Post 20

Here's my essay passing off as copypasta. The topic is: "Can art be valued just in financial terms? Discuss."

Two centuries ago, during the years of the Post-Impressionist movement, a certain Vincent Van Gogh's paintings did not sell very well, leaving the artist barely able to get by. Today, any one of his paintings easily sell for over a million US dollars, with one of them, the famous "The Starry Night", going for over six million dollars. Why is there such a large difference between then and now? Is there something more than purely money involved in valuing an artwork? What then, of other art forms such as theatre or musical arts? Do such wide differences appear as well? For the purposes of this discussion, such areas will not be included as the scope will then be too wide to be explained in detail in the time given for this essay; instead, we will limit ourselves to paintings and sculptures. Also, financial terms will be defined as price, which, defined in economic terms, is an indication of how much people are willing to pay for something, which will be used here as the definition.

First of all, the value of art pieces such as paintings or sculptures can be found in their decorative value, as well as being an indicator of status, as throughout history, only the rich are able to afford the finest art works. People have bought paintings and sculptures to complement the decorations of their homes, and art pieces have by and large been highly sought after items, causing their price to soar, and thus only the rich can afford more famous pieces of art, such as the aforementioned "The Starry Night". Strictly speaking, is there much of a difference between a vase of flowers and a painting of the same vase and flowers? Even if one would argue that the painting might be one of Van Gogh's Sunflowers series, it can easily be countered that the vase could be an antique vase that Charles Darwin or perhaps any other famous person had owned. Therefore, pieces of art can be definitively priced in terms of being a decorative item, as they can be compared to other decorative items.

Another determinant of the value of an artwork is of course, sentimental value. Was it specifically commissioned by the owner? Or perhaps the owner had a part to play in producing the artwork (one example is posing for a portrait)? Or perhaps the painting is a family heirloom? The possibilities are seemingly endless, as sentimental value can vary widely from individual to individual and even within an individual over time. A painting of oneself by a lover might be highly treasured, but should one day one's love ceases for the lover, the painting instantly becomes worthless in one's eyes and it is promptly disposed of. Such is the uncertainty of the human heart, and thus sentimental value can almost never be definitively priced as sentimental value is very rarely definitive. Thus, art cannot solely be valued in financial terms because it is an inadequate valuation of its true worth.

Underlying themes or purposes in art can also serve as a factor involved in the pricing of the work. Art, like writing, can also be charged with the artist's purposes, be they political or otherwise, and their works may be unappreciated due to such themes. Consider Auguste Rodin, who believed in having deep and pocketed surfaces on his sculptures to show emotion. His work was then quote literally thrown out of an exhibition because it was deemed unfinished, as the norm at the time was to have smooth surfaces and textures carved into marble. Also, during China's Cultural Revolution, there are plenty of stories about ancient and important books and pieces of art being mercilessly destroyed by the younger generation under Mao Zedong's command. Yet today, these items are given actual prices and not deemed worthless, and in Rodin's case exorbitantly high ones. The point here is thus this: Underlying themes or purposes cause the value of artwork to change along with the value and belief systems of society; societal "winds", so to speak, and thus the price fluctuates along with it. Financial terms are thus inaccurate estimates of the value of an artwork as they are subject to the winds of change present in every society, and should not be used as the sole valuation basis of art.

"One man's meat is another man's poison." This phrase is oft quoted to represent the idea that what one person likes, another dislikes. In this context, we want to convey the idea that what one person considers as creative art, another thinks that it is utter rubbish. The best examples come from modern art. Let us examine Andy Warhol, a famous American pop artist. Andy Warhol was one who glorified in repetition and also the distortion of colour within those copies. It is rather easy to tell how he does his art: Take a stock picture, say for example the face of pop culture superstar Marilyn Monroe, replicate it into a sort of stamp, and start changing the colour in each stamp, such that each one is different only by their colours. This is extremely simple work that a five-year-old can also execute, but it is considered art. As different people read through this example, some may shake their heads or be outraged, and some may object heavily to the tone of my previous sentence. This is the essential point of how creativity in art influences price: What one takes to be art, someone else might not, and thus the price will fluctuate from person to person, or to take a wider scope, society to society. Thus, financial terms are unable to fully represent the value of an art piece, and cannot serve as the sole valuation basis of art.

To end off, let us recall our definition of price and thus financial terms: Price is the amount of money people in the society are willing to pay t obtain something, which is actually its definition in economics. This would of course mean that the price of anything is heavily determined by how valuable it is to people. Once again, let us take van Gogh as our example. By this logic, it is obvious that when he was still alive, his work was not very well-valued. Fast-forward to our age, and voila! A hefty price tag attached to the same man's work. This is firstly because they are good specimens of Post-Impressionist art, and also because they are hallmarks of that period. While it would be right to conclude that any work of art can be valued just in financial terms as price, it is far more logical to conclude that the factors discussed above: Creativity, underlying themes and purposes, as well as sentimental value, excusing the factor of decorative purposes as it can be definitively priced, set the value of an art piece because it is these indefinite factors that give rise to the price of a piece of art and not the other way around and thus one can conclude that the statement in discussion is by and large correct.