Beyond Aesthetics: The tangible and intangible value of Art

First thing first: let’s start talking about value. What exactly do we mean when we talk about “value” in art? How do you establish the value of a work, and decide “how much it costs”? And above all, who decides, and why?
 
This isn’t a five-minute question indeed. Art market outsiders may be puzzled by the apparent discrepancy between aesthetic value, historical value and economic value. And let’s face it: the very reason why art has become so popular among the general public is that it has suddenly become so expensive. High prices command media headlines, and the number of people who don’t just collect but stockpile outrageously expensive art has grown from the hundreds to the thousands’ between the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century.
 
Top prices at Christie’s and Sotheby’s evening auctions may be shocking for some of us, not only because of the staggering amount of money that buyers are scrambling to cough up, but mainly because these sums do not seem to have an obvious counterpart – in terms of intrinsic value. After all, the intrinsic value of a painting amounts to no more than the cost of the paint, the canvas, and a few hours of labour. Everything else, what sets the real value of a work, is intangible, or at least not determinable. No doubt that is how it sounds to most people (certainly for all those who read about the fabulous results of evening auctions in the newspapers, tops). It does not really make sense that a lustrous, giant-scale stainless steel bunny (the inflatable stainless steel rabbit created in 1986 by U.S. artist Jeff Koons, which set an all-time record price for a living artist) could seriously be worth the $91.1 million shelled out by financial mogul Steven A. Cohen in May 2019 – especially if we compare that figure to, say, the price paid for Gustav Klimt’s Portrait of Adele  Bloch-Bauer I ($87 million), Claude Monet’s Water Lilies ($84 million), or Vincent van Gogh’s      Portrait of Dr. Gachet ($82 million). It makes no sense, does it.
 
Those who like to think that the value of art depends only, or mainly, on its aesthetic or historical value may find disconcerting the prices reached at auction by artists who gained a foothold in the market no more than a couple of years ago by offering giant balloons (Jeff Koons), bull carcasses in formaldehyde (Damien Hirst), or a life-size statue of the Pope felled by a meteorite (Maurizio Cattelan).
“Rabbit” by Jeff Koons was displayed during a media preview at Christie’s in New York on May 3, 2019.
“Mother and Child (Divided)”, Damien Hirst. Exhibition copy from 2007 (the original is from 1993).

“La Nona Ora” (“The Ninth Hour”) by Maurizio Cattelan, 1999
To fully understand this phenomenon, we must first understand the functioning of the complex art ecosystem, which operates within an economic model based on fluctuations between supply and demand, much like any market.

We will return to this together shortly. In my next article I will explain why the art market is not really different from the stock market, and yet it is dramatically different. Many of the same rules apply, and have a lot in common with the rules of poker as well. Don’t believe me? Follow me in my next post.