This weekly assignment will continue a discussion started last week about the value of art. Reflect on the video below. Do you see things as this video describes? How do you determine the value of art? Is value measured in money? How do you think the monetary value of art should be determined?
I think that there is nothing wrong with what he says about why authenticity matters. The history of art i interesting and the really famous art work should be really expensive. If it were not very expensive it would get lost or destroyed. As an art student though what he is talking about has little to do with making art. It is weird to think that a painting could go from worthless to worth millions of dollars based on something that has nothing to do with how it looks. i think this shows that the art market has nothing to do with art, it is about history and making sure people know you are very rich.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete completely when she says that the art market has nothing to do with art, it has to do with history and making sure people know you are rich and important.
ReplyDeleteWhen he is talking about the Hav van Negreen copy of the vermeer, it is an EXACT copy!!!! Thats incredible and Hav van Negreen could have that ability to duplicate famous artwork.....I think he could be praised and celebrated for that (but he wasn't).....Also couldn't people just lie and say that they have an original even though they know they have a duplicate? Who has to know? It is a shame Hav van Negreen came confessed.
This makes me wonder how many original artworks we consider now...maybe some of them are not originals at all?????
When he is talking about that painting that he likes and how he wants one, but he DOESN'T WANT A DUPLICATE even he can tell the difference.......he explains that he wants a work with HISTORY and MEANING behind them....I agree with this.........BUT if its an EXACT DUPLICATE (by either the same artist or different)...Who would care if its the same thing??? and who would know???
I agree with Grete. Famous art should be valued at high price. I, personally, think that the value of art has been determined by social movement. Like he said on the video, Hitler tried to buy the art work that is cost at high price in this period. Rich people from past to these days has been bought famous art work at high prices. Therefore, owning famous art works has been the symbol of wealth; rich people are crazy to buy art works that are rare and unique. I agree that famous art work should be expensive. But, I do think that we cannot measure how much money the art work cost. All art works are from artists’ passion, suffering, and creativeness so that art works are something that we should preserve in good condition to pass them down to our next generation.
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree with the 'essentialism of human' theory the video says. The history and meaning behind the thing(art work), spiritual value from the original creator, or its hidden nature. These do effect the reaction of people(the ones who really respect the art work as a essential irreplaceable spiritual interpretaion, not to show richness) a lot when it's a belief, and it'd be hard to accept a duplicate that has only the same appearance with the original, which is not the most important thing at all. But regarding the fact that an awful lot of the people who buy art is trying to show their statues or richness, I agree with grete that the art market is getting disconnected with real art, but to make sure people know you are very rich.
ReplyDeleteI think that value of an art is determined by the social mood? or movement at the time. For example, Picasso's work wouldn't have been valued when he was alive because people weren't familiar with his style and they didn't acknowledge his talent. However, nowadays he is thought to be a great artist by people. I do agree with the video that a value of an art depends on its history. A price of a pencil can vary depending on its history like whether it was used by a celebrity or not. However, I think that determining monetary value of art is very difficult. I think that it is similar as putting a price tag to a person.
ReplyDeleteAlso guys think about it this way, Most famous artist don't make a dime until they are dead, until something drastically has changed before,during or after the art is created, it literally means nothing to the art world. And also, when ya think about it, plenty of artist have made copy's of their own works, yet the prices remain the same, didn't Hav van Negreen essentially just do the artists job for him. ALSO THINK OF THIS!! Devinchie used assistants in his work all the freaking time and yet none of his works values ever went down, Hav van Negreen is the equivalent of vemeers assistant yet he got a (sort of) bad rap.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sang Eun that the value of an art is determinded by the social mood and the accumulated history. Morevover, I think by putting expensive value of an art can motivate artists to keep creating provocatve arts, and that the value of an art is more determind to the works that are provocutive. It's true that art depends on history, but also I think it depends to the value that an artwork have when the artist creats something that people have never seen before, but pleasing to their eyes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what andrew is saying, especially the fact that most of artist and pieces of art are not valued until they die. i personally think that the value of art should come from within, you can value something you consider preacious while another person could consider it trash. it all depends on the different tastes and appeals i think. monetary wise i think now a days a great part of the value is considered in how famous the artist is and not how pretty it is necesarilly.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is entirely history and stigma of the artist, but I think with out that art wouldn't have very much material value (money value). If that wasn't important a lot more art would be appreciated but it wouldn't be as much it terms of money. People will buy art that doesn't look as good to them because it was painted by a famous artist. I think the video does a good job at highlighting this. I think the whole point is that someone could have very good art that is different and interesting and usually what people like, but if their story and the stigma around them isn't interesting and different it doesn't go as far.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete and Andrew. It is ironic how the art piece's price changes completely because of artist's name. It seems like the price of art has nothing to do with art itself but who made the art piece and the reputation of artist. The way of society determines the value of art is more about business than appreciating the art. I think the value of art should be determined by how much it can impress people. It is very difficult to be measured because everyone has different life experience therefore people's reaction to the artwork would be different.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Grete said, this video really brought my attention to the fact that people value pieces of art more for who painted them than what they actually look like. This made me think about what in art society values, and it seems as though it's not the actual artistry or how creative and innovative we think a piece is, but more about who it was painted by and what type of status they hold in history. I think this is sort of a messed up way of judging how good or worthy a piece of art is. Tying my ideas into what he was saying about pleasure, and how what you're told can affect how much you appreciate something, this really explains psychologically why people enjoy a painting by Van Gogh more than some random artist they've never heard of, even if the Van Gogh painting isn't all its cracked up to be. I feel like there should be a certain way of looking at art, somebody can appreciate the history and the story behind an art work by a famous artist, but I don't think that should be the judge of how good the art itself is.
ReplyDeleteAlso about what Turner said, I totally agree about the duplicate painting. That artist clearly had just as much talent as the original so why should his art be any less valued? Many his creativity because it wasn't his idea, but his technique and his artistic eye is clearly amazing, and not just anyone could create such an exact copy of something like that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete that this video makes the price of the art work based not on the process or the quality of the work. It seems to focus on the history of art work and how much it was at first. If the value of art is based on the popularity and how much people like the work, then is it possible to promote an art work and gain value? If people are exposed to an art work or an artist continuously and have people to think that it’s great, then those this change the price of an art work?
ReplyDeleteHannah as I understand "not just anyone could create and exact copy', I think the work of an imposter should be less valued. It is an example of talent in execution and craftsmenship, but artistically and creatively there is no comparison one is simply a fraud. We have gotten past a point where craftsman ship alone can really make a work of art be appreciated. The content is more important. The crafstmenship should not be ingored for a fraud, but you cannot, possible give them equal worth as artists, when one works with both technique and passion, and the other with just mindless technique.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grete that the all the art work price is noting to do with how it looks. I know that history of art which is very famous painting should be very expensive and people tried to take care of the paintings to be safe(destroy, lose them). However I wonder how the people determined the prices of art work. Is it because of famous artist? Then how the people decide the good artist? Is it because of only that people like his/her art work? I think it doesn't matter with sizes or visually good looking. Also in my opinion there shouldn't be less value painting then others. It is all valuable historic art works.
ReplyDelete