4 ms·

What's interesting here is how the art isn't valued on its own artistic merits, but by its authorship. The artist's ability to control the value of a work by t

What's interesting here is how the art isn't valued on its own artistic merits, but by its authorship. The artist's ability to control the value of a work by testimony is weird, but only because the underlying work's value is weird.

biztos 10y ago
It's been that way for a long time, though authorship and merits were (and arguably still are) very intermingled. It started with the simple fact that really good artists were those that made really good art, and once somebody had a reputation it would be both to the artist's benefit and the collector's to have that front and center: for the artist, as advertisement to attract buyers, and for the collector to brag about. I think the things that are very different now (i.e. since about the 80's) are: 1. Much, much more money is involved. 2. In many cases there is a huge gap between what insiders would consider the "underlying work's value" and what average people would find inspiring. 3. Media, obviously, and the Internet. (And of course even insiders can differ on #2: there are plenty of cases where the market says Yes but the academics say No. The market works hard to "correct" this in its favor.) Here's a great article on a great artist whose name recognition was a big part of his career in the 1500's, for instance: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieronymus-bosch/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieron...
alanh 10y ago
Welcome to art! The only difference between Fountain and the, ah, similar works on display in the art museum men’s room is an official nod by DuChamp.
Waterluvian 10y ago
It's kind of McLuhanesque. The artist is on display, not the art.
jeffwass 10y ago
Many collectibles are like that. Eg : Jimmy Hendrix's first guitar as a child would auction for quite a lot of money. But the same model and condition guitar instead owned by some random guy in Omaha would be worthless.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  I feel like this analogy isn't quite right. I would compare the guitar to a paintbrush. Both are tools which, in the right hands, can make beautiful things. So the value comes from the pairing of the tool to the wielder, and I would expect an artist's paintbrush to be valuable when tied to a specific artist just like Hendrix's guitar, and both mostly worthless otherwise. But the art itself should have value mostly independently, and I think the analogue to that would be the music. If someone else produced exactly the same music as Hendrix, I think it should be almost as valuable.
  - jeffwass 10y ago
    Would you pay the same amount to see a famous band play a concert vs a very good cover band?
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      If the concert was purely music and the very good cover band played the music just as well, then sure. Concerts are about more than just the music though. They are often about the stage presence, visual affects, and the nostalgia, in addition to the music. That being said, if this cover band had just as good a show as the original band, and somehow the same amount of nostalgia (i.e. they've been covering the original band's songs since the start and have always been just as good in concert), then again I would say yes. I don't think that's likely though. I mean, if you boil down what you are paying for to its essence, and provide an alternative with exactly the same quality in that essence, then you should be willing to pay the same. It's almost by-definition.

biztos 10y ago

It's been that way for a long time, though authorship and merits were (and arguably still are) very intermingled. It started with the simple fact that really good artists were those that made really good art, and once somebody had a reputation it would be both to the artist's benefit and the collector's to have that front and center: for the artist, as advertisement to attract buyers, and for the collector to brag about. I think the things that are very different now (i.e. since about the 80's) are: 1. Much, much more money is involved. 2. In many cases there is a huge gap between what insiders would consider the "underlying work's value" and what average people would find inspiring. 3. Media, obviously, and the Internet. (And of course even insiders can differ on #2: there are plenty of cases where the market says Yes but the academics say No. The market works hard to "correct" this in its favor.) Here's a great article on a great artist whose name recognition was a big part of his career in the 1500's, for instance: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieronymus-bosch/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieron...

alanh 10y ago

Welcome to art! The only difference between Fountain and the, ah, similar works on display in the art museum men’s room is an official nod by DuChamp.

Waterluvian 10y ago

It's kind of McLuhanesque. The artist is on display, not the art.

jeffwass 10y ago

Many collectibles are like that. Eg : Jimmy Hendrix's first guitar as a child would auction for quite a lot of money. But the same model and condition guitar instead owned by some random guy in Omaha would be worthless.

jjnoakes 10y ago
I feel like this analogy isn't quite right. I would compare the guitar to a paintbrush. Both are tools which, in the right hands, can make beautiful things. So the value comes from the pairing of the tool to the wielder, and I would expect an artist's paintbrush to be valuable when tied to a specific artist just like Hendrix's guitar, and both mostly worthless otherwise. But the art itself should have value mostly independently, and I think the analogue to that would be the music. If someone else produced exactly the same music as Hendrix, I think it should be almost as valuable.
- jeffwass 10y ago
  Would you pay the same amount to see a famous band play a concert vs a very good cover band?
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    If the concert was purely music and the very good cover band played the music just as well, then sure. Concerts are about more than just the music though. They are often about the stage presence, visual affects, and the nostalgia, in addition to the music. That being said, if this cover band had just as good a show as the original band, and somehow the same amount of nostalgia (i.e. they've been covering the original band's songs since the start and have always been just as good in concert), then again I would say yes. I don't think that's likely though. I mean, if you boil down what you are paying for to its essence, and provide an alternative with exactly the same quality in that essence, then you should be willing to pay the same. It's almost by-definition.