Why are contemporary art prices so high?

Answer 1

There are many factors that converge to determine the value of a piece of art, whether classical or contemporary. These can include the availability or scarcity, the fame of the artist, the objective size, type of media, value added (in terms of the artist's time and effort), impact and significance of a particular work, or other factors.

The artist, as well as the significance and impact of a particular work and its scarcity are two of the most important factors. Often a classical artist is the first to conceive of a concept, or the first to elevate it to a disparate branch all its own. The work of Vincent Van Gogh is an excellent example. Generally, realism was favored throughout antiquity. Van Gogh flouted this standard in favor of a looser, more abstract interpretation of physical forms. His painting, "Impression" launched an entire new genre of painting, which is still called "Impressionism." Other works, such as "Starry Night" share this iconic quality. Van Gogh became famous for doing something new and different -- a type of work that was pioneering and avante gard, and helped lay the groundwork for the modern topography of the artistic endeavor. As such, his work commands astronomical prices today -- up to $100 million and higher.

Further, because of their scarcity (due to the artist's death and paucity of surviving works), these works enjoy a massive supply and demand disparity. Not everyone who wants a Van Gogh can have one... in fact, not every museum that wants one can have one. Not even close. Thus, artist's notoriety, significance of work, and scarcity of product contribute to the bulk of value for classical art.

Generally, a fine artist will only produce a few pieces per year, thus they must support themselves on the sale of just a few pieces. Christo, who famously wraps islands in pink plastic, can't even sell these directly, as they are massive, temporary, and fixed to geography. Thus, the profit must be gleaned from the publicity generated, trademark, licensing and photographic rights, prints and lithographs, etc.

Photographic artists and some others whose media enable more prolific production generally have correspondingly lower values. Prints or lithographs made from an original work are also appropriately devalued. This is reflective of both the artist's time, energy, inspiration, and monetary investment in the process. This is also reflective of the scarcity and uniqueness of the artistic product. The more scarce and unique, the higher the price, and vice-versa. Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso are two examples of artists whose work was so prolific that it is devalued, as insufficiently scarce. It isn't uncommon for private collectors to have several of Picasso's work, and either artists average work is likely to sell for just a few tens of thousands of dollars. Picasso was in fact one of the few famed artists who became so in his lifetime, and so was able to sell endless scribblings to support himself.

Chihuly, a renowned glass-blower who produces incredible colored glass masterpieces that retail for thousands and tens of thousands of dollars, produced a video series entitled, "Chihuly in the Workshop," where he plies his trade live before an audience. In these segments, it can be seen that although a finished piece can be created in just a few minutes, the manpower involved is astonishing. Chihuly works with dozens of assistants, millions of dollars in equipment, and decades of experience and development in his art. Each piece is undeniably completely unique, and unfortunately may end up as waste if mis-handled. But, being prolific still keeps down the average price of most works, excluding exceptional masterpieces.

Eames mass-produces furniture that has received myriad awards and prizes for their contemporary designs -- it is literally considered art as furniture. But it is attainable still. Except perhaps for prototypes, or those that have been displayed in museums.

Other than market factors, an artist's receipt of awards or accolades can factor into their notoriety and fame, and thus the prices that their work may command. Juried competitions, degrees in design, or advanced studies in the field enhance an artist's professional standing and perceived legitimacy, as well as their craft.

Quite frankly, contemporary art prices aren't 'so high,' certainly not compared to the work of widely acknowledged masters of classical history. To claim that they are suggests either ignorance of the quantity of work that goes into the artistic process, or disdain for the contemporary genre in general... a sentiment that this writer unfortunately must confess to share.

Much controversy of these prices stems from criticism of the media itself, or means of expression. Sometimes there is a tendency on the part of self-styled modern artists to overly focus on expressing ones self differently, rather than simply on expressing ones self genuinely, through art. What frequently results is a competition of shock value, or politicizing of the expression (as in the case of photographs of urinating nudes, or vomiting paint onto canvas). What makes Jackson Pollack significantly different from the splashings of spaghetti sauce on my child's high chair? What distinguishes a panorama of nudes laying prone in an industrial setting from a single nude masturbating in Hustler magazine? This is truly the question being asked about contemporary art... and it is a valid one. Intrinsic artistic value is, like perceived beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

But as for price, the answer is that something is worth what people will pay. That value should be justifiable by the artist's fame and renown, the scarcity of the work and resulting high demand, the cultural and historical significance of the work, the intrinsic subjective aesthetic value, in some cases the utility and real monetary value of the materials, and the value added by the artistic endeavor. If not, then the purchaser might not be making the best investment. A knowledgeable buyer will take all of these into consideration, and unless money is no object and the buyer has fallen in love, hype should not be allowed to overrule good judgment. And subjective price should never be confused with objective value.

Unfortunately, most within the art world are neither apt nor eager to validate this objective view on the nuances of the artistic endeavor. Brilliance and genius, after all, may appear anywhere at any time, and adopt any form at all. Only time will tell whether bizarre monstrosities, or strange forays into weirdness will be viewed as a retrospective on triumph or tragedy. But make no mistake... there is good art and bad art.

Answer 2

Using economic theory explain why contemporary art price are so high