Money seems to be a good standard to use when comparing hotels, property, vehicles, careers, etc., but it seems to be an inadequate standard to use for valuating art.
Does a high price tag for an art work automatically imply that the value of that work is intrinsically higher?
Since art and relating to art is so subjective it seems frivolous and absurd to equate it with money.
Let’s compare this to a car. Cars can be objectively judged according to its construction, its speed, mileage, safety, style and brand. A suitable price can be accorded to it. A Jaguar will always cost more than a Mazda, for example. It can generally be agreed that these prices in relation to each other are logical and reasonable.
But in art, however, the logic of the market is really not suitable, nor does it match Art. Then by what standards do we set the value for art? Personally, I think it should be by spit. The more you salivate over an artwork, the higher the value.
One gallerist was upset to find that a Jeff Koons work cost more than an El Greco and he sought to change the art market. Read about Larry Salander's story here: http://nymag.com/news/features/45324/
What do you think?