Q: I see periodic news stories about youngs artists, usually in their early teens, who are being hailed as a child prodigy artists. Sometimes famous people own their work or they get covered on TV. I inquired about prices for one of these child prodigies, and was told that original paintings are very expensive. Do you think art by talented children is a good investment? Do you think that they'll become really famous?

A: You say you like the art, but at the same time, you sound more interested in buying a commodity than a painting. You also seem to be more taken with the publicity and glamour surrounding the artist than you are with the art. Step back for a moment before doing any buying and ask yourself the following questions:

Would you consider buying a piece of art that looks exactly the same if it was by a competent artist who receives little or no publicity? If you hesitate or answer no, you might be guilty of buying by name and reputation and saving what you think about the art for last. The most satisfied collectors love their art no matter who it's by, who collects it, or how famous the artists are.

Are you buying something to hang on your wall and admire or something that you hope will increase in value? If you answer the latter, you should probably place your money elsewhere. People confuse art with stocks, bonds and other investments when, in fact, it's totally different. With securities, you pay an average commission of a percentage point or two to make a transaction. With art, as much as 70 to 80 percent of the selling price can go towards commissions and overhead. For example, if you pay $10,000 for a painting and only $2,000 goes to the artist, that $2,000 would be its approximate resale value on the open market. Purchased as an "investment," you'd have to wait years just to break even.

Consider the sources of publicity about these so-called child prodigy artists. Children who make notable art sometimes garner a lot of attention, but you have to determine whether that attention is scholarly art world attention or popular media attention. If the stories you see are on the 6 O'clock News or in mass market magazines like "People," and the famous people who own the art are known for accomplishments that do not include art collecting, this might be more a case of media hype than a serious art world phenomenon. The scholars, critics, historians, and experts are the ones who ultimately call the shots, not reporters who next week will be doing stories on Brittany Spears.

What do museum curators think of the art? Have these artists been reviewed in major national or international art magazines, had exhibitions at significant national or international museums, or had their art purchased by nationally or internationally respected art collections. If the art world is as excited as the reporters on the 6 O'clock News are, something significant may be happening. If not, this whole hubbub could be little more than a flash in the public relations pan.

And then there's the issue of age. It is extremely rare for an artist to be hailed or collected as a child prodigy, to sell early on at prices equivalent to those of famous artists at the peaks of their careers, to continue selling at those levels, and to go down in history as an important artist. In fact, I'm not sure this has ever even happened. Exceptional children may well be very talented and do beautiful work, but whether their current price structures are justified, whether they have locks on future fame and fortune, or whether they'll even be interested in continuing as artists after they graduate from college are huge unanswered questions.