists to somebody who might take advantage of it at some point. The somebody is playing David's Werner. So how do you respond to that, fear mongering? I would say it takes one to no one, right? I appreciate that he's looking at what we're doing, because it isn't innovation in our industry. And the point is not at all to steal artists from young galleries. It's an absurd assertion here. The point is to get a marketplace where young galleries that have a harder time reaching large audiences can present their work. There's one more benefit that a market-like platform may offer. So we have a pretty big climate problem out there, right? And one of the drivers of our industries, the art fairs, have pretty, pretty complicated carbon footprints, and also very capital-intense, especially for young galleries. If you're a young gallery in the lower east side, and you have to take your wares to London, it's going to be expensive. And if you want to take a chance on a young artist, let's say you want to do a one-person presentation, if nobody buys anything that happens often, you might be looking at a hole that you might not be able to fix. So platform gives you a much, much more user-friendly way to present your work. [MUSIC PLAYING] So does a platform like platform mean the art market is looking to abandon the elite status it's spent centuries cultivating? You might think that if you squint hard enough. On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves. For quite a while now, major works of art have been what investors like to call an asset class. Here's what the economist, Candice Prendergast, told us in an earlier episode in this series. Maybe 90% of the audience
of the art that Seoul sits in a warehouse rather than actually being seen by somebody. And some unknown share of that 90% is part of a gray and black market that uses high-end artwork for money laundering, tax evasion, and related escapades. In a recent episode we did about corruption in China, the political scientist Yuen-Yuen-Ang told us that art is often preferred to cash when it comes to paying bribes. Because art is valuable, but the value is subjective. And so in the event that a corrupt official is arrested, he could defend himself by saying, "Well, it's just a useless piece of vangle," or something like that. There are other more legitimate efforts to treat art like an asset class. Consider the investing platform called Masterworks. It is privately held and is valued at more than $1 billion. Masterworks is the first platform to take a painting public effectively. That's Masha Golovina, head of acquisitions for Masterworks. We secure ties artworks by filing them with the SEC as public offerings. And we make those available to retail investors, which means that anybody can invest. This may have the whiff of democratization, but you get the sense the shift is more subtle than that. A shift perhaps from the billionaire class to the investor class. We focus on the most expensive segment of the art market. 90% of transactions are estimated to be below a million dollars. We focus on paintings that are 1 to 30 million. We buy from auction and we also buy privately from the auction houses. And then we speak to dealers and also individual collectors and collecting families that we have relationships with. I'm on calls probably four hours a day to source paintings for the company. Golovina herself studied art history and economics worked in banking for a time and then at Christie's Auction House. I would say 99% of the 180,000 people signed up on the platform have no experience in the market prior to signing up with us. Most of our investors come to Masterworks looking for alternative investments, you know, telling their friends about having invested in a boss yacht or a key pairing as much sexier than talking about a real estate investment. So investors buy a share in a particular painting that Masterworks has bought either privately or at a public auction. The idea is that the painting will appreciate over time, which means investors shares will also appreciate and the profits are locked in when Masterworks ultimately sells the painting. But what happens in the interim? I mean, what happens to the actual painting that Masterworks is bought? Once we acquire the paintings are number one priority is the physical well-being, the condition of the painting. So they're stored in a fine art storage facility. However, we do loan paintings as we see fit. We've loaned several of our paintings out to museums in Europe, but the majority of the paintings we have are housed in a fine art storage facility. A fine art storage facility. Other people might call it something different. Maybe 90% of the art that sold sits in a warehouse. If you care even a little bit about the art, you have to ask yourself, is this how the art market should be operating? Putting the most desirable artwork in the world into storage? Is that a desirable outcome? Coming up after the break. Are there any new technologies that might really democratize the art world? Many of the NFTs have one very desirable feature, which is that it can be shown anywhere by anybody. And remember, this is the third part of our three-part series called the Hidden Side of the Art Market. If you haven't listened to the others, they are ready and waiting for you to hear them. They are episode numbers 484 and 485. You can get all past episodes of Freakonomics Radio for free on any podcast app, as well as the other shows in the Freakonomics Radio Network. So get busy. We'll conclude our series on the art market after the short break. The main activity of the show is the closing of the show's main activity. The main activity of the show is the opening of the show's main activity, which is a very important topic. In addition to the story of Akriapistefi. We've been talking about how technology is disrupting the art market in a variety of ways. If you'd like the most pointed example of this, consider what happened at Kristi's Auction House on March 11th, 2021. An artwork sold that day for more than $69 million dollars. It was the third highest price ever fetched at auction for a living artist. The top two living artists are Jeff Coons and David Hockney. Them, you've probably heard of, I am confident you haven't heard of this third artist. You ready? His name is Mike Winkerman. Maybe you do recognize the name under which he makes art? It's people. The $69 million dollar piece people created is called "Every Days," the first 5,000 days. Aside from the price, there were two extraordinary things about the sale. The first is that "Every Days" isn't a physical piece of art. It's not a sculpture or a painting or an array of fluorescent light fixtures. It is a digital artwork, a collage of thousands of images that people have been posting online every day for more than a decade. It's quite beautiful. The other extraordinary thing about the piece is that it is an NFT or non-fungible token. That means it was created via the blockchain, the digital ledger you've heard so much about, and likely still don't quite understand for what it's worth we are working on a future episode about that, what the blockchain can do for you, but that's for another day. The Beeple NFT was bought by a pair of Indian blockchain entrepreneurs using Ethereum, one of the many currencies that are also created on the blockchain, the most famous of these being Bitcoin. The New York Times headline from the Christie's auction reads like one of those headlines you'll look back on 50 years from now in chuckle. JPEG file sells for $69 million as NFT mania gathers pace. So what is an NFT? Well, I mean, an NFT can be anything. It could be a painting, it could be a photograph of a painting, anything that's on your iPhone, camera roll. In fact, I made a comment that everyone in the grandmother is going to be selling NFTs now, and then I ended up making an NFT of my grandmother and sold her. I think I let her go a little bit too cheaply. That's Kenny Shactor. I am an artist, a writer, a professor, and a curator, and I sell art also to make a living. If you had to describe the Kenny Shactor brand, how would you describe it? Pain in the ass, a troublemaker. For me, it's just one thing art, art, art, art. The digital image Kenny Shactor made of his grandmother, Blanche, went for a few thousand dollars. Other NFTs have brought substantially higher prices, video clips of the Braun James playing basketball, the first tweet from Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, but it isn't just cultural curiosities that have been selling. It's contemporary art too. And many of those NFTs are being sold by artists working without gallery representation. In the first half of 2021, digital art, NFTs, as well as film and video art, made up 12% of all art sales. It's not the traditional art world collectors that will fuel in the market. The audience of buyers for this NFT world are tech people that have already been well-attuned and comfortable living in technology. And these people don't know Larry Gagosi in the world's biggest art dealer or David's Werner. And not only do they not know who these people are, they don't aspire to know who these people are. They don't care who these people are. There is a caveat. NFTs are typically bought and sold with Ethereum, a cryptocurrency that has risen steeply in value like many other cryptocurrencies. But there hasn't been much you could actually buy with Ethereum outside of Ethereum generated NFTs. Imagine you had all this cash and there was no Bloomingdale's and then all the sudden
in a department store open and you can buy 7,000 cashmere sweaters with this wealth that had just mushroomed. So that's really what happened. There's this crazy pent up wealth where hundreds and hundreds of millions into the billions of dollars have been created virtually from thin air, but there's been nothing to spend it on. Then all of a sudden, in 2018 comes the NFT market, whether it's for collectibles, for moments of sports and there's a turn of pent up demand that's just exploded. You can imagine how the circular nature of this type of transaction might cave in on self-eventually. But if you look at the art market as a whole, there are a number of other functions that NFTs might serve. Here again is the economist, canis-prendergast. You can download it. You can show it. It's trying to democratize art in a way that happens very rarely. And you like that? I do. Blockchain, on the other hand, I feel like is swatting a fly with a hammer. And our other economist friend, Magnus Resh. Digital art has historically been absolutely irrelevant. Nobody bored digital art. That's why it's so good that right now digital artists really getting the recognition that they deserve. Right now it's cool to be a digital artist and you can actually make some money. Will it be lasting and will we see a new record price for a digital artwork NFT? I highly doubt that. Will digital artworks be the new paintings? I also doubt that. But Resh says, on balance, it's a good development. And museums are paying attention too. Our stance is that we're seriously interested in how the NFT world works. That's Glenn Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York. It wouldn't surprise me if we started doing some pilot projects to see how good a fit the minting of NFTs would be for us. I saw that the UFITC is creating NFTs from some of its masterpieces. They recently sold a Michelangelo NFT for $170,000. I would think that if this were a priority for your museum, MoMA, that your collection is full of potentially billions of dollars worth of NFTs. At the moment, I'm as interested in them from a cultural perspective as I am from the point of view of their marketability. I am interested in the way in which they might help institutions make their collections more widely accessible and at the same time create new communities of users and generate some capital along the way. Although the capital for me isn't the single most important driver in the way in which NFTs can operate. But since you and I are friends now, Glenn, I'm sure that if you decide to do some, let's say, "Matease NFTs," that you'll give me first shot. Absolutely. As long as you agree to match people's $69 million, we're in. There's one more way in which NFTs or other digital tools may revolutionize the art market. In part two of this series, we discussed how artists rarely profit when their work is resold at auction, often at prices much higher than they were originally paid. There have been some attempts to remedy this in the form of artists' royalty laws, but such laws are rare and when they do exist, they're hard to enforce. NFTs could change at least the last part of that equation. Here again is Kenny Shactor. So NFTs are issued in Ethereum because you can state the parameters. It's like a digital certificate of authenticity, which also trades as a currency. What differentiates Ethereum from Bitcoin is that Ethereum has a programmable smart contract that piggybacks on the currency itself. In the past, you would buy like Dan Flavin made sculptures out of fluorescent light fixtures. If that sculpture you would get a certificate of authenticity, the artist would sign the piece of paper and it would say you have this piece called XYZ from 1962 and it's an edition of three and it is the evidence of your ownership. Very often people would have the sculpture on their wall for 20 years, 30 years and they would lose the certificate because it was just a sheet of paper. So now this whole notion has been turned on its head where the certificate of authenticity is what's embedded into the blockchain for perpetuity. This empowers artists to take back control away from the traditional gallery system and it enables the artists themselves to have more of a say in the commercialization of their art. Many other markets have already been disrupted by the blockchain, the internet, the digital revolution generally. Longstanding frictions have begun to be eliminated. Just think about something as simple as how you now order a food delivery or how you buy books if you still buy books or whatever you buy on Amazon. The art market as we've been hearing throughout the series has so much friction, much of it intentional or at least self-inflicted that it is plainly ripe for disruption and there's one last change worth mentioning. We've had a massive geographic disruption. Amy Capelazzo again. This used to be largely an American and European event but truthfully now it's a global marketplace and Asia is just a huge and enormous participant. It sounds like you're talking about the buy side but what about artists as well? Well more Asian artists markets are getting their due. We've had all sorts of historical corrections for women, for artists of color, for all sorts of things that correspond with larger cultural sentiments these days which is my mind been a net positive thing for sure. It goes a little bit both ways. You have a very thirsty audience in Asia wanting masterworks and as a net result there's a little bit more interest in the West and what are the important artists from the 80s in China or the 50s in Japan or the Danza Qua movement in the 70s in Korea. Amy let me ask if you could own any one piece of art and if neither money nor history nor maybe a museum already owning it were a barrier. What would it be? Well I will tell you that my feeling on this topic changes frequently. Like I've laid I'd love to own a great boss guy out like a masterpiece of boss guy would really speak to me my time in New York. The short lived genius of this person that just hit on exactly. Boss guy's existence gives meaning to like BLM and everything we're going through right he has the visual representation of that. That understood in his short lifetime that people loved black culture more than they loved black people. He's just a cipher of so many things and like a god there are moments where I feel moody and contemplative where I think having a Rothko would be among the most soothing things I could do for myself. So does this mean you don't own a Rothko or a boss guy? Oh no I don't know neither of them. I did have chances to buy boss guy drawings and I tried to bid on them but they got away from me and probably they're too expensive for me to ever consider owning now but I do love them. I'm sorry. I love it like unrequited love like it's hard but yeah. Well let me just promise that if I ever somehow walk into someone's house and there is a boss guy or a Rothko and I think I can get out with it under my coat I'm going to grab for you. Okay I just don't want to own something that's stolen but I appreciate that thanks. Meanwhile back up in Boston. Dr. James Deneen has had the fortune of living with a piece of art he truly loves. The portrait of him that Alice Neal painted in that New Jersey backyard. Alice Neal whose work never sold for much when she was alive but now in death is having her moment. What does James Deneen think about Alice Neal's posthumous second act? She would be much more interested in the impact of her paintings on people's behavior. But the commercial side she was really a pioneer just way ahead of a time and she's really embraced people who were poor and not famous. And here's Alice Neal herself from an interview a few months before she died. I could have been a great psychiatrist but it's more fun being an artist. I see what's here. I don't look for anything. I just look. Neal then recalls going to see a show of Paul Saison paintings years earlier at the Metropolitan Museum. And I was surprised at all the psychological acumen that his portraits had. He said, "I love to paint people who have grown old naturally in the country." And I say, "I love to paint people torn to shreds by the rat race in New York." Now that Alice Neal herself has had a retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum and now that some of her paintings have sold for millions of dollars is James Deneen tempted to sell the last painting she made. It doesn't tell me to sell it, it tells me to remind the six children that we have.
that this is perhaps valuable and I would hope they would probably sell it and donate the proceeds to some charity that Alice would embrace. It would be my hope. I don't want them to think of this as a goal mine that they can harvest and then buy a bigger condo or whatever, which is not an unnecessary part of life. He and his family have talked about the painting in his bedroom. The family keeps kidding me about you should be getting it, you know, insured and you should be doing this and that. We did have somebody from Skinner's come by and look at it and confirm it and appraise it and everything else. Skinner is an auction house, but James Deneen wasn't moved. I like it in my bedroom and I don't at all get excited about the commercial value which the experience, the memory is where its value is. You know, life is really the summation of all your experiences and memories and this is one of the great ones. It's been said that an economist is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. As we've explored the art market over these past few episodes, it's been tempting to think that the same holds true there, but as James Deneen proves, there are exceptions. I hope you've enjoyed listening to this special series, The Hidden Side of the Art Market. We certainly enjoyed making it. Thanks to all the artists, economists, galleries, museum folks and others who spoke with us, if you have some feedback to share, our email is
[email protected]. I'd really appreciate it if you spread the word about this series or any episodes of Freakonomics Radio you've liked. That is the single best way to support the podcast you love. Coming up next time on the show, a special episode of one of our spin-off shows, Freakonomics MD. As you may know, we've been expanding the Freakonomics Radio Universe, kind of like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but with fewer superpowers. Our other shows are People I Mostly Admire, hosted by Steve Levit, No Stupid Questions, Hosted by Angela Duckworth and me, and Freakonomics MD, hosted by Bapu Jenna. Next week, Bapu helps us decide in the age of COVID whether to throw our annual Freakonomics Radio Holiday Party. I mean, you could read everybody from outdoors. You could be the bouncer, basically. That's a really good idea, same more about that. So, first of all, you'd have to put on about 60 pounds. You'd stand outside and just, you know, air shake everybody's hand as they walk in and you'll be good. That's next time on the show. Until then, take care of yourself. And if you can, someone else too. Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Renbud Radio. This episode was produced by Morgan Levy. We had research help from Lyric Baudich and Alina Kulman and additional help this week from Jeremy Johnston. Our staff also includes Allison Kreglo, Greg Ripon, Zach Lepinski, Ryan Kelly, Mary D'Duke, Emma Tarell, Jasmine Klinger, Eleanor Osborne and Jacob Clemente. Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by the Hitchhiker's. All the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. As always, thanks for listening. Think you've had more coffee than me today. Can you tell? Can you tell? Jesus, slow down. Exhausting me. The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything. Stitcher. We're not going to be able to see the world's most famous music video. We're not going to be able to see the world's most famous music video.
PodcastTranscript AI