4 ms·

The section on art collecting highlights the limitations of an economics-based approach to defining "talent." Cowen is an economist and this colors his entire a

The section on art collecting highlights the limitations of an economics-based approach to defining "talent." Cowen is an economist and this colors his entire approach. “You learn about other cultures, you learn different points of view by refining your eye and you develop a skill that is extremely useful for judging other things and cracking cultural codes in other settings. It’s an education in market economics - art markets. Like how do you buy the best pictures in an area Haitian art, or how do you assemble a very good voodoo flag collection? How do you get artists in Mexico to do their best work for you? That’s a business problem that you need to solve. You want experience at solving a broad diversity of problems, to heighten your aesthetic sense, to learn some real history, and to understand how some of the art world works, surround yourself with beauty. And you should buy it for the love of the art, and try to find that which other people have not really found or appreciated yet. It’s just like the world of ideas right? It is the world of ideas. It just costs more to play in it in terms of upfront dollar commitments.” [Tyler Cowen: Production Function. David Perrell, North Star Podcast.] Relying on markets and the opinions of others may be effective in determining current economic value, but it is not a fruitful approach for finding "talent", broadly defined. Contemporary art is an excellent place to observe this phenomenon; there is very little connection between "aesthetic value" and "market value." The art market is a fascinating thing, but make no mistake, the most popular artists are not the most "talented", by whatever definition of talent you may have. "Slow is the experience of all deep fountains: long have they to wait until they know what hath fallen into their depths. Away from the marketplace and from fame taketh place all that is great: away from the marketplace and from fame have ever dwelt the devisers of new values." - Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

kqr 5y ago
> there is very little connection between "aesthetic value" and "market value." Wait, so how do you determine this "aesthetic value" if not by how much people are willing to work to acquire it? Your personal opinion? Some authority figure? Maths?
- keiferski 5y ago
  Philosophers, artists, and other thinkers have written about aesthetics for thousands of years. Truly answering your question would take a long time, but a short version might be something like: the collective opinions of a diverse group of highly informed and experienced (not necessarily educated as in a university) individuals. But that's just one approach and there are many others. Even then, anything is probably superior to using monetary value as equivalent to anything other than what the market currently prices it as. I certainly don't think the most expensive painting is the most beautiful one, although it may be not be totally uncorrelated. If you're interested in these kinds of questions, definitely look into the philosophical field of aesthetics.
  - Steer 5y ago
    This reminds me of a debate we're having in Sweden presently around architecture. Most contemporary architects seem to prefer buildings as big concrete blocks while most "common folk" would prefer something... less modern? A perfect example is the new art museum which you can see here https://www.svd.se/liljevalchs-tillbyggnad--ett-bankvalv-for-konst https://www.svd.se/liljevalchs-tillbyggnad--ett-bankvalv-for.... I personally find it revolting, but am I then the person without taste?
    - blacktriangle 5y ago
      It's not you, it's them. That building is revolting.
      - nuclearnice3 5y ago
        I looked up the architect, Gert Wingårdh. Wikipedia reports his father owned the local cement factory.
    - keiferski 5y ago
      I think much of contemporary art and architecture is stuck in a monocultural loop. There is no input from aesthetically-educated people that are outside the academy or architecture/art industry. It is extremely anti-diverse, especially compared to previous centuries where you had the entire swath of society working on a structure. Hence you’ll get things like that building. And no I wouldn’t say you have no taste. Most aestheticians throughout (global) history would likely dislike that building. It’s only a recent phenomenon that such styles became so prevalent, largely out of ignorance or rejection of previous things.
dalbasal 5y ago
It may be a mistake focusing on "Cowen is an economist." He does happen to be one, but everyone is something. This may mean that he's applying a economist's mindset, like an engineer might apply an engineering mindset... but either might be besides the point. More about choice of method and language than substance.
- keiferski 5y ago
  I only brought it up because the author mentions the humanities as being critically important to Cowen's analysis method. Yet I think his approach is fundamentally still economic in nature, likely because of Cowen's economist background. Tyler calls his study of the humanities “cracking cultural codes,” and he highlights this as the most “importantly novel” activity he practices.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Sure. I don't disagree. I'm suggesting that this may be besides the point. I don't really know, but I suspect that while being an economist lends a lot of form, it might not be all that important to substance... or less important than other things, even though it's highly visible. For example, Tyler will try to quantify desires with money. How much would you have to pay me to do this, or how much would I pay to do it. That's a very economist-ey quirk, but I'm not sure it changes outcomes as much as it might seem. Re: art, I think the identity points that matter is that Tyler isn't an artist. What he is isn't necessarily all that important. He's a pretty weird guy, and a lot of his instincts are probably more artist-like than economist-like anyway.
jdavis703 5y ago
> there is very little connection between "aesthetic value" and "market value." Art appreciation extends beyond mere aesthetic value. For example we are able to create pottery that is far more aesthetically pleasing than ancient times. Yet a rare, archeological pot is probably going to fetch far more value than a piece from your neighborhood artist who probably has far more knowledge about pottery than his ancient equivalent.
zpeti 5y ago
> Contemporary art is an excellent place to observe this phenomenon; there is very little connection between "aesthetic value" and "market value." There's something very strange I've noticed in contemporary art, that in the last 20-30 years the value of talent, hard work, and aesthetics have dimished massively in critics and influencers eyes. I don't think it's made the world a better place. It's almost like creating anti-art is now trendy and popular, creating aesthetic art is seen as boring and old. Chaos is preferred over order, destroying and standing up to old structures is seen as art, not building on previous knowledge. Now I know there is a lot of value in rebelling, I rebelled a lot myself, but I think it's gone way overboard. You need a balance of rebellion and the old. Rebellion by itself is destructive over the long run.

kqr 5y ago

> there is very little connection between "aesthetic value" and "market value." Wait, so how do you determine this "aesthetic value" if not by how much people are willing to work to acquire it? Your personal opinion? Some authority figure? Maths?

keiferski 5y ago
Philosophers, artists, and other thinkers have written about aesthetics for thousands of years. Truly answering your question would take a long time, but a short version might be something like: the collective opinions of a diverse group of highly informed and experienced (not necessarily educated as in a university) individuals. But that's just one approach and there are many others. Even then, anything is probably superior to using monetary value as equivalent to anything other than what the market currently prices it as. I certainly don't think the most expensive painting is the most beautiful one, although it may be not be totally uncorrelated. If you're interested in these kinds of questions, definitely look into the philosophical field of aesthetics.
- Steer 5y ago
  This reminds me of a debate we're having in Sweden presently around architecture. Most contemporary architects seem to prefer buildings as big concrete blocks while most "common folk" would prefer something... less modern? A perfect example is the new art museum which you can see here https://www.svd.se/liljevalchs-tillbyggnad--ett-bankvalv-for-konst https://www.svd.se/liljevalchs-tillbyggnad--ett-bankvalv-for.... I personally find it revolting, but am I then the person without taste?
  - blacktriangle 5y ago
    It's not you, it's them. That building is revolting.
    - nuclearnice3 5y ago
      I looked up the architect, Gert Wingårdh. Wikipedia reports his father owned the local cement factory.
  - keiferski 5y ago
    I think much of contemporary art and architecture is stuck in a monocultural loop. There is no input from aesthetically-educated people that are outside the academy or architecture/art industry. It is extremely anti-diverse, especially compared to previous centuries where you had the entire swath of society working on a structure. Hence you’ll get things like that building. And no I wouldn’t say you have no taste. Most aestheticians throughout (global) history would likely dislike that building. It’s only a recent phenomenon that such styles became so prevalent, largely out of ignorance or rejection of previous things.

dalbasal 5y ago

It may be a mistake focusing on "Cowen is an economist." He does happen to be one, but everyone is something. This may mean that he's applying a economist's mindset, like an engineer might apply an engineering mindset... but either might be besides the point. More about choice of method and language than substance.

keiferski 5y ago
I only brought it up because the author mentions the humanities as being critically important to Cowen's analysis method. Yet I think his approach is fundamentally still economic in nature, likely because of Cowen's economist background. Tyler calls his study of the humanities “cracking cultural codes,” and he highlights this as the most “importantly novel” activity he practices.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Sure. I don't disagree. I'm suggesting that this may be besides the point. I don't really know, but I suspect that while being an economist lends a lot of form, it might not be all that important to substance... or less important than other things, even though it's highly visible. For example, Tyler will try to quantify desires with money. How much would you have to pay me to do this, or how much would I pay to do it. That's a very economist-ey quirk, but I'm not sure it changes outcomes as much as it might seem. Re: art, I think the identity points that matter is that Tyler isn't an artist. What he is isn't necessarily all that important. He's a pretty weird guy, and a lot of his instincts are probably more artist-like than economist-like anyway.

jdavis703 5y ago

> there is very little connection between "aesthetic value" and "market value." Art appreciation extends beyond mere aesthetic value. For example we are able to create pottery that is far more aesthetically pleasing than ancient times. Yet a rare, archeological pot is probably going to fetch far more value than a piece from your neighborhood artist who probably has far more knowledge about pottery than his ancient equivalent.

zpeti 5y ago

> Contemporary art is an excellent place to observe this phenomenon; there is very little connection between "aesthetic value" and "market value." There's something very strange I've noticed in contemporary art, that in the last 20-30 years the value of talent, hard work, and aesthetics have dimished massively in critics and influencers eyes. I don't think it's made the world a better place. It's almost like creating anti-art is now trendy and popular, creating aesthetic art is seen as boring and old. Chaos is preferred over order, destroying and standing up to old structures is seen as art, not building on previous knowledge. Now I know there is a lot of value in rebelling, I rebelled a lot myself, but I think it's gone way overboard. You need a balance of rebellion and the old. Rebellion by itself is destructive over the long run.