6 ms·

I am no expert, but I think the value of art is based on what someone is willing to pay for it. Art collectors and galleries will estimate this value based on a

I am no expert, but I think the value of art is based on what someone is willing to pay for it. Art collectors and galleries will estimate this value based on a variety of factors like: How wealthy are the potential buyers? In what context is the artwork being released? Have there been other works by artists which went for a similar price? Etc. etc. Also, art can be looked at as a science experiment where the artist performs an experiment and shares their results with the world. Expressionism is one such "field of research" with Jackson Pollock being a prominent researcher. His body of work is like a groundbreaking experiment and each painting is an artifact of that experiment. In other words buying a Jackson Pollock is sort of like buying one of Einsteins papers.

beat 7y ago
The economic value of art is based on what someone is willing to pay for it. That's very different from value in general. Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is probably the most valuable painting in the world, a canonical work recognized instantly by probably half the world's population. Van Gogh died penniless. He gave away his paintings for food and wine. Does that mean "Starry Night" was worthless when Van Gogh painted it, just because no one would pay him for it? Or is the intrinsic value of the painting distinct from its economic value?
- watwut 7y ago
  And yet, his suicide and mental problems helped to his popularity after death. Had he drew same pictures without such fascinating story, he would be known less. Intrinsic value is about what you value. Which may be million different things and changes over time.
- mcavoybn 7y ago
  >value in general When you are in a philosophical vacuum, generalizing value is useful. However, markets concertize value. The question of "why has this been so valuable" is firmly answered by "this is how much someone payed for it". "What is value?" is an excellent philosophical question. "Why is (some item) so valuable?" is easily answered by a simple analysis of history and statistics.
  - beat 7y ago
    If we think about it that way, what's the difference between value and price? Not much. I think it's very important to consider value independently of money, and Van Gogh's paintings are an excellent example of that.

beat 7y ago

The economic value of art is based on what someone is willing to pay for it. That's very different from value in general. Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is probably the most valuable painting in the world, a canonical work recognized instantly by probably half the world's population. Van Gogh died penniless. He gave away his paintings for food and wine. Does that mean "Starry Night" was worthless when Van Gogh painted it, just because no one would pay him for it? Or is the intrinsic value of the painting distinct from its economic value?

watwut 7y ago
And yet, his suicide and mental problems helped to his popularity after death. Had he drew same pictures without such fascinating story, he would be known less. Intrinsic value is about what you value. Which may be million different things and changes over time.
mcavoybn 7y ago
>value in general When you are in a philosophical vacuum, generalizing value is useful. However, markets concertize value. The question of "why has this been so valuable" is firmly answered by "this is how much someone payed for it". "What is value?" is an excellent philosophical question. "Why is (some item) so valuable?" is easily answered by a simple analysis of history and statistics.
- beat 7y ago
  If we think about it that way, what's the difference between value and price? Not much. I think it's very important to consider value independently of money, and Van Gogh's paintings are an excellent example of that.