A Painting Pays Out Every Day You Walk Past It

In short: For most people buying at retail, no — original art is not a better investment than stocks, and the honest reason is arithmetic rather than taste. Selling a work means auction or dealer commissions, transfer costs and any tax due, and advisors report that a great deal of work purchased at retail has a thin resale market. What a painting reliably returns is different in kind: decades of daily looking, which is the only return it actually guarantees.

This post is written by a painter, not a financial advisor. Nothing here is investment advice, and this studio does not sell paintings as investments. What follows is what the published research and the named specialists actually say, so a buyer can decide for themselves.

Written by Angela Simeone, a contemporary abstract painter based in Nashville, Tennessee.

The claim turns up in the same shape every time. Somebody online explains that art has outperformed the S&P over some window, a headline about a Rothko is attached, and the implication is that the painting on your wall is quietly doing the work of a portfolio.

It deserves a straight answer, because the people asking are usually not speculators. They are people about to spend real money on something they already like, looking for permission.

What the fees actually do to the math

Start with the exit, because that is where the claim breaks first.

Mike Molewski, a CAPTRUST financial advisor, described the mechanics plainly in the firm's own VESTED magazine in November 2025: to sell a piece, "you have to find the right resources, pay commissions, and pay transfer costs, plus any taxes due." His own portfolio guidance is equally plain — he suggests "collectibles such as art be no more than 10 percent of a person's portfolio because of its illiquidity."

Illiquid is the operative word. A share sells in a second at a published price. A painting sells when somebody wants that painting, at whatever a specific buyer will pay on a specific day, minus the commissions of whoever brokered it.

Is there a resale market at all for most work?

This is the part that rarely makes the headline.

Laura Smith Sweeney, founder and principal of LSS Art Advisory in New York and San Francisco, spends part of her job on exactly this conversation. In the same VESTED feature: "Clients sometimes come to us with artwork they purchased before working with us. They may have paid $25,000 to $100,000 for it, and there is a limited resale market for the work."

That is a specialist with a dual background in art history and wealth management, describing five- and six-figure purchases with thin secondary markets. She still calls art "a passion asset" alongside cars and wine — "these assets fall into the alternative portion of a portfolio" — which is a real category, but it is not the category people mean when they say art beats stocks.

Her colleague Meghan O'Callaghan, a San Francisco art advisor, points to where liquidity does exist for newer buyers: "Limited-edition prints often appeal to new buyers. These prints are not posters. The artist often collaborates with a master printmaker to create an original piece." Useful, honest, and notably not a claim about paintings.

What the market data says about how people are actually buying

The market itself has moved away from the speculative framing.

Drew Watson, Head of Art Services at Bank of America, summarised the bank's 2026 U.S. Art Market Report — produced with ArtTactic, which put 2025 U.S. auction sales up 23% year-over-year to $3.17 billion — this way: "What we saw in 2025 was not a return to speculation, but a return to discipline."

And Paul Donovan, Chief Economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, writing around the Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report 2026 — a survey of more than 2,800 collectors across 11 markets — went further than most economists will: "Art is not a commodity. It's shaped by passion and emotion, and that's why the art market behaves differently from almost any other market."

When the chief economist of a global wealth manager tells you the asset is not an asset, the argument is more or less settled.

So what does a painting actually return?

Something real, just not denominated in currency.

A painting bought at thirty-five and hung where you pass it every day is looked at, conservatively, several thousand times. It changes in different light. It gets noticed again after a renovation, or after a hard year, or by a child who grows up thinking that surface is normal. None of that shows up in a spreadsheet and all of it is the actual product.

The painter Cecily Brown, asked what she was after, gave the plainest version of the goal I know: "I had the desire to make people stay and look." That is the return. It is delivered daily, it compounds by attention rather than by interest, and it does not require a buyer to be realised.

Seneca made the point about the underlying error two thousand years ago, in his letters to Lucilius: "It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor." A painting bought to be sold is being asked to do the one thing it is worst at.

John Maynard Keynes — an economist who understood asset markets as well as anyone in the twentieth century, and who also collected art and chaired the body that became the Arts Council — described public support for art as an effort "to create an environment, to breed a spirit, to cultivate an opinion." He did not describe it as a position.

Jean Dubuffet said it from the maker's side: "Art does not lie down on the bed that is made for it; it runs away as soon as one says its name." Financialisation is a very well-made bed.

And Hokusai, in the postscript to One Hundred Views of Mount Fuji, opened with the sentence that explains where the value actually accumulates: "From the age of six I had a mania for drawing the forms of things." Decades. Not quarters.

How this studio prices, and why

Pricing here is set plainly by size and medium across the whole practice rather than negotiated piece by piece, which removes a common source of confusion for a buyer comparing two available originals. Work is bought directly from the studio, so there is no gallery layer between the price and the painter, and the provenance chain starts clean on day one rather than being reconstructed later. Pieces ship rolled to your local framer — stretched perfectly, delivered ready to hang.

None of that is a return. It is a fair transaction for an object made by hand over weeks, priced to be lived with rather than flipped. If a painting also appreciates, that is a pleasant surprise and not the reason to buy it.

The honest sales pitch is the boring one: buy it because you want to look at it for twenty years.

Frequently asked questions

Does original art appreciate in value?

Some does, most does not, and the distribution is extremely uneven — a small number of resales generate the headlines while the majority of work never returns to market at all. Advisors quoted above describe limited resale markets even for five-figure purchases.

What are the real costs of selling a painting?

Commissions to whoever brokers the sale, transfer and handling costs, and any tax due on a gain. Auction-side seller's fees commonly run in the mid-to-high teens as a percentage before other costs are counted.

Is buying art directly from the artist better than buying at auction?

For a buyer who intends to keep the work, buying direct removes a layer of cost and starts the ownership record cleanly. It is not a route to a better resale outcome, and should not be presented as one.

What should a first-time buyer actually optimise for?

Whether they want to look at it. Every other criterion — size, palette, medium, price band — is downstream of that, and the ones that behave like investment criteria tend to produce the purchases advisors later describe as hard to resell.

See the original paintings available now
angelasimeone.com