Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenferry | Hacker News Reader

> there's no doubt in my mind that the prices for all art, masterpieces included but especially contemporary, recent, and new art, are completely out of whack and ridiculously overpriced. I am sorry, but it seems sick to me to see new artists selling art out of their first shows for between $30,000 and $40,000. Something's gotta give.

I give this person the benefit of the doubt as having thought about this a lot more than I have, but this surprises me. Why is it bad if new artists are able to make a living?

View on HN

Of course artists should be able to make a living, but spending that much money on unknown and inexperienced artists suggests that the relationship between the monetary value of art and the quality/importance of it is completely out of whack. But it's not as if that's news to anybody.

>spending that much money on unknown and inexperienced artists

it is called VC investing in high-tech

Well, maybe this suggests that the relationship between the monetary value of startups and the quality/importance of them is completely out of whack as well.

Which is exactly why that's a great post.

Your first art show easily represents a year of work. I fail to see how earning $40k for a year of work is "completely out of whack" - unless you were arguing that artists are underpaid?

What is the correct way to value art?

The only answer I can see is - whatever the market is willing to pay.

I can't understand the high prices for art, but I can see it for musical instruments [1].

My wife can "hear" a Stradivari. It doesn't make my hearing bad or hers good - it's just different.

A violin + played as the Titanic sunk? The story behind the instrument makes it valuable (to me!)

As with anything emotional, how do you value the first time you hear your child's giggle, the first time you kissed a lover, the first time someone close to you passed away?

For me, articles like this just reaffirm: Am I happy? (right now, in the moment) and if not, what do I need to do to make it so?

[1] http://www.cmuse.org/12-most-expensive-violins/

So why is the artist being known or experienced more important than the quality of the picture? I mean, people will pay crazy amounts for a known name, but if good pieces from newcomers are not expected to be worth much, that's a point where I'd call art prices a sham.

I saw a TV show once about a painting that is suspected to be by da Vinci. Various attempts to authenticate it have been made, and so far none have proven it is not a da Vinci. Whether it is or not is a factor of 100 in the amount it is worth.

But it's still exactly the same painting either way.

Journalists jealous.

That is not it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com