Once again, the "Value of Art".
I thought that tonight I'd write about the value of art. But it occurred to me that this subject had already been extensively examined on this blog. To verify that this was the case, I did a search on my front page for "value of art". This is what I came up with. So, yeah... I've already said a lot about this topic. But being in a reasonably inebriated state, I'm going to forge ahead as if I was covering novel ground. Please forgive me for redundancy, syntax and typing errors, and whatever rambling tone I set in this post.
Once again I spent my Friday evening at a gallery opening. This was actually the grand opening of a new space on Hatfield Street in Lawrenceville (the Zombo Gallery). The inaugural event ("Squaresville") featured a middle-aged local illustrator named "Wayno". This artist has been prolific, and I knew his work from local media and from a comic called Beer Nutz that he created years and years ago. He's actually had work in The New Yorker, Entertainment Weekly, and The New York Times. Here's a guy who has found commercial success in creating images and lives in the suburbs (Mt. Lebanon). And he's selling his paintings in the $200-500 range.
I'm considering these prices in the context of having just made a trip to the galleries in Chelsea. Granted that this section of NYC is pretty much the pinnacle of the international arts acene, but (after all) the shows I saw were mostly of "emerging" artists. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find an original painting there for under $1000. From the perspective of someone that's spent any amount of time in the Pittsburgh arts scene, those prices seem exorbitant. But who's to say that the art market in the 'Burgh is more representative of the "true" value of art? Certainly from what I've heard, the local market is extremely depressed. I recently bought a painting (here, in Pittsburgh) from an artist who is selling his work in Chelsea for four times as much as I paid. What is the intrinsic value of that object?
Just like with real estate, all types of factors affect the cost of art. But unlike property, artwork can't provide you with shelter. You can't eat it. It doesn't help you get to work any faster. It's value is determined (mostly) by what someone is willing to pay for it. Why would some people pay $1000 for a print (with an edition run of 500) of a work created by an "art star"? Does it represent the time it took to make it, or the quality of the materials? Does it depend upon the past and/or the prospect of future work by the artist. Is it based on the quality of the piece- and who even determines that factor? Ask an expert. Consult a ledger of previous sales. Consider where it is being shown, and who represents the sale. Throw it all in a blender and pour that mess into an objective assessment.
It's too easy to get caught up in the mind-frame of the investor. You start out buying artwork because you love the way it looks. You want to have it... to put it in your living space. You want to call it yours. Then you become a collector, and you start considering the relative value of different works. Does it seem like a "good" deal? Maybe you eventually find yourself purchasing a piece that you don't even really like- just because you think its creator is "going places"... and it will surely appreciate in value. But what is it worth if the economy collapses, or after a nuclear war, or when the oceans rise a few feet? It' merely an object with some medium of color applied to some material- often wood or canvas. What's the price of that material per pound?
I find these questions compelling. I even play with the answers in my own work. For Christ's sake, I draw on phone book pages. What? That's last year's directory? Throw the damn thing away! It's not archival anyway. But I make scans of the work on quality photo-paper with archival ink. Surely the intrinsic value of the print is worth more than the original? Hmmm... it's awfully fun to turn a convention on its head. What if I make 1000 copies? Then what happens to the value? Hahaha.
Once again I spent my Friday evening at a gallery opening. This was actually the grand opening of a new space on Hatfield Street in Lawrenceville (the Zombo Gallery). The inaugural event ("Squaresville") featured a middle-aged local illustrator named "Wayno". This artist has been prolific, and I knew his work from local media and from a comic called Beer Nutz that he created years and years ago. He's actually had work in The New Yorker, Entertainment Weekly, and The New York Times. Here's a guy who has found commercial success in creating images and lives in the suburbs (Mt. Lebanon). And he's selling his paintings in the $200-500 range.
I'm considering these prices in the context of having just made a trip to the galleries in Chelsea. Granted that this section of NYC is pretty much the pinnacle of the international arts acene, but (after all) the shows I saw were mostly of "emerging" artists. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find an original painting there for under $1000. From the perspective of someone that's spent any amount of time in the Pittsburgh arts scene, those prices seem exorbitant. But who's to say that the art market in the 'Burgh is more representative of the "true" value of art? Certainly from what I've heard, the local market is extremely depressed. I recently bought a painting (here, in Pittsburgh) from an artist who is selling his work in Chelsea for four times as much as I paid. What is the intrinsic value of that object?
Just like with real estate, all types of factors affect the cost of art. But unlike property, artwork can't provide you with shelter. You can't eat it. It doesn't help you get to work any faster. It's value is determined (mostly) by what someone is willing to pay for it. Why would some people pay $1000 for a print (with an edition run of 500) of a work created by an "art star"? Does it represent the time it took to make it, or the quality of the materials? Does it depend upon the past and/or the prospect of future work by the artist. Is it based on the quality of the piece- and who even determines that factor? Ask an expert. Consult a ledger of previous sales. Consider where it is being shown, and who represents the sale. Throw it all in a blender and pour that mess into an objective assessment.
It's too easy to get caught up in the mind-frame of the investor. You start out buying artwork because you love the way it looks. You want to have it... to put it in your living space. You want to call it yours. Then you become a collector, and you start considering the relative value of different works. Does it seem like a "good" deal? Maybe you eventually find yourself purchasing a piece that you don't even really like- just because you think its creator is "going places"... and it will surely appreciate in value. But what is it worth if the economy collapses, or after a nuclear war, or when the oceans rise a few feet? It' merely an object with some medium of color applied to some material- often wood or canvas. What's the price of that material per pound?
I find these questions compelling. I even play with the answers in my own work. For Christ's sake, I draw on phone book pages. What? That's last year's directory? Throw the damn thing away! It's not archival anyway. But I make scans of the work on quality photo-paper with archival ink. Surely the intrinsic value of the print is worth more than the original? Hmmm... it's awfully fun to turn a convention on its head. What if I make 1000 copies? Then what happens to the value? Hahaha.
Labels: Art, Art Collecting, Art Marketplace, Chelsea, Wayno, Zombo
posted by Merge Divide at 10:39 PM
2 Comments:
The value of art is not equal to its market price, which, blessed by the strong stock market, has gone rocket high recently.
As John Ruskin said, "That great art is the expression of epochs where people are united by a common faith and a common purpose, accept their laws, believe in their leaders, and take a serious view of human destiny". In essense, it elevates the viewers no matter who has the ownership.
Owning a painting is more psychological than beauty-pursuing, although I have no objection against that.
Thanks for weighing in on the subject.
I find Ruskin's definition romantically naive, but appreciate the sentiment. I believe that "beauty" is such a subjective qualifier that it is necessarily "psychological".
Post a Comment
<< Home