Giovanni Antonio Canal, called Canaletto

[Martin Drozda]

One of the paintings by Canaletto sold through Sothebys for 18,600,000 GBP (July 7, 2005, sale L05031). The painting has a well documented provenance, the first owner was Sir Robert Walpole, the first UK prime minister. It was sold in 1751 for £35-15-6, and then in 1940 for £4,400. I couldnt find out how much would be £35-15-6 in todays money, but £35-15-6 in 1830 converted to 2004 (based on average income) is about 25,500 GPB. Do not know what happened in Britain beween 1751 and 1830 but the amount could be much more in todays money. £4,400 in 1940 is 525,000 in 2004. The conversion is rough, but the surprising fact is that Canaletto was probably able to live a very confortable life. He died in 1768, his paintigs had during his lifetime a very decent market value. I think there are not too many artists currently living that could charge such money for their art. I am surprised that the current inflated prices for top art are not much higher than during Canaletto's lifetime. I think for 25,500 GPB you would be able to get a decent photo/painting. It is also quite possible that some other artists in Canaletto's times were selling painting for quite astronomic prices; e.g. some guys doing portraiture for the king. Am I correct to assume that prices for top art then and now stayed roughly the same when compared to the average income? Martin www.martindrozda.com (http://www.martindrozda.com)

Sothebys link (http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=4GFDR)

Relative value of UK pound (http://eh.net/hmit/ukcompare/)

[Martin Drozda]

This would require a deeper analysis. It is impossible to draw a conclusion from one case. Both van Gogh and Vermeer died relatively young. I think that Rembrandt lost his money due to mismanagement and lack of anticipation rather than anything else. I do not know what was considered "top art" during Canaletto's times. The art of van Gogh was not considered top art during his lifetime. Monet and other impressionists that lived long enough made decent money.



The interesting fact is that Canaletto was painting what was then called "view paintings", that is realistic paintings of existing places. Those days it was considered an inferior type of art, on the other hand from today's perspective his paintings were a substitute for photography. His paintings had a market value of nearly $50k in today's money. I do not think that it is comparable to Hollywood type of business. This type of business is "make one product and sell it to milions", painting is a one-to-one business (if you exclude museums that charge for entrance). If one substitues "sell it to milions" with "sell it to all that have money" then it can really be the case that he was some commercial type of artist. One could then adjust for the percentage and size of the population that had money those days. Those who had money were people that would go for a visit to Venice and would buy there a souvenir, in this case a painting by Canaletto. One could almost say, that his success was driven by the lack of high quality souvenirs. This is exactly the reason why I would like to have a photo by Gursky at home. His photos simply show the world in which I live better than photos by any other artist. It is also important that they show it in a way that is easy to understand to many people. And that is what Canaletto did as well. Aesthetically superior and philosophically clear type of art that anyone wishes to have at home.

Somehow I find Canaletto more relevant to photography than many of the usual technical threads.

[Bill_1856]

Paul Caponigro is said to have complained, "If I were as well known as a painter as I am as a photographer, I would be VERY rich." (Life is Unfair -- Malcolm in the Middle).