I came across this article about secret rules about buying valuable art on the Chicago Appraisers Association website.
They provide a list of "secret" rules to help you pick out art that may be more valuable. For example, roosters are better than chickens, brightly colored paintings are better than dark, landscapes should have calm waters, etc. (See the link for the entire article.)
They are appraisers, so I guess they are the experts. However, I feel that "roosters are better than chickens" shouldn't be ruling our decisions about art.
According to Tolstoy, art is an emotional connection between artist and viewer. (Excerpts of "What is Art? by Leo Tolstoy.) The artist conveys a feeling and the viewer feels it. (Basically.)
A simple list could not possibly direct how each person should purchase art for themselves. This list is actually suggesting to do the very opposite of art. It is suggesting that the art collector find and purchase art based upon certain criteria, instead of having an emotional reaction to the art.
Yes, I do understand what the appraisers are trying to convey here. This article is about art as an investment, not art for enjoyment. However, there are so many ways to invest your money. Why buy art that you don't have a connection with just to make money? You have to live with the art.
Let's remember the tips of Peggy Cooper Cafritz. She suggests to buy artwork that grabs you. No where does she mention to make sure that if you buy a landscape make sure it has a horse.
In the end, I think you should go with your heart. Pick art that grabs you or art with which you have an emotional connection.
What do you think? Would you prefer to purchase art within a formula to make sure it's valuable? Or would you prefer to purchase art that you have an emotional attachment?