thinking, thinking, thinking
A work of art seems to be a hardier breed; it can be sold in the market and still emerge a work of art. but if it is true that in the essential commerce of art a gift is carried by the work from the artist to his audience, if I am right to say that where there is no gift there is no art, then it may be possible to destroy a work of art by converting it into a pure commodity. Such, at any rate, is my position. I do not maintain that art cannot be bought and sold; I do maintain that the gift portion of the work places a constraint upon our merchandising.
- Lewis Hyde, The Gift, pg. xviii
Art is a pure market. Unlike foods or fuels or textiles and other materials, no one needs art. (Actually, everyone does, but that’s a different discussion.) The other night, one my leftwing peers and I discussed DeBeers. Despite a near-complete monopoloy, they cannot charge “whatever they want” because diamonds compete against all other luxury goods and services, including the luxury of not consuming. So, too, with fine art.
Some buyers speculate on what the next buyer will pay. Ultimately, someone has to want it in their living room (not their warehouse). That desire is a response to the gift offered by the artist in the material form of the work.
I see the same thing in numismatics. Tough times bring better marketing. So, we need more citations to pedigree and provenance. And some collectors always buy with the intent to sell. But ultimately the buyer has to like what they see. The coin or banknote must deliver eye appeal both in the quality of the product but, more deeply, in the message of the object. People who buy 19th century US coins relate well to the ethos of the times. So, too, are collectors of ancients themselves classicists, who view the coin as a gift from their time to ours, from that celator to this eye of the beholder.
Well, I’m not certain what a ‘pure’ market is, or in what sense are is that. Do you mean that art has only exchange value, no use value? Because I might say that no one needs quite a few things, and that we quickly move out of the realm of necessity in virtually any market.
For DeBeers, it helps that diamonds are already enormously expensive, and they’re not particularly scarce either.
(and I’m not sure what to say about your ‘leftwing peer’ – seems a peculiar locution)
The interesting point in both of these cases, I think, is that there is a tendency to compare markets-in-the-world to markets-in-theory, with the latter being something out of a Milton Friedman textbook (and I’m reading Price Theory right this hot minute, actually). Maybe markets (or at minimum commodities) are more complicated than the theory suggests.
Art, like many cultural goods including numismatics, derives its value from some combination of aesthetics, status, culture, as well as scarcity, willingness to pay, speculation on future prices, price changes in this object relative to other uses of money, etc.
Hyde’s point is that if you make art to be a commodity – as opposed to a ‘gift’ – it will look, smell, and act like a commodity. In his opinion, it will cease to be compelling art. So far it seems to be mostly true, but decidedly not true for someone like Murakami, who is specifically making the case that art/commodity can and should stand on top of one another. That he can do this seems evidence of something, but I am not certain of what.
PL: “Well, I’m not certain what a ‘pure’ market is … Because I might say that no one needs quite a few things, and that … ”
I agree that beyond grazing on all fours, humans require much that is not “necessary.” “Exchange value” and “use value” are not easily separable, so I look to the key word “gift” as a reflection of “for itself” which is the value in art. No one (yet) takes you their hump yard to view their collection of anthracite in gandolas. I do have coal in my rock collection, however, so, rules may be bounded by their exceptions.
I did not know of Takashi Murakami, so thanks for the pointer. Pablo Picasso also signed workshop products by his students. In Cleveland, we have a baseball legend named Bob Feller who still autographs baseballs. Used to be $5, last I heard it was $20. A friend of mine from back home said she was going to France and Spain and I asked if she was going to bring home a Picasso. She clucked, “Sheesh, Picassos are as common as Bob Feller autographs.”
That said, I do not think that art is ruined by commodification. I do not think that labor is degraded by commodification.
In fact, it is questionable whether the mere buying and selling commodifies a good or service. Commodities have a general nature that set them apart. Coal, iron, wheat, gold … in those forms they are commodities. However, for over 20 years, attempts by some of the smartest marketers in the world to purposely “commodify” rare coins has consistently failed: no two are alike.