What it's worth
NPR's Marketplace had an interesting story on how art is priced for the retail market. It is a pretty good overview for anyone that wonders why "that is worth $20,000." While the Marketplace host acts surprised that gallery pricing can be somewhat arbitrary (unlike manufactured goods and services cost of materials and production is not necessarily taken into account in pricing art in a gallery), he should not be surprised that it is market-driven. And that market being what the buyer (collector, foundation, museum, etc) is willing to pay for it. (DUH) The discussion does delve into the conceit of the collector and how that affects price as well; please note that is for the real collectors, not simple folks like me :-)
The Dutch journalist noted that "size matters" sometimes in pricing as well. Larger pieces are priced higher than smaller pieces. What he didn't note is the diminishing returns on such a rule. Extremely large pieces are sometimes priced lower than smaller pieces by a particular artist just because very large works just don't sell as well as more accessibly-sized pieces (read that as what you think will fit in your space). Also, I have seen some artists be tempted and even give into that temptation to price very large multi-piece works ridiculously low just to keep it together. Like Triptychs. Or something like this, and even what you is a very small portion of the 8' X 16' multi-panel painting.
One thing in the interview that I found surprising is that the EU is or already had changed some sort of law that requires an artist to receive some small portion of the re-sell value of any art they have ever produced. For instance, after the initial sale of a shown or brokered work from a gallery, the artist sees no more financial gain regardless of the increasing value of their art. A painting sold in their struggling days for a few hundred dollars that is resold when they are established and in their 40s for several thousand dollars does nothing for the artist than reconfirm their market worth. So you could say they receive some benefit from the resale in that they can be assured that their current works won't be sold for a few hundred dollars. But still, as the artist's perceived value increases in the art market, it would be nice that that artist be able to share in some of the financial windfall that is now only enjoyed by the re-sellers. Like a residual, like what actors receive everytime their work is broadcast. Seems to me this is something that could be written into Trademark law or something, because unlike the residuals actors receive, the revenue stream isn't controlled and tracked by a single distributor. Like the EU, it wouldn't have to be much, but it would be nice to have something.
The Dutch journalist noted that "size matters" sometimes in pricing as well. Larger pieces are priced higher than smaller pieces. What he didn't note is the diminishing returns on such a rule. Extremely large pieces are sometimes priced lower than smaller pieces by a particular artist just because very large works just don't sell as well as more accessibly-sized pieces (read that as what you think will fit in your space). Also, I have seen some artists be tempted and even give into that temptation to price very large multi-piece works ridiculously low just to keep it together. Like Triptychs. Or something like this, and even what you is a very small portion of the 8' X 16' multi-panel painting.
One thing in the interview that I found surprising is that the EU is or already had changed some sort of law that requires an artist to receive some small portion of the re-sell value of any art they have ever produced. For instance, after the initial sale of a shown or brokered work from a gallery, the artist sees no more financial gain regardless of the increasing value of their art. A painting sold in their struggling days for a few hundred dollars that is resold when they are established and in their 40s for several thousand dollars does nothing for the artist than reconfirm their market worth. So you could say they receive some benefit from the resale in that they can be assured that their current works won't be sold for a few hundred dollars. But still, as the artist's perceived value increases in the art market, it would be nice that that artist be able to share in some of the financial windfall that is now only enjoyed by the re-sellers. Like a residual, like what actors receive everytime their work is broadcast. Seems to me this is something that could be written into Trademark law or something, because unlike the residuals actors receive, the revenue stream isn't controlled and tracked by a single distributor. Like the EU, it wouldn't have to be much, but it would be nice to have something.
Comments