The cost of art?

[EagerMind]

So, I was at an art fair yesterday. I thought there was a lot of good stuff, but I was a little surprised by the prices. There wasn't a painting under $1000, and there was quite a bit of stuff that was over $10,000. One piece that I really liked was over $13,000.

Then I stepped into a booth with some fantastic photographic stills, and his most expensive piece was $950 (most were between $400-$600). As I thought about it, it seemed to me that the creative process that he went through was no less impressive than that of a painter (or sculptor, metalworker, etc.), and I thought his photos were just as visually gripping and stimulating as any painting. I found it hard to justify paying 3-10 times more for something that I thought had equal artistic value.

I guess my thinking was, for a medium that seems to carry the stigma of being "inaccessible", or that people feel they "can't understand," it seems like pricing paintings in this price range just reinforces that notion. And for a profession that carries the "starving artist" stereotype (which I realize is just a stereotype), at those prices, I can't imagine they were in any hurry to sell their work.

Certainly I appreciate and recognize the hard-learned skill, natural talent, creative vision, and "practice, practice, practice" behind the work. But like any other skill/talent/profession, how much is it worth over the cost of raw materials?

I don't know, am I out of touch with the art world? Am I just a cheap bastard (which I've certainly been accused of in the past)? Was I just at the "wrong" art fair? I'm curious as to what other people think - assuming that anyone else cares! 

[LGM]

I think all of those prices are a bit steep. Sure, artists's need to eat and live comfortably.. But Jesus.. I'd never consider selling a photo for more than $100 unless it had significant emotional connotations or I was offered tons for it for a magazine or something similar.

But hey, different strokes for different folks.

[BOYD1981]

i'd never consider selling anything i made for much more than it cost me to make it in the first place.
an item is only worth how much somebody is willing to pay for it, personally i can't see how any painting or photograph is worth much money, especially the ones that are supposedly worth millions.

[jetxl]

I pondered about this issue, but it was more about clothes, though.
I found a conclusion by thinking that the price includes cultural value and image. The price is set high to protect that value and image.

Some people see this as pure Kitch, but I'd KILL to have this statue in my room. A real croud-pleaser (sig) (as the website said).

[PureGhostGR]

Well, the market is divided between two types of products. Necessary and Luxurious. The Nexessary products (required for the survival of mankind, like food & water) are in theory not allowed to be priced freely, but must stay withing certain pricerange limitations.

Luxurious products (diamonds, designer clothes, paintings, sculptures etc) on the other hand are on a free range, so the people that sell them are allowed to use any price they want.

I can tell you that the logic behind owning an original (true) artpiece (besides the obvious aesthetics) is that it can be a reference point in the art history, that was or that is to be. This is something exeptional (owning a piece of art history).
Unfortunately it is not like that for all the art pieces and most people with collector interests don't realise that the art that they should be looking for is not just art that looks pretty, but art that defines something never said before in the same way.

[2ma2]

Art is sadly also regarded as an investment, you pay up loads and it may go up and down, just like stock shares.

Many artists don't put the pricetags on themselfs though, the gallery does, and the gallery work with the hype and preexpectations of said works, trying to joust them higher. Oh well.. we're all whores in the artistic business either way.

[EagerMind]

I can tell you that the logic behind owning an original (true) artpiece (besides the obvious aesthetics) is that it can be a reference point in the art history, that was or that is to be. This is something exeptional (owning a piece of art history).

Is it possible to identify this "real time?" It seems like you could only define a reference point after-the-fact, based on how art evolves over time. I'm not sure you can ever justify paying a lot for new piece of art (especially at a street fair!). Although I guess what art is worth is a totally subjective decision, and also dependent on how much money you've got to burn.

[MashPotato]

Similar to what PureGhost said, it's hard to quantify how much art is worth over the cost of raw materials because its functions (such as they are) are pretty much entirely cultural, and can be assigned any price the culture deems fit.  That being said, I think I disagree that art collectors (though it might depend what kind of collector we're talking about) put too much value on stuff that looks pretty... I think that the pure aesthetics of art is often overshadowed by hype and manufactured controvery.

Oh, and if people call you a cheap bastard for considering those prices eyebrow-raisingly high, you have me in your club to keep you company ^_^

EDIT: reworded something to make myself more clear

[Erenan]

I'm not sure you can ever justify paying a lot for new piece of art (especially at a street fair!).

What if the proceeds went to charity? I think that would easily justify it.

My spontaneous opinion, which probably needs more thinking through: A piece of artwork is profoundly more than the raw materials alone. There is an unseen value and worth in artwork that transcends pragmatism and moves into a romantic realm. When you attempt to translate this value and worth into a monetary figure (again, this is more than just the value of the raw materials), you unavoidably distort the true meaning of it, and thus it is practically impossible to price artwork accurately. The end result of this is capitalism: If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it. There is no ethical, "It's a crime to price it that high! That's outrageous!" It's simply, "I don't want to spend that much on it because I don't consider it worth that much."

EDIT: I wrote this while MashPotato was posting.