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.
V
Does a high price tag for an art work automatically imply that the value of that work is intrinsically higher?
V
Since art and relating to art is so subjective it seems frivolous and absurd to equate it with money.
v
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.
V
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.
V
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment