The Chinese art market is likely in a bubble, and it’s being partially fueled by established artists producing work that mimes what originally made them famous, according to art advisors interviewed by Reuters. Interestingly, what should be the obvious Western art market comparison — the crazy Damien Hirst global “spot” extravaganza — is never mentioned.
Beyond overlooking Hirstapolooza (and the traditional Chinese porcelain box used to illustrate an article about contemporary art), the best part is when terms “collectors” and “investors” are conflated in the story. The two definitely shouldn’t be synonymous (emphasis ARTINFO):
Schneider, previously with Sotheby’s, said the Chinese contemporary art market has been overheated for the past five or six years and collectors might want to look at works by artists from countries such as the Philippines and Thailand instead.
Others agreed that investors might well want to look elsewhere for the best value.
Collectors should probably look for whatever works strike their fancy. “Investors,” on the other hand, should possibly consider getting out of the game entirely.
— Shane Ferro
Tags: Chinese art market, Damien Hirst
Tags: 
To advise someone to get out of or into any country art market is a lazy man’s advice. That would be like saying get out of the stock market (although, in the case of the Chinese stock market, that would be good advice, but, then, again, the Chinese stock market is really not a stock market, in the traditional sense of the word, and it is quite underdeveloped). In any event, in any market, there are always values to find, if one takes the time and has the ability to search. Take the advice that we give for stock markets: it’s not a stock market but a market of stocks.
It’s a bit naive to assume that investors and collectors would be two separate groups in a market like China, where many collectors are getting into the market both out of interest and because they don’t have many ways to invest their cash. They’re basically stuck with either a poor-performing stock market, real estate or basically gold. As such, people with the role of both collector and investor are fueling that market, both at mainland China and Hong Kong auction houses. They’re also playing a key role in supporting artists there, now that Western collectors of Chinese art are no longer the most dominant buyer base.
The market is, at its essence, different from that of North America or Europe, and now that Chinese artists don’t depend on the West anymore, a direct comparison doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Kudos for Hirst call-out, but it’s one thing to think mass-produced dot paintings are overpriced, and another to think top Chinese artists, who sell for the low millions versus living Western artists who sell for tens of millions, are. Plus, Chinese buyers have shown in recent auctions that they pass up poor-quality or redundant pieces by top Chinese contemporary artists in favor of harder-to-find works. So assuming they just lap up crappy artwork because of the “name brand” is a hard argument to make.
Just think how many cities in the West have over a million population, within that, every of those cities need two museums, and every museum will need at least two Jasper Jones, Robert Rauschenberg,or Frank Stella…. then how many of works each these artists will need..
Then compare to the cities and populations in China…
YOU do the math…
this is just the beginning of collecting/investing Chinese contemporary art…
the market is always up and down, it happens to every filed.
if you believe China is going to be a country of power, then you figure out..
American did not have great art to start with, but they bought everything… then make all the European to come here to see their own art.