I agree with you, Jen, but I can also understand where he's coming from, because investment bankers have driven up art prices in a similar way as with real estate, etc., and it's understandable if people have the same reaction to that (i.e. buying paintings and flipping them) as they would to other financial extravagances only available to the hyper-rich. To me it doesn't take away from the works themselves, and in some ways it motivates me more to search out art work I connect with...but it's hard to deny that the market really has gotten kind of gross.

look, let people pay whatever they want.
That's their choice and they are big boys and big girls.

But when government buys art, why do we have $50,000 pieces that look like crap when you can go out and buy "the Night Cafe" for $50 and frame it very nicely to match a particular government waiting room for $200 ?

Yes, that would be a reproduction.

I've probably spent about $250,000 on buying art in my lifetime.

I stand by my valuation.

The art you showed is worth - to me - about $40 to $50.

I didn't say that people who think of art as an investment, or enjoy the madness of crowds, don't value it higher.

Art is worth what it is worth - to you.

Now, that doesn't mean one should not buy art - just that one needs to realize that the corporatization of art is antithetical to the very nature of art, and that valuation is a personal thing.

But Jen, IS most art ending up in museums, or in private hands? Museums can leverage the financial contributions of many into buying works that none could afford individually, that's true, but art prices are bonkers, not because of museums, but because of rich guys.

Ultimately, of course, art is expensive because it's one-offs. If I want to see a particular painting, I had better be able to get to the one museum in the world that has it. And, like a lot of "collectibles", all the way down to the lowly baseball card, it's the obscure and not particularly valuable that's hardest of all to find. Everybody knows where the Mona Lisa is.

And no, digital reproductions, no matter how excellent, will never fully level that playing field. Paintings are three-dimensional objects, not two. No one who's seen a Jackson Pollock (boring in print, breathtaking in the flesh) can doubt that.

It's a throwaway line from a total moron. Why analyze it?

Absolutely true, Fnarf. A reproduction of one of Yves Klein's Blue Monochromes leaves some people thinking art is a joke. See the real thing (at MOMA, not the Tate Modern, where it's behind plexiglass) and you will experience transcendence.

Thanks, Doug.

I agree with Jen's very valid point that you can see some great art at the Seattle Art Museum for only $15 - but should point out that First Thursdays are still free to the public, and that if you buy a membership you can go for a lot less than that (and the total membership is tax deductible).

Art valuation does not exactly = what you pay for it. First of all, there is some price manipulation. It's no secret that come galleries, museums, dealers work together and/or play off of each other to maximize valuation of certain art. Some dealers also grossly distort prices, Leo Castilli was famous for manipulating prices at auction and through (IMO) illegal contractual obligations to buyers, he was sued many times by artists and buyers. Sotheby's own chairmen A. Alfred Taubman was jailed for consipiracy to fix prices.

The art market is in many cases manipulated and therefore does not necessarily correspond to the price paid.

Another price distortion usually occurs with emerging or unknown artists. This is usually simply because it is extremely difficult to predict the future work and impact of the artist. There are many $10,000 paintings from the 1950's now selling for $500. Some artists are one idea wonders or fade away, or die before making a significant impact.

Another distortion occurs at the mid level of the markets, with established well known artists. Often when works come up for auction or sale, the seller either doesn't understand the market value, or just wants to sell the work. Many galleries and collectors search auctions and estate sales to find these works at pennies on the dollar and resell them. I've seen 10-15 works over the years on ebay turn up in major seattle galleries often for 4 times the price they paid just 2 weeks earlier.

That being said, taking into consideration all of these factors and the less tangible factors always associated with art, you can get a general sense of valuation and determine when something is overinflated, or underinflated. Generally speaking there is a realative known value for artists who have managed to hit the secondary markets, or for consistant emerging artists. If you do your research you can get a good idea of it's monetary worth at any given time, or at least enough of an idea not to over pay, or fall prey to price manipulation.