Do we judge artist value based on how they price their work?
With the steady growth of the art market, many might argue that art’s value lies in the sale price called out before the gavel strikes the sound block. Although this may be the quickest path to the answer, I can’t help but wonder if there is more than meets the eye when it comes to the term ‘value’.
Determining whether a piece of art is ‘worth’ its monetary value seems to be highly subjective. Mishcon de Reya’s China Art Market Report notes a stark difference in the focus of the art markets in Hong Kong and New York (two of the world’s largest auction centres). While Hong Kong’s sales focussed more on traditional Asian artworks, New York comprised a whopping 64.2% of last year’s Modern and Contemporary auction sales. Both genres of artworks are visually very different, originate from different periods of time, and were created by completely different artists — yet, both fit into the same category of ‘high-value art’, indicating just how wide the scope of this classification is.
Undoubtedly, one of the largest considerations of valuing art is the artist’s popularity. The work of an easily recognisable name like Andy Warhol would fare much better in the market as opposed to an unknown painter from the same time period. However, fame may not always guarantee the highest price. Consider two artists of equal fame, like Marina Abramovic and Yayoi Kusama. Both artists arguably occupy a significant cultural space: Abramovic’s Rhythm Zero and The Artist is Present performances saw thousands of people lining up to participate, while Kusama’s distinctive polka dots are found in nearly every room. Yet, despite both having a significant presence in the art world today, there is an undeniable disparity between their price points: Abramovic’s photographs (which sell for hundreds of thousands of GBP) seem to pale in comparison to Kusama’s Pumpkins, which sold for nearly £6M.
With a comparison like this, how could it be possible to say that the price of an artwork is ultimately what deems it ‘valuable’? The enjoyment of art is not restricted to merely owning a piece— the existence of museums and galleries are a testament to that— yet there seems to be an inherent value in engaging with a piece of art, notwithstanding its cost. An artwork is a product of careful thought by the artist, a visual representation of some kind of human experience. Dulling down its value to mere numbers is, in my opinion, a disservice to the artist who has encased a part of their soul into their work.
With all this said, my bottom line is this: while the monetary value of artworks are, on a surface level, indicated by the prices they are given, they carry more weight than just how much it costs to own them. The value of art is fundamentally rooted in its ability to connect the artist and their viewer; whether through the more rudimentary aspect of appreciating the artwork’s visual appeal, there is arguably so much more to art’s value than just the price attached to its frame.
Illustration by Sally Mulvihill for The Student