Not to sound too cynical, but I am wondering how over-pricing can be a problem when the price for a piece of art is however much someone is willing to pay for it?
Art has no direct utility value. But there is a definite - if approximate - consensus value based on the reputation and history of an artist and the location of a work in their output.
This is often multiplied by speculative hope/greed, which can be manipulated in ways that have nothing to do with any consensus about artistic value or historical interest.
Galleries and collectors are not unfamiliar with the art world's equivalent of pump 'n dump. More direct methods may also be used:
Further, if there is any measurable value to much art other than how much someone pays for it? Which is seemingly driven by hype, not any intrinsic worth such as beauty/utility.
For example, anyone going through Gloucester Road tube station in London might wonder if the platform 'art' there does anything noteworthy but hide the brickwork behind.
>> Further, if there is any measurable value to much art other than how much someone pays for it?
Well, materials cost money, and then there's the time spent producing the work of art. Assuming each artist has her own hourly wage (think minimum wage for a no-name artist), there's your perfectly measurable value of any artwork.
>> the platform 'art' there does anything noteworthy but hide the brickwork behind.
Too true. I guess the value of the platform "art" might be equivalent to the financial cost of actually fixing the hole, which in this case, could be millions if you factor hiring the hole fixers and the lost of revenue due to closing of the tube station.
So the value of art by Jeffrey Koons could be the gainful employment of the people that physically produce it, though their number appears to be dwindling.
