Value and Price of Art

several people. This is true, however, to translate a message into visuals that everyone speaks and can relates to, creates a new layer of experiencing. If one is open to observe and to develop individual sequences of thoughts, it means that someone has the same ability of being conscious and critical as his opposite.

Next to the cultural and functional value of art, constantly having played a role in history, the artmarket has developed in a modern era. This new phenomenon of art as a selling product reached a dimension that forms an important part of modern economy nowadays. Already in the medieval ages, an artist sold his artworks, always to state or church. However, art always had a practical and factual value, defined through technique, quality and material of production. Buying art was connected to a rational and non-speculative purpose: Buyers searched for a medium that demonstrated (financial) power, propaganda or (religious) storytelling. Nowadays, buying art is related to aesthetics or investing in speculative forecasted high value. The artists’ popularity counts today, while earlier, the artist had

not to be famous but had to have professional skills. It often was the buyer of a work who enjoyed popularity. When the art-market is part of the stock market nowadays, it was incorporated in the normal bargaining trade in history. Capitalism allows art to serve as much more than communication. While the communicative, aesthetic aspect is accessible for a huge audience, only a small elite is able to experience the art market. The differences in the perception of art between this elite and the general population becomes vivid in the unequal growth of value. A subjective, individual value of art cannot grow gradually as the economic value can. Appropriate to capitalism, art becomes a good such as existential, luxury or healthcare goods. I will refer to a price of art in economic terms, distinguished from the cultural value in society. In the following, I will analyze how the financial price of art corresponds to, adds to or takes away from its’ value. Therefore, I will consider the impact of an art market for the general population, for museums or institutions, for an upper/lower social group and for the artist. The groups “main population and institutions” strongly belong together because the middle class participates in public offers, provided by private or

statutory institutions. The middle class is experiencing art in museums, theatres or other cultural events. For those people, the art market does not explicitly pose a major role. The prospect of the middle class to buy and act in the market is very small. There is no demand for sales in this social group because the price for original artworks for private purpose is too high. Moreover, this class does not strive towards the demonstration of power or exclusivity. However, the middle class is affected by the art market through the institutions who display the art. Especially statutory offers are highly dependent on the art market, putting a burden on public curations. Displaying art on a platform that connects the population to culture, history and new perspectives is the goal of state and government of democracies. A market that has highs, lows and speculations puts a threat on this offer because public institutions cannot afford to participate in trading communities. Even if they sometimes receive funds or loans, the chance of attaining and displaying an artwork grows harder due to auctions that a small elite participates in. Artists who can choose to rent a work to a museum or to sell to a private investor can determine, in which extent their art reaches an audience.

When the market increases further, the danger of empty museums raises. Art, becoming a trading good could undermine its’ cultural value: As soon as the sales and costs avoid the contact between audience and artwork, the most relevant feature, communication, is lost. In most cases, economy and state in a capitalist system work strongly corresponsive. Here we see, that this phenomenon does not account for the art market in which state and economy pursue opposite goals. The state wants to make art perceivable for the population and not focus on making money through trading art. In a functionally working democracy, the relation between art, culture, tolerance and well-being is evident. If a strong middle class remains who uses the given offer, we can increase the cultural value and deteriorate the price. Nevertheless, the offer to experience art also needs to affect a lower class, who so far lacks on witnessing it. In a democracy, education for all is a high goal that the state pursues to increase social and economic life. Observing new perspectives, time periods and cultures is crucial to create a stable and peaceful population. Tolerance, acceptance and the ability to form an own point of view is important.

However, public offers do not appeal to everyone. The lower classes all over the globe strongly lack on this field and need to be involved to improve our democracies. The art market, as little as the cultural offers, play no role for a lower class. For an upper and wealthy elite of our society, art often is important as market. Art as a trade good has a business activity and a price, depending on aesthetics, artist or medium. Many, of course, strive towards the cultural aspect of art. People, interested in stock deals and exclusive properties, often participate in the art market to enhance their power, personal fulfillment or to increase their invested capital. In some cases, this elite is personally connected to the artist. The aesthetic aspect of art sometimes plays a role when buying goods for private purposes. For artists it might be interesting to create/ “produce” for those clients since it is the easiest way to make living as a creative. When an artist is attracted by this prospect, he starts to provoke a perception of art that we already saw in medieval ages. The artist is “manufacturer”, creating for buyers. Characteristics of an artwork can then be strongly influenced by demands of costumers. The phrase “artist” might then have to be translated into “manufacturer”, especially when the final creations are not reaching

an audience, outside of the buyers’ surrounding. This development, again, poses a contradictive situation of value and price. When the artist prefers earning money instead of communicating values, a point of view or a story, the work is no longer art but product. Artists are endangered to lose their qualification as artists when they stop implementing a personal value. Mainly the artist is influencing if the art market, public or private people see and experience art. Most artists are consciously interested in reaching many people instead of selling to a few. Nevertheless, they then often have to accept less income because statutory institutions do not buy and pay for exhibiting. As long as the art market and prices grow, it becomes even harder for artist and institutions.

The price of art is contradicting its’ value. The art market can enrich some parts of society in short term. The artists’, the audiences’ and the states’ goal must be to protect the cultural characteristics of art. This can contribute to enlightenment and education, exchange, equality and diversity in our society.