8. The Value of Art
So, if you've learned your elements of design, you'll know that, in visual art, the term value refers to a scale from light to dark, as such:
That's not what we're discussing today. In this lesson, we'll be talking about worth––different ways to explain what makes an artwork valuable, and to explain the process by which the world assigns a dollar value to art. And, it should be a fairly simple, straightforward lesson, until I get to showing examples. Then you may well feel puzzled - but don't worry, that only means you're understanding the dilemma with art and its value. Let's start with some definitions.
Sentimental Value
Hopefully, all of you own some item that you value greatly, even though it's not expensive. You probably love it because you've owned it quite a long time; it's become a part of your life story. Perhaps someone you love gave it to you? Like a teddy bear? Or a souvenir? Its dollar value may be somewhere between $20-$50? Perhaps it's worth $0? It may be dirty, stained, or worn out? But, you love it anyway, and that's okay. We all feel this way about certain things, no matter how old, and we hold onto them even though some part of us might think, boy, I need to throw this thing away, it's embarrassing. That's sentimental value.
Intrinsic Value
Intrinsic means originating from the object itself, an interior quality. This is a kind of worth that everyone can see, immediately. It requires little if any explanation. Beautiful things have intrinsic value. Skillfully made things have intrinsic value. We appreciate these things even if they are quite useless in our daily lives. Delicate things can also have intrinsic value as well, like a finely cut wine glass, or an origami sculpture.
This is separate from extrinsic, or instrumental value––which is when an item is valuable, not in itself, but for what it can do for you. A radio has extrinsic value because it can play music. The music is what you really want, the radio is merely a means to getting it. Quality, durable craftsmanship has extrinsic value, so the item won't break. A reliable car has extrinsic value so you can get to your destination. Historically significant objects have extrinsic value, as they tell us about our past. If the historical item happens to be beautiful, it can have both intrinsic and extrinsic value; the two are not mutually exclusive.
There are those who would argue intrinsic value doesn't actually exist, that the value we perceive is not in the subject of our gaze, but in our own minds. It's like a tree falling in the woods where no one can hear it. Does it make a sound? But, I disagree. There are reasons we perceive greater intrinsic value in some things, and none in others, and these reasons are logical. I will go over some in a bit (and of course logic can be fallible), but my main argument here is that intrinsic value is not created when we view the object, it is merely discovered. The logic and reasoning of the object's worth exists, regardless of whether it's perceived.
There are ways to test for intrinsic value. One can show the work to those who know nothing about it, and ask which they find more impressive, more inspiring. You can ask which they'd rather own. You can even place an artwork on the curb, on trash night, and see if anyone grabs and saves it from the landfill. There are certain works of art that people from all over the world would instinctively save.
Economic Value
This is the value of an item in the world of finance, expressed in currency, usually dollars. It's the kind of value an accountant worries about. And, it fluctuates. Everything on Earth has an economic value that is constantly changing. And, this is because in economics, value is relative. It is based on supply and demand. This great video shows how the two affect an item's price:
As you can see, economic value is the most confusing, but Adrienne Hill explains simply that only four possibilities can occur:
1. Supply can decrease
2. Supply can increase
3. Demand can decrease
4. Demand can increase
Concerning the art market, over the last century only two things have occurred. Both the supply of art and its demand have skyrocketed, with demand increasing at a much faster rate than supply. This has caused a balloon in art prices that shows no sign of stopping. This is the result of the success of capitalism in our modern age. We live in a time of plenty - the greatest time of wealth in human history. No other point in time comes close. It's worth comparing the costs of great art from different points in time. I've started with this work by Chris Wool because it's relatively new, and has jumped in price very quickly:
%20by%20Christopher%20Wool,%202001,%20silkscreen%20ink%20on%20canvas.jpg)
Compare that to the Sistine Chapel, which Michelangelo painted for 3,000 ducats (the equivalent of $78,000 adjusted for inflation).
For the price of one Chris Wool mishap, Pope Julius II could have had 20 Sistine Chapels! Over a hundred years later, Rembrandt van Rijn was paid 1600 guilders ($766 in today's currency) to paint The Night Watch:
For one Chris Wool mishap, those members of the night watch could've bought 2,033 paintings by Rembrandt (if he could paint that many in a lifetime)!
I hope you find it absurd that one Chris Wool mishap could be worth over 2000 Rembrandt paintings. And, don't worry, it isn't. The Night Watch today isn't for sale, but if it were, it could easily reach a price of over $200 million. Perhaps twice that. So, why did the masters paint so cheap? They actually didn't. For the times they lived in, the prices they took were considered very high and acceptable. Because they lived in times of poverty. In Rembrandt's time, most day laborers earned only 300 guilders a year! 1600 was a fortune! So when you hear of modern art selling for so much today, understand that it's only because there are so many rich people demanding to buy it. If our way of life ever came to an end, say by a nuclear war, or a super plague, the value of all these artworks might not match a single loaf of bread. Value is relative.
In fact, this tremendous, long-term spike in demand has created a dilemma for gallery owners: how to find enough quality art and artists to fill the resulting shortage in art? And this leads us to:
Shock Value
Many artistic institutions have found it in their interest to argue and maintain that shock value, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, is in fact valuable and marketable. When I say shock value, I mean an artwork that is surprising conceptually and-or visually, not necessarily in a good way. The work may, in fact, appear quite ugly - and I mean objectively ugly, not simply in my opinion.
(There are many examples I could show here, but I don't want to upset younger students.)
I can't say whether such shocking works of art are devoid of value, although some works remind me of the tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen. I can only venture some reasons for this historical shift, which began in the 19th century. This has mostly to do with the artistic rebellion from academic art, and the resulting new respect for and expectation of new artistic ideas, movements, and labels. This never-ending quest for "the new" has had artists scrambling for over a hundred years now, with many scrounging from the bottom of the barrel for any new concept whatsoever - it's the dilemma of originality versus quality. Add to that, the rising art market, with more and more collectors looking to cash in on art, having no interest or appreciation for the art itself. When they're willing to buy large quantities of art, and not look at it, packing them away in "free ports" as Sarah Green explained in the last lesson, it's hard for quality, that necessary ingredient for intrinsic value, to keep up. Remember:
Price is no guarantee of quality
You've been in that situation before, right? You go to an expensive restaurant, and your meal wasn't that good? Or you buy the fancier dress and it tears the next day? Or the expensive mug that cracks the second you pour hot coffee into it? What about the film you thought would be great, but you end up walking out after the first twenty minutes? They might've spent $30 million making that film, but that doesn't mean it's any good, if the story's bland, or unrealistic, or one-dimensional. It happens all the time, because people are only human.
So, how does this affect art? I think it hurts the reputation, generally, of art and artists, but I'm just one little voice in a sea of opinions. And I do think there's validity in the range of opinions to this topic. And, I can't say shock value and intrinsic value are mutually exclusive. I think many artworks can have both, just as they can have extrinsic value, whether socially, politically, romantically, and so on. This is all a matter of opinion. What is not opinion is that shock value is far easier than intrinsic value, because a quality artwork takes a great deal of time and patience to produce, whereas shock value does not. There's a reason Da Vinci produced so few paintings in his lifetime compared to artists like Gerhard Richter or Jeff Koons. It's not because Leonardo was lazy.
Having said that, I promised some qualities that make an artwork more or less valuable (economically speaking):
Artistic Fame: This is probably most important in determining price. The same artwork could fetch a wildly different price if made by a famous artist. Many people consider this unfair, without considering all the work and thought that the artist did in order to become famous. Everyone has the opportunity to become a famous artist, but only a few ever succeed. One can argue that certain artists have become famous for silly and unethical reasons, such as Richard Prince, who took other people’s photos, and sold prints of them for extremely high prices. And, it’s true that the art market often helps these artists, as investor-collectors try to find new trends to profit from. But, the main reason why an artist’s name makes the work valuable is because, for better or worse, he or she is famous, and her work has become accepted by the major institutions.
Quality: So, no matter what other factors come into play, a primary question has to do with the quality of an artwork. People don’t just want a work by that famous painter or sculptor, they want her best, most famous work. They want the magnum opus, the one that’s most memorable, with the greatest message and emotional impact, that’s most representative of the artist and her style. That one will always demand the highest price - of that artist's work.
Taste: This is why prices can rise and fall quickly, regardless of the economy. Taste represents changing trends. When an artwork is finished, the quality will never change, but people’s appreciation of it can. Taste is problematic for many reasons. People form their tastes partially by worrying what others will think, and how they will be judged. Many art collectors today see art as a business investment. With many competing art movements to choose from, many collectors argue over the definition and meaning of great art, not as a philosophical issue, but a financial one––they don’t want to lose their money.
Materials: In terms of value, materials play the smallest role. If an artwork is skillfully made, it is worth much more than the cost of the materials - it has to be for the artist to make any profit. However, materials can affect the price as well. In terms of high prices, few artworks are more popular than oil on canvas. An oil painting will almost always demand more money than a watercolor or drawing by the same artist, or any other work on paper. It’s assumed that paintings allow for a greater range of color and texture than works on paper, and require more time to finish, and are therefore greater artworks. It’s not necessarily true, but that’s the trend. Acrylic may look like oil, and might sell for as much, but some collectors fear it as a new material, which may degrade or spoil over time. Oil paint is seen as time-tested, having been used by all the greatest artists in history. A finely crafted sculpture may demand a higher price, but collectors typically prefer paintings because it’s easier to collect and store them. Sculptures take up more space. Printed artworks such as photographs and engravings typically sell for a lot less because they are not one-of-a-kind, even if they were made by the artist in her studio.
Size: Generally, the larger an artwork, the more expensive it is.
Dealer Status: There are some art dealers in the world who are famous for their "great eye" in spotting new talent. If they like your work, they will commission you to make new art for their gallery. If they like your work and showcase it, they can demand very high prices, even if you’re a new artist, and relatively unknown. Dealers like Saatchi have turned many young art students into stars, helping them make millions of dollars.
Originality: Originality is important in art. The 20th century saw an explosion of different artistic movements and styles, like a race to see who could think of the newest, most original idea. This race is still ongoing, but it’s important to also recognize the originality and subtle differences in the work of the past, between masters in the same genre, such as Monet and Renoir, or Frans Hals and Rembrandt. There are characteristics that make their art unique and original, you just have to look a bit closer.
Historical Significance: Historical significance is closely linked to originality, as I described above. There are many expensive artworks that have only one claim to fame––they were the first to come up with the idea. Examples include blank canvases, Duchamp’s “Urinal” sculpture, and Manzoni’s “Artist’s Shit” in a can. When historical significance combines with a really good idea, such as the mystery of Mona Lisa’s smile (one of the first portraits to show any emotion in the sitter’s face) then the work can become priceless.
Provenance: Of all the factors in raising a price, this is the silliest to me, and it’s mostly about bragging rights. Provenance is the history of who owned an artwork after it was made. If an artwork was highly valued and owned by a famous person, say a politician, or a businessman, then the work becomes even more expensive. People who own it can say, “Hey, this was owned by a Kennedy,” or, “This used to hang in Rockefeller’s office.” It may be silly, but it matters to collectors.
Methods of Sale
How an artwork is sold can also affect it’s price.
At Auction: This form of sale typically demands the highest price, but it’s risky, because you never know if people in the audience will like a particular work of art. It can also take a lot of time to prepare and advertise.
In a Gallery: This form of sale is more open for change, based on demand. It’s generally more expensive, because the gallery charges a large commission (usually 50% of the price) for storing and showcasing the art.
Direct From the Artist: This is usually the cheapest and simplest way to get an original artwork, and you can request commissions as well. Artists are usually desperate for money, and will be happy to get artwork out of their studio. Believe me.
On the Black Market: This can be cheap or expensive, depending on the artwork and people involved, but then you have to deal with criminals. It’s a situation where everyone involved is desperate. The thieves want as much money as possible, but they know they have to be very secretive, or they will be caught by police. And, if the artwork is famous, the buyer may be desperate to save the work, or to hide it. So, the price depends very much on negotiating skills and "leverage"
Typical Prices
Works on Paper (Drawings, Prints, Photos, Watercolor): Usually, if a work on paper is of exceptional quality, it can demand between $100-200, even if the artist is unknown, or a student. That’s a base price for an original artwork. If the artist is a professional, known locally, that price could go up to $500-1000, and if the artist is known internationally, they can ask anything for it. People and galleries are often willing to demand ridiculously high prices, and waiting twenty, fifty, even a hundred years before selling it at that price. Having said that, I imagine few works on paper are regularly sold at over $100,000. But, I could be wrong. This isn't my area of expertise.
Painting on Canvas: A high quality work by a student or unknown artist could fetch between $150-500 for a smaller canvas, and maybe around $500-2,000 for a larger one. The materials involved for such a painting usually cost around $150. You can make a business out of this if you make high quality works on a regular basis, and can find people ready to spend so much for your work. This usually requires finding galleries, who are only interested, if you’ve worked long enough to establish your name–– typically requiring around ten years of constant painting. At that point, you could charge around $5000 for a mid-sized painting. Famous paintings by internationally renowned artists regularly sell for over $1 million, and some for over $50 million. But few painters can claim that amount of fame.
Sculpture: The price of a sculpture can vary greatly depending on material, size, and all the factors listed above. Stone can be very expensive and hard to work with, typically demanding a higher price than wood, clay, or plaster. Any metal that requires casting, such as bronze or silver, also demands a higher price. But again, what’s most important is the artist who makes it, and the quality involved. A great artist can make a masterpiece of clay, whereas a student could ruin a bronze sculpture, and the result would be worthless. I imagine a small, quality sculpture by a student could fetch between $200-1000, depending on the material, and where it’s sold. From a famous artist, we’re again talking about millions.
Murals: Murals are very hard to sell because they’re large, and they are painted directly on walls, so they’re very difficult and expensive to move. Artists are usually commissioned to make them, so the price may have more to do with the cost of materials, and the artist’s living expenses. It’s rare to find an artist so famous that she can demand a high price for a mural. Often, it’s the artist who finds the perfect wall, and begs the owners, or town for permission to paint there.
NFT's: These so-called non fungible tokens are markers of ownership for digital artworks: images made on a computer. They use the same block-chain technology as Bit-Coin and other online currencies, to protect them from hackers. NFT's are a kind of brain fart by investors in a quest to get rich quickly. They're for people who didn't buy Bit Coin fast enough to ride the wave to riches, so now they're looking for the next best thing. NFT's attempt to make an online currency out of random jpg junk, some of which may be high quality digital painting. But you don't really own anything, except a proof of ownership. This is why the value of many NFT's recently plummeted. I imagine the value of NFTs will always be volatile. There are so many, from so many different artists it's too hard to keep track of them. At least with Bit Coin, you have the mafia to help keep prices stable. As long as the mafia needs a crypto-currency for illegal, anonymous, and tax-free financial transactions, Bit Coin and its ilk will always be safe. NFT's? Not so much.
End Notes:
John Spencer, "How Much Was Michelangelo Paid for the Sistine Chapel?", History Answers, Dec. 9, 2020, viewed Sept 1, 2022
Zuzanna Stanska and Nicole Ganbold, "15 Things You Didn't Know About the Night Watch by Rembrandt", Daily Art Magazine, July 14, 2022, viewed Sept 1, 2022.
Comments
Post a Comment