Should the paintings value that much?
If you are aware of the price of most valuable art pieces, you will notice that the twenty highest price paid paintings are defined as abstract painting. As Perl wrote, good art is now simply defined as art that sells. Therefore, does it mean the traditional -- trompe-l'œil painting and the renaissance art are not good? For this argument, a lot of arties and scholar have stated their opinions, and every one of them has their own explanation for their position. However, there are mainly opposite voices regarding the question if abstract art should value that much, and whether abstract art can be defined as fine art.
1. In what I read in Oxford Dictionary for the definition of abstract art, it is said that “art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.” In Ross’s, “Art Renewal Center”, he goes on to explain what gives a piece of art its aesthetic value. Ross explained “Art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of expressing an ideaIn other words, it is the artist, a human being, who is doing the selecting - not nature and not chance.” (Para.6). As per my understanding, the last term in this citation he used ‘not chance’ refers to some art like non- representational paintings in the abstract expressionist movement. Artist like Jackson Pollock who paint in no regulations or the Russian artist, Mark Rothko has created masterpieces that are defined as not an art or a ‘chance’ by Ross explanation.
On the other hand, Hahn’s article explains how many people find it difficult to understand abstract art. Nevertheless, this form of painting has become very popular with time. The author delves deep into the difference between representational and abstract paintings. He opines that “abstract paintings are a lot harder to understand than representational paintings.” (Para.11) He describes the two different types of abstract art, and explains the quintessence of each form. Every painting embodies a particular environment, and represents the culture and society of the time. That is something that makes a painting priceless.
Alison Croggon in her work, “On the Value of Art” opines that “the more powerful, moral, angry or challenging an art object is, the more likely it is to accrue value as cultural capital.” (Para.6) The author cites the example of the famous artist, Rothko, who denied taking the commission for his piece of work. Thus, I can say that the returning of price for the work of art is due to the fact that the value of a painting cannot be judged monetarily. Then she goes on to explain how his artworks now sell as a very high price afterwards. However, the work of art has to be owned in exchange of money only by someone.
Gary M. Schuster in his work, “What to Do with Your Art Collection”, opines, that after the fair market value of a painting is determined, a person has to understand the “unrealized” value that the work of art carries with itself. The article describes how the value of a painting increases with time. The value of a painting by Picasso would definitely get catapulted after a century. Thus, the value of abstract art or art in general would never be on the wane. The collector’s value of a piece of art defines its price.
2. Classical economics opines that the supply of an article would surely create its demand in the market among the masses. Thus, the demand for the artworks is very high as there are several famous works of art in the world. Also, new works are getting created from time to time that is bound to increase the demand of the artworks.
Keynesian economists describe that the relationship between demand and supply depends on a lot of factors. Also, the aggregate demand does not need to comply with the capacity of the production. In such a circumstance, it can be understood that the number of artworks are much lesser in comparison to the demand by patrons or collector of art. As such, the price of a work of art is bound to rise steeply.
3. Thus, both the schools of thought in economics argue in favor of the increasing demand of works of art in the society. The works of art get famous with time, and as their popularity increases, so does the price. It needs to be taken into consideration that a work of art is created by a single individual, but it becomes public with time. The appreciation it receives is based on the artistic quintessence that is employed in the process. That cannot be gauged by monetary value, and hence there is high demand.
4. Art and aesthetics define the cultural heritage of the human race. The inherent nature of human kind is to trace its roots and preserve the cultural identity of the civilization. This is one of the main reasons that make paintings transcend the gauge of monetary value. Paintings are taken to be priceless in value as they are the prime cultural markers of the human race. Paintings not only represent and portray the individual quintessence of the artist, but also bear the mark of the culture and society of the particular period in history in which the painting is made.
Passion is a major characteristic trait in human kind that is subjective in nature. A thing that might seem exquisite and aesthetic to someone might not come across to be so to someone else. Likewise, a flower can look beautiful to one person, while the other does not find it to be so. Thus, there is no point in arguing about the definition of universal appeal and beauty. Beauty essentially lies in the eyes of the beholder. Going by this logic, it can be understood very well that a piece of art has different values to different people. Hence, any person who finds a particular piece of aesthetic work to be valuable would be ready to pay more for acquiring that painting in comparison to others. Thus, it is best to let the market judge the price of a particular painting based on the demand and subjective aesthetic appeal of the work of art.
References
Croggon, Alison. (2014). On the value of art. Overland 60. Retrieved from
https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-215/regular-alison-croggon/
Hahn, Harley. Understanding Abstract Art. Retrieved from
http://www.harley.com/art/abstract-art/
Ross, Fred. Abstract Art is Not Abstract and Definitely Not Art. Retrieved from
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2005/Abstract/Ross.php
Schuster, Gary M. (2008). What to Do with Your Art Collection. Art Times. Retrieved from
http://www.arttimesjournal.com/speakout/Apr.08.Speakout.htm
