is there objective criteria that justifies why valuable art is valuable or is such art just valuable because the art world decides it is?
In: 8
Objective means a fact that is independent of what people think. The value of art is absolutely based on what people think of it, so it can’t really be objective.
But there’s another word people don’t use as much “intersubjective”. When we say something is subjective, a lot of people think of it as arbitrary. But with intersubjectivity, we understand evaluations shared between minds.
So while art doesn’t have a singular objective value, there are intersubjective evaluations that are going to be shared widely within communities of people who buy art and who enjoy art.
Here are a few of the top intersubjective values that tend to factor into art values
1) A piece of art is (generally) a physical object. We can start with a formal analysis. When I say formal, I don’t mean you wear a tuxedo. In art evaluation “formal” means we’re talking about the form of the thing., The physical qualities. Is it big or small? Oil paint, cast bronze, silk tapestry? Is it damaged or whole?
All other things being equal, a whole large work made of expensive materials will be valued more than a small fragment of cheap material piece unless some other difference trumps the formal factors.
2) A piece of art is a piece of history. A baseball signed by Babe Ruth or a desk used by George Washington are valued more than a modern desk or new baseball that otherwise look the same. In the same way, a painting by someone who became famous and innovated the art form or a sculpture that was the first of it’s kind and set a new standard will be valued more than if an unknown artist made an identical object. People like to rag on art for attaching value to who made something, but art is not unique in this. Watch antiques roadshow.
3) Rarity. This is simple. All markets respond to supply levels. If an artist made a print edition of 5000 copies it would likely be worth less than the same print if only 5 were made (As always, all things being equal). And again this isn’t unique to art. The fewer of most things of value, the more the price goes up.
3)
Objective means a fact that is independent of what people think. The value of art is absolutely based on what people think of it, so it can’t really be objective.
But there’s another word people don’t use as much “intersubjective”. When we say something is subjective, a lot of people think of it as arbitrary. But with intersubjectivity, we understand evaluations shared between minds.
So while art doesn’t have a singular objective value, there are intersubjective evaluations that are going to be shared widely within communities of people who buy art and who enjoy art.
Here are a few of the top intersubjective values that tend to factor into art values
1) A piece of art is (generally) a physical object. We can start with a formal analysis. When I say formal, I don’t mean you wear a tuxedo. In art evaluation “formal” means we’re talking about the form of the thing., The physical qualities. Is it big or small? Oil paint, cast bronze, silk tapestry? Is it damaged or whole?
All other things being equal, a whole large work made of expensive materials will be valued more than a small fragment of cheap material piece unless some other difference trumps the formal factors.
2) A piece of art is a piece of history. A baseball signed by Babe Ruth or a desk used by George Washington are valued more than a modern desk or new baseball that otherwise look the same. In the same way, a painting by someone who became famous and innovated the art form or a sculpture that was the first of it’s kind and set a new standard will be valued more than if an unknown artist made an identical object. People like to rag on art for attaching value to who made something, but art is not unique in this. Watch antiques roadshow.
3) Rarity. This is simple. All markets respond to supply levels. If an artist made a print edition of 5000 copies it would likely be worth less than the same print if only 5 were made (As always, all things being equal). And again this isn’t unique to art. The fewer of most things of value, the more the price goes up.
3)
It’s mostly auctions and market to decide the value.
But there’s some justice based on: if you can say yes to the following questions, and how big of a yes is, then the value is little.
Can anyone do it?
Can someone do it better?
Had anyone the same idea before?
Isn’t it standing out of the mass?
Is it cheaply made?
Does it comes in many copies (prints, stencils etc)?
Last note, art must be seen first person most of the time. Out of my mind, Dalí and Fontana works got a different value in my mind once I saw them first person. Usually, a picture of art doesn’t capture how incredibly well made it is. And that makes sense. If a 2d picture is enough to give the same sensations, then the art piece has very little to say.
It’s mostly auctions and market to decide the value.
But there’s some justice based on: if you can say yes to the following questions, and how big of a yes is, then the value is little.
Can anyone do it?
Can someone do it better?
Had anyone the same idea before?
Isn’t it standing out of the mass?
Is it cheaply made?
Does it comes in many copies (prints, stencils etc)?
Last note, art must be seen first person most of the time. Out of my mind, Dalí and Fontana works got a different value in my mind once I saw them first person. Usually, a picture of art doesn’t capture how incredibly well made it is. And that makes sense. If a 2d picture is enough to give the same sensations, then the art piece has very little to say.
It’s mostly auctions and market to decide the value.
But there’s some justice based on: if you can say yes to the following questions, and how big of a yes is, then the value is little.
Can anyone do it?
Can someone do it better?
Had anyone the same idea before?
Isn’t it standing out of the mass?
Is it cheaply made?
Does it comes in many copies (prints, stencils etc)?
Last note, art must be seen first person most of the time. Out of my mind, Dalí and Fontana works got a different value in my mind once I saw them first person. Usually, a picture of art doesn’t capture how incredibly well made it is. And that makes sense. If a 2d picture is enough to give the same sensations, then the art piece has very little to say.
Why would it be objective?
The price of *anything* is based on what people are willing to pay for it, which is always inherently subjective. Nothing that we buy is priced solely on how much it costs to produce. Not your food, not your clothes, not your technology, not your art. It’s all priced subjectively based on perceived value.
For pretty much anything that exists, people will try to charge as much for it as they think they can get away with. If you know that people would be willing to spend millions on a work of art, why sell it for less?
It sells for millions because people like the idea of owning a Picasso or a Van Gogh or whatever else. That’s why even if you could make a copy that was completely indistinguishable from the original to even the most trained eye, it would still be worth less if people knew it was a fake. Rich people like the idea of being able to say that something made by a famous artist hangs in their home and they will pay a lot to get that.
Why would it be objective?
The price of *anything* is based on what people are willing to pay for it, which is always inherently subjective. Nothing that we buy is priced solely on how much it costs to produce. Not your food, not your clothes, not your technology, not your art. It’s all priced subjectively based on perceived value.
For pretty much anything that exists, people will try to charge as much for it as they think they can get away with. If you know that people would be willing to spend millions on a work of art, why sell it for less?
It sells for millions because people like the idea of owning a Picasso or a Van Gogh or whatever else. That’s why even if you could make a copy that was completely indistinguishable from the original to even the most trained eye, it would still be worth less if people knew it was a fake. Rich people like the idea of being able to say that something made by a famous artist hangs in their home and they will pay a lot to get that.
Why would it be objective?
The price of *anything* is based on what people are willing to pay for it, which is always inherently subjective. Nothing that we buy is priced solely on how much it costs to produce. Not your food, not your clothes, not your technology, not your art. It’s all priced subjectively based on perceived value.
For pretty much anything that exists, people will try to charge as much for it as they think they can get away with. If you know that people would be willing to spend millions on a work of art, why sell it for less?
It sells for millions because people like the idea of owning a Picasso or a Van Gogh or whatever else. That’s why even if you could make a copy that was completely indistinguishable from the original to even the most trained eye, it would still be worth less if people knew it was a fake. Rich people like the idea of being able to say that something made by a famous artist hangs in their home and they will pay a lot to get that.
Latest Answers