Should artists be held to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies when selling their artwork?

No

Yes, but only if the sales price is high enough to justify it as an investment

No, the nature of art sales and the typical scale of artists' operations are fundamentally different from those of hedge funds, mutual funds, and public companies, making such stringent requirements disproportionately burdensome and potentially harmful to the artistic community.

Yes, but only for high-value transactions — especially those used for investment or speculation purposes. Everyday working artists and small galleries should be exempt. Regulation should target the use of art markets for money laundering or tax avoidance, not creative expression.

Yes, if it could negatively affect the sovereign state's citizens. Otherwise, no.

Yes, but not in cases of small-scale, low-cost artwork.

Simplified Reporting for Larger Transactions: Instead of imposing the same requirements as hedge funds or public companies, artists could be asked to disclose certain basic information (e.g., authenticity, provenance, and price) only for high-value transactions or when artworks are sold through public or auction channels.
• Voluntary Disclosure for Emerging Artists: Artists could voluntarily disclose information on a case-by-case basis, with platforms or galleries offering transparency on the process of sale, which would benefit both buyers and creators without overwhelming them with regulation.
• Exemption for Independent or Low-Value Sales: For smaller or less commercially significant sales, disclosure requirements could be minimal, focusing on basic ethical considerations (e.g., authenticity and legal ownership).

It depends on how much the art is being sold for, small independent artists should be spared this regulation but not multimillionaires.

Yes, but only where the sale price of the art is over £10,000

Make it responsible by a central system who handles it on the artists behalf

How would you feel if your favorite artist's work became significantly harder to buy due to new financial regulations?

Do you think treating artwork like stocks or bonds could impact how people appreciate art?

Can the introduction of financial regulations into the art world be a form of protection for buyers, or does it pose a threat to artistic freedom?

Would the requirement for artists to disclose financial information change your perception of the art world's exclusivity and mystique?

Imagine creating a piece of art and being told it's now considered a security; what would be your initial reaction?

How important do you believe transparency is in art transactions compared to maintaining an artist's right to privacy?

If buying art became as regulated as buying stocks, would that change your interest or ability to participate in the art market?

In what ways do you think requiring artists to follow these financial regulations could influence the types of art being produced?

Do you agree with the perspective that implementing such regulations could protect the art community from fraud, or do you see it as an unnecessary complication?

How do you feel about the balance between ensuring ethical practices in the art market and preserving the unique culture of art creation and collection?

No, as this could not only stifle creativity, but lead to increased control over creative expression

No. Not all sales are speculative; many buyers purchase for aesthetic or personal reasons, not investment.