What price art?

[mother]

Is there a relationship between the artistic value of a painting and its price?

[JohnB]

Well - I take it you're not really asking a question but posing a debate.

In my opinion, there is a relationship between the two.

It is dependent of course on the historic context of the artwork, the artist and the financial situation in the artworld.

If we use Sunflowers by Van Gogh, then we can apply this theory. Ask yourself:

1. How much did the artist make from it?
2. How much did it cost to place it in a museums collection?
3. How much does it cost to maintain it?
4. How much does society learn from it?
5. How much is it worth today?

The fact that we spend more money trying to maintain artwork in this country than we spend on our budding artists (and here I am talking about school-leavers - not those artists who have a commercial viabilty) proves that there is a relationship between artistic value and its price.

Imagine taking Sunflowers and leaving it on the Tube like a copy of Metro. 'Perish the thought,' some would say. Imagine leaving a Tracey Emin exhibit in a children's playground. 'Where's the problem there?' most would say.

My point here is that there is only one Sunflowers painting and it is not throwaway art (I am not being disrespectful to Tracey Emin here). Its monetary value therefore is high because:

A: it is irreplaceable - Van Gogh can't paint it again
B: it has a social importance - we learn about the artist
C: it has its own history

It is too easy to say that a piece of artwork is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it.

If you want to have a longer discussion about this then reply here on the Answerbank.

[riley]

Producing a work of art involves a creative process. The more creative the artist is the more original he or she is. A work of art is not just judged by an individual's personal opinion, and whether or not he or she likes what he or she sees. It is about how much that work of art has made someone think differently about the world. Van Gogh started a whole new painting genre he made people think differently about art and as such deserves the financial credit his work received, all be it a bit too late for him to appreciate. You may not like what Tracy Emin produces, but it is original, it does make people think and talk and as such has had an impact on the art world. Although I personally do not like Tracy's work, I think it deserves what ever financial worth it achieves in the market. Van Gogh Sunflower's an interesting example to use here.

[boru]

In my opinion, the only relationship between a painting or sculpture and the amount of money an individual or organisation will pay for it is either, the snob value of owning this piece of art, or a true belief that it is truly great. Personnaly I wouldn't pay $50 for "Sunflowers" or any other "great work of art". So I guess that makes me a Phillistine! I would prefer to see that kind of money going to promote young artists of all stripes, so that they could at least make a living at their chosen proffesion. The art world is as big a rip off as the fashion, sports, and entertainment worlds, but we, the masses continue to shell out whatever it takes to support these "worlds". I suppose that means we like it or are fools.

[Charlie2001]

There is never a relationship between the price of a product (in this case art) and any 'intrinsic value' - price is simply a function of demand and supply and reflects the dominant cultural values (or needs) of the time. As the Van Gogh example shows, these values are not constant, or indicative of any intrinsic worth. If enough people (or, as in the case of BritArt, a few influential people) consider a product to be desirable then it gains in monetary value.

[Michael]

In my opinion, I believe that artistic value of a painting and its price is more an ongoing process of social construction of reality and its deconstruction. It is my belief that there are many variables (perhaps too many for human understanding) to be considered. This is perhaps why such a question was asked. Insight comes out through these types of discussion. However, any one opinion or set of facts ipso facto can limit understanding, but also expand on it when looked at as "whole greater than the sum of its parts." I must say though that through a process such as this creates a desire to seek out new ideas on the subject and can, if thought through broadly enough inspire other ideas and facts. To me, we seem to already know that the artistic value of a painting is related to price by the very nature of the question. Why would a question as such even be posed if there wasn't already a relationship? The question then might be posed as, how does this relationship come about, or how is this relationship possible? My view point is one where we need to consider possible sources that have yet to be discussed, but are implicitly implied in the few opinions I have read (i.e. the sociology of art). There are several sources for consideration, but I chose to mention the work "Art Worlds (Becker, 1982)." Howard Becker mentions in his Preface that his analysis is of the social organization, not of aesthetics (xi). In this way he treats art as relative to a lot of variables that relate to price, but not price in and of itself.