Artistic Value And The Value Of Art

[ShadowWalker]

In most spheres it is fairly straightforward to determine the value something has, based on the interplay of supply and demand. Scarcity tends to increase prices. Solving problems, saving time or facilitating tasks is rewarded. Fair Enough.

Then you try to apply these principles to an artistic service or a work of art and you quickly realize that it feels like an infinite number of paradigms are intertwined in paradoxical ways leaving little room for clear conclusions and predictable outcomes. The subjectivity of art goes beyond artistic value - it seems it's financial worth is in the eye of the beholder, as well.

You can go off researching psychological and cultural norms and tendencies for ages and still not have the faintest clue how to price a work of art. History is full of examples of genius artists who died in poverty, as well as post-modernists who like alchemists sold random collections of objects or splatters of paint for millions. In Hindsight we can try to analyze the factors and principles involved and we can make the pieces fit into a suitable paradigm but in the end it often feels incredibly arbitrary, doesn't it?

Could it really be an example of "ask and you shall receive"? Could it be that aside from all the various circumstances, the main point of divergence between the struggling artists and those well-off is the daring to ask and the confidence in self-worth to receive? I'm not talking about craft here, as I feel this side fits more easily into traditional financial principles, be it in the realms of painting, photography, music, etc. What's your take on the topic? Have you been financially successful as an artist? Have you spent significant amounts of money for art, and why?
---
Thanks for reading my first topic. I'm quite new here and I'm excited to get to know the community that Leo has so kindly made possible with the addition of the forum.
 

[Leo Gura]

@ShadowWalker No, actually the difference is much more pragmatic. Starving artists starve because they don't invest energy in learning marketing or bothering to market themselves.

Just doing great art is NOT good enough. You must learn your audience and learn to appeal to them and lure them in.

Artist-types usually suck at this, which is why most of them are starving.

You must be wiser than that. You must reconcile the problem of how to market yourself without selling your soul in the process.

Success requires ruthless pragmatism. Not wishful thinking. But you can still be a visionary. A highly pragmatic visionary.

[Loreena]

@Leo Gura Does life  require ruthless pragmatism too

[Leo Gura]

@Loreena Of course! Your butt is not gonna wipe itself

Every detail must be accounted for no matter how enlightened you are.

[Loreena]

@Leo Gura Then why people on this forum give this strange feeling that thinking practical is somehow wrong. When I tell them so often that they need to be very practical in life . But they tend to get very preachy and holy moly like - it's okay quit your job, it's no good. I get the part that one should quit the job if it sucks but how can a person  do something he is passionate about which doesn't earn him a living. And then this weird expectation that one should be nice and kind to others even when they are behaving bad. And I tell them it's wrong to do so. You should do good to those who deserve that goodness from you, and you shouldn't bother about those who mistreat you. And then they say I am wrong. 

[Nahm]

57 minutes ago, Loreena said:

@Leo Gura Does life  require ruthless pragmatism too

Pragmatism is mental accuracy. It does not help to think of it as ruthless. It's the opposite. It will align you with your desires using the energy within. 

You have to be pragmatic and passionate. You have to figure out what you want to do AND put the time in to make money from it. Assuming you want passion and money in your days.

When you limit your compassion to others based on judging them, you are literally limiting your own compassion. You are limiting your own energy. 

Try looking at it this way- if you saw someone lying in a pool of blood in the road, you would probably help them or call 911.

So why then, when you observe some dickhead or bitch, do you not see their suffering? They need compassion. Sometimes I'm the dickhead, and sometimes you're the bitch. (No offense, you're sweet as pie Loreena) Is it not compassion that is the answer, both inward and outward.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THE WORLD CHANGES.

Stop judging, it hurts you the most.

If you want to be full of love, be full of love.

Above alll else, stop judging yourself. You're exactly perfect. There will never be another you. Ever. 

You can keep looking at what is, or you can start looking at what will be, either way, you are getting more of what you're focusing on. This is the law of attraction. This is how the uncertainty principle works. We tend to fool ourselves thinking the reality in front of our eyes is more real than the reality we can choose in our minds, but it is not. The one in your mind will become the one in front of your eyes, in exact perfect measure to your focus,dedication, and repetition of it. In the most literal possible sense, right now, in this moment, you are getting more of whatever you are focusing on. 

Ok surmon over. Sorry for preachiness. I feel like you are such a sweet person and you're right on the edge of a breakthrough, that's where I'm coming from.

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Nahm

[Prabhaker]

23 hours ago, ShadowWalker said:

History is full of examples of genius artists who died in poverty

A Vincent van Gogh is far more rich than Henry Ford. Richness does not mean only wealth or money; richness is a multidimensional phenomenon. A poet may be poor, but he has a sensitivity that no money can purchase. He is richer than any rich man. A musician may not be rich, but as far as his music is concerned, no wealth is richer than his music.

The rich man is one who has sensitivity, creativity, receptivity. The man of wealth is only one of the dimensions. According to me the man of wealth is also a creative artist: he creates wealth. Not everybody can be a Henry Ford. His talents should be respected, although what he creates is mundane. It cannot be compared to Mozart’s music or Nijinsky’s dance, or Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. But still, he creates something which is valuable, utilitarian, and the world would be better if there were many more Henry Fords.

A poor man is one whose mind is retarded – he may have immense wealth; that does not matter – who cannot understand classical music, who cannot understand poetry, who cannot understand philosophy, who cannot understand the high flights of human spirit. Yes, one of the dimensions of poverty is a man who cannot even produce money. He is the poorest of the poor, because money is such a mundane thing. If you cannot create it, you simply show that you don’t have intelligence enough.

[ShadowWalker]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@ShadowWalker No, actually the difference is much more pragmatic. Starving artists starve because they don't invest energy in learning marketing or bothering to market themselves.

Just doing great art is NOT good enough. You must learn your audience and learn to appeal to them and lure them in.

Artist-types usually suck at this, which is why most of them are starving.

You must be wiser than that. You must reconcile the problem of how to market yourself without selling your soul in the process.

Success requires ruthless pragmatism. Not wishful thinking. But you can still be a visionary. A highly pragmatic visionary.

Thank you for the no-bullshit reply! If it were not clear from my topic, I consider myself an artist, and I am fully open to the possibility that I suck at marketing despite investing energy and learning and practicing. One part of what I feel is limiting me in this aspect is a notion that Oscar Wilde expresses the following way:

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman."

I suppose it is possible that I am extending this principle into the realm of marketing where it may not apply, but it often feels like the very things that make my art genuine and unique are that things that differentiate it from the norms and wants of mainstream culture. This leaves me with the choice of either watering down my art and becoming a craftsman or seeking out the minority that could appreciate its value appropriately to justify a reasonably high price. I would obviously opt for the latter but how does one even go about achieving that pragmatically?

Over the years I've accumulated a decent following of over 10k people on my Facebook page taking photos of mostly alternative girls, but unlike Suicide Girls my work is focused more so on portraits and aesthetics rather than nudity. This is obviously a significantly less viable source of income with everyone interested in working with me playing the "it's free exposure" card, including major magazines. I've had photos of mine with thousands of likes and/or becoming editor's choice at virtually all of the photo-sharing sites, including National Geographic's platform, yet when it comes to print sales the numbers tell a completely different story. I don't want to be another artist crybaby about it, I'm determined to get better, not bitter, hence my interest in joining the forum. I am certain I still have a bunch of limiting beliefs as well as an ego I'm unconsciously protecting so your input and suggestions are all very welcome. Thank you once again!

 

 

[TJM1959]

On 3/13/2017 at 10:15 AM, ShadowWalker said:

it feels like an infinite number of paradigms are intertwined in paradoxical ways leaving little room for clear conclusions and predictable outcomes

What does this even mean? Chunk it down.

[TJM1959]

"We're nothing but a harlot at the doorstep of the Aristocrat."
A quoted from the movie The Agony and the Ecstasy depicting Michelangelo selling himself out for a few pennies, a near-death experience and no fame...it's been in the water for decades.

[ShadowWalker]

^ What I meant was that art's properties and art's market can be viewed through a number of lenses, that often times lead you to conflicting conclusions. For example, you can view art as fulfilling a tangible need in the consumer, or you could alternatively view art as having intrinsic value precisely because of it's purposelessness and eccentricity. Both can be correct in the context of the respective paradigm. You could argue that the latter is an extension of the first that is simply fulfilling the need for significance through difference/eccentricity but the whole topic gets messy and unclear very quick.

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Loreena said:

@Leo Gura Then why people on this forum give this strange feeling that thinking practical is somehow wrong. When I tell them so often that they need to be very practical in life . But they tend to get very preachy and holy moly like - it's okay quit your job, it's no good.

Those people are fools. Don't worry, life will slap them for their foolishness

Classic spiritual mistake: finding spirituality and thinking that it obviates practical thinking.

You must be both spiritual and practical, idealistic and realistic. As always, people suck at balance, so they take sides and bicker.

4 hours ago, ShadowWalker said:

One part of what I feel is limiting me in this aspect is a notion that Oscar Wilde expresses the following way:

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman."

I suppose it is possible that I am extending this principle into the realm of marketing where it may not apply, but it often feels like the very things that make my art genuine and unique are that things that differentiate it from the norms and wants of mainstream culture. This leaves me with the choice of either watering down my art and becoming a craftsman or seeking out the minority that could appreciate its value appropriately to justify a reasonably high price. I would obviously opt for the latter but how does one even go about achieving that pragmatically?

You must be BOTH! Do your art, but don't get so artsy-fartsy you lose touch with ordinary people or ordinary reality.

I've had to sell my soul to the devil a lot to succeed. If I never did that, you would never have heard of me or found Actualized.org. Success is a pragmatic issue. If you care about it, you must make certain sacrifices. You can't just create whatever kind of bullshit you fancy. That's way too easy. You must take others into account as well. But without selling out.

Your art ain't doing much good if no one can access it.

Of course, if you wanna be a starving, misunderstood artist, go right ahead. Nothing wrong with that per se. Personally, not my cup of tea though. For me, it's important that my work has a sizable impact on people and that I am reasonably compensated.

[ShadowWalker]

Not what I wanted to read, but I guess it's what I needed to read, so thanks guys!

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You must be BOTH! Do your art, but don't get so artsy-fartsy you lose touch with ordinary people or ordinary reality.

I've had to sell my soul to the devil a lot to succeed. If I never did that, you would never have heard of me or found Actualized.org. Success is a pragmatic issue. If you care about it, you must make certain sacrifices. You can't just create whatever kind of bullshit you fancy. That's way too easy. You must take others into account as well. But without selling out.

Your art ain't doing much good if no one can access it.

Of course, if you wanna be a starving, misunderstood artist, go right ahead. Nothing wrong with that per se. Personally, not my cup of tea though. For me, it's important that my work has a sizable impact on people and that I am reasonably compensated.

I think you've touched on this briefly in some videos but could this topic deserve a whole video? Would certainly be valuable for all the artists torn between the two extremes. If not, then for all the artists reading this, I recommend checking out Chase Jarvis' channel for some good advice regarding art, business and entrepreneurship.

Edited March 14, 2017 by ShadowWalker
updated quote

[Nahm]

On 3/13/2017 at 10:15 AM, ShadowWalker said:

In most spheres it is fairly straightforward to determine the value something has, based on the interplay of supply and demand. Scarcity tends to increase prices. Solving problems, saving time or facilitating tasks is rewarded. Fair Enough.

Then you try to apply these principles to an artistic service or a work of art and you quickly realize that it feels like an infinite number of paradigms are intertwined in paradoxical ways leaving little room for clear conclusions and predictable outcomes. The subjectivity of art goes beyond artistic value - it seems it's financial worth is in the eye of the beholder, as well.

You can go off researching psychological and cultural norms and tendencies for ages and still not have the faintest clue how to price a work of art. History is full of examples of genius artists who died in poverty, as well as post-modernists who like alchemists sold random collections of objects or splatters of paint for millions. In Hindsight we can try to analyze the factors and principles involved and we can make the pieces fit into a suitable paradigm but in the end it often feels incredibly arbitrary, doesn't it?

Could it really be an example of "ask and you shall receive"? Could it be that aside from all the various circumstances, the main point of divergence between the struggling artists and those well-off is the daring to ask and the confidence in self-worth to receive? I'm not talking about craft here, as I feel this side fits more easily into traditional financial principles, be it in the realms of painting, photography, music, etc. What's your take on the topic? Have you been financially successful as an artist? Have you spent significant amounts of money for art, and why?
---
Thanks for reading my first topic. I'm quite new here and I'm excited to get to know the community that Leo has so kindly made possible with the addition of the forum.
 

Supply and demand is a misnomer. There is no shortage of anything. Demand and value is perception. There is no shortage of diamonds, art, money, food, water, etc. Art sells for tens of millions of dollars because someone has billions of dollars. It is relative to the psych issues of the potential buyers. So if you want to make money as an artist, learn some psychology and marketing. You can create &  market a demand, or if you want the big money, you had better accomplish some serious transcendence and don't be shy about people hearing your story. It's your story they pay for. A billionaire thinks they can buy someone's story and now it's their story.

This Jackson Pollock painting sold for around $150,000,000. He accomplished the perfect recipe:

Known to be a recluse.

Struggled with alcoholism / addiction

He was an asshole to people and was kicked out of multiple schools

He transcended the art produced before his life

So definitely don't do what anyone else has done (lot's PD time likely here)  and it doesn't hurt one bit to tell some newspaper art critics that you'll give them a percentage what you make those big bucks.

Good luck! Post some of your work here? Please

 

[Leo Gura]

Of course your work has to be exceptional. But even exceptional work can not be enough. And exceptional work still has to fit some kind of market need.

Music is easy to market because it's free, short, low cost to produce, and everyone loves music. It's a massive pop-culture market. Even niche music is still massively popular because it demands so little of the listener. It's like comedy in that regard. Everyone loves good comedy. Because it's naturally easy to like. Not so with many other types of art. Good luck making a living off a sculpture the same way you might with a good song. To accomplish that will take some real innovative strategy.

But yes, mastering your craft and finding your unique voice is critical for any artist. The trick is that it's hard to master something unless one experiences some degree of early success to make it a sustainable practice. You can't afford to spend 10 years mastering your craft without selling anything. So you need to design a bootstrap process, which will allow you to develop mastery plus publish some value to the marketplace.

[Buggz]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Those people are fools. Don't worry, life will slap them for their foolishness

Couldn't have said it better lol

[Guest Annetta]

Man, that's what I want to do is to be good enough at my craft to make art that really conveys some sort of powerful message.

Have some good concepts saved for when I get back on track.

Oh, the value of art depends on how well the message is portrayed, the proficiency of technique used and if it is able to convey that message in a fashion that can be understood by many, to move them deeply and is applicable to the current times, it then becomes timeless because the message catalogues a piece of our human history.

[Loreena]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Those people are fools. Don't worry, life will slap them for their foolishness

Classic spiritual mistake: finding spirituality and thinking that it obviates practical thinking.

You must be both spiritual and practical, idealistic and realistic. As always, people suck at balance, so they take sides and bicker.

@Leo Gura  Thank you Leo. Your posts always clear up a lot of things in my head and help me understand things  better. 

[Loreena]

14 hours ago, Nahm said:

Pragmatism is mental accuracy. It does not help to think of it as ruthless. It's the opposite. It will align you with your desires using the energy within.  on. 

Ok surmon over. Sorry for preachiness. I feel like you are such a sweet person and you're right on the edge of a breakthrough, that's where I'm coming from.

 

You're sweeter than me. Thank you

[Emerald]

On 3/13/2017 at 10:15 AM, ShadowWalker said:

In most spheres it is fairly straightforward to determine the value something has, based on the interplay of supply and demand. Scarcity tends to increase prices. Solving problems, saving time or facilitating tasks is rewarded. Fair Enough.

Then you try to apply these principles to an artistic service or a work of art and you quickly realize that it feels like an infinite number of paradigms are intertwined in paradoxical ways leaving little room for clear conclusions and predictable outcomes. The subjectivity of art goes beyond artistic value - it seems it's financial worth is in the eye of the beholder, as well.

You can go off researching psychological and cultural norms and tendencies for ages and still not have the faintest clue how to price a work of art. History is full of examples of genius artists who died in poverty, as well as post-modernists who like alchemists sold random collections of objects or splatters of paint for millions. In Hindsight we can try to analyze the factors and principles involved and we can make the pieces fit into a suitable paradigm but in the end it often feels incredibly arbitrary, doesn't it?

Could it really be an example of "ask and you shall receive"? Could it be that aside from all the various circumstances, the main point of divergence between the struggling artists and those well-off is the daring to ask and the confidence in self-worth to receive? I'm not talking about craft here, as I feel this side fits more easily into traditional financial principles, be it in the realms of painting, photography, music, etc. What's your take on the topic? Have you been financially successful as an artist? Have you spent significant amounts of money for art, and why?
---
Thanks for reading my first topic. I'm quite new here and I'm excited to get to know the community that Leo has so kindly made possible with the addition of the forum.
 

As someone who has a bachelor of fine arts degree, a bachelor degree in art education, and an art history minor, I've studied and thought a lot on what conveys meaning and value to art objects versus non-art objects... or what separates "good" art from "bad" art. And I've come upon the conclusion that the emperor truly has no clothes.

I've seen people go up to things like a short piece of rope in a museum, that it's quite clear that the artist didn't work tremendously on or have any talent to do so, and spend minutes there investigating it. Entire papers and books could be written about the piece of rope on display as art. I've seen those same people scoff at "lower" forms of art, such as anime or art from popular culture or highly skilled but mainstream friendly artists. It lead me to question, "Does art have a correlation with talent?" and "Does art have a correlation with uniqueness or novelty?" and "Does calling something art mean that it's a good thing... or is art more of a neutral label?"

The fact of the matter is that a thing becomes high art, as soon as a reputable museum owner deems it as such or if some other important figure within the art world deems it as such. And it is seen as a lower and more trite form of art, if it's too mainstream or seen as trite or too "popcorn". Keep in mind, that I loved this all. I really enjoyed looking at a rope and analyzing it. I'm not kidding. I really loved the open-endedness of it all. One of my art pieces in college consisted of me cutting off all my hair in front of the art class and another was just me stealing a political sign, that someone spray painted a picture of Pac Man on, that I then claimed as found art.

So, needless to say, I felt no threat that a piece of rope stuck put on display, and my art was non-art. Once I came to grips with the meaninglessness of the art label, art became much more magical, because I realized that meaning and patterns could be found in every micro-decision the artist made. And that the possibilities for even bad art to be a tool for self-exploration. So, to read a piece of art, was to read the human behind it. Before, I could care less about looking at art. I only liked to create it and I always wanted it to be excellent. But this introduced the human element and all art became juicy then.

But it made me realize, more than anything else, that "art" as a contemporary concept was just an arbitrary assignment of value based upon the whims of the upper elites of the art-world and the institution of the museum/market place. And even though my professors were some of the most open-minded individuals that I had ever met, there still had to be enough dogma to the institution to keep it funded and keep it afloat.

So, there was also a deeper realization of why there was so much hullaballoo around defining art and assigning value to it in the first place. Since the invention of photography, visual art has been having a big existential crisis. It rarely ever serves a function. So, how can something that has no function still have meaning? And if it isn't meaningful, why create it in the first place?

In modern society, few adult human beings allow themselves to do things that don't make rational sense or don't have a meaning or function. We learn, as late elementary school aged children, that things that are rationally pointless and serve no practical function should not be pursued. Since creating is simply a human instinct (probably biologically related to the need for communication and concrete conceptualization and the desire for play), we need to create some functional meaning around it in order for adult human beings to do it without being seen as childish or crazy and for art institutions to stay afloat as being relevant. Since, we have other "more efficient" ways to communicate such as photography, and we have all of our utilitarian needs met in modern society relative to visual objects, we need to cobble together some other meaning to still make it okay and valid for us to continue making things that now have no functional value. So, an entire institution with colleges, museums, collectors, and artists are all riding on their ability to make people see the emperor's non-existent clothes. There is no difference between an art object and a non-art object, except for in the minds of people.