Comments on: Commoditization, or something like it http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/2010/02/09/commoditization-or-something-like-it.html Economic Sociology from the Ground Up Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:24:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael E. Marotta http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/2010/02/09/commoditization-or-something-like-it.html#comment-387 Michael E. Marotta Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:58:45 +0000 http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/?p=1199#comment-387 The Antwerpen "Sound of Music" video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EYAUazLI9k The Grand Central Station "Freeze" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMj3PJDxuo These are perfect examples of investment of resources by those consuming the product or service. The model is the co-operative. When you watch these, consider the intensive EDITING that went into the production of the video, apart from the performance itself. That, too, is part of the cost of the service or product. When you apply for a grant, the granting agency is the first consumer. If you round up volunteers, then they are the investors. To argue that art has no price is to claim that when you do not pay your light bill, the electricity is "free" in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Everything has a cost. Everything has a price. If you cannot track all of the costs -- or choose not to -- that does not make them go away. The Antwerpen “Sound of Music” video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EYAUazLI9k

The Grand Central Station “Freeze”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMj3PJDxuo

These are perfect examples of investment of resources by those consuming the product or service. The model is the co-operative.

When you watch these, consider the intensive EDITING that went into the production of the video, apart from the performance itself. That, too, is part of the cost of the service or product.

When you apply for a grant, the granting agency is the first consumer.

If you round up volunteers, then they are the investors.

To argue that art has no price is to claim that when you do not pay your light bill, the electricity is “free” in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Everything has a cost. Everything has a price. If you cannot track all of the costs — or choose not to — that does not make them go away.

]]> By: Ana http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/2010/02/09/commoditization-or-something-like-it.html#comment-386 Ana Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:13:50 +0000 http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/?p=1199#comment-386 I left a reply about this topic in another post. I see some problems with pursuing these topics. If we did speak with avant-garde gallerists, do we think they would have enough information on the topic of selling performance art and street art? Has it even really been done? When I think of buying and selling art, I think of owning art. And unless the street art is graffiti on the side of your house, there isn't a way to really own these things. Therefore, I wouldn't consider paying money to watch a performance artist as buying the artwork. Things can get complicated, however, when these performances are videotaped. Currently, at PS1 there is an exhibition entitled 100 years that offers a century worth of performance art chronologically and in different media, mainly in print and on video. Dadaist poem manuscripts start off the exhibition, while videotapings of more recent performances bring the show to its end. It would be interesting to know how many copies there are of the videos and whether there is some sort of exclusive ownership deal. Anyway, my point is these things are fuzzy. Once we get started on the serious interviewing and data-gathering, these sorts of issues that seem interesting now might get overwhelming. I left a reply about this topic in another post. I see some problems with pursuing these topics. If we did speak with avant-garde gallerists, do we think they would have enough information on the topic of selling performance art and street art? Has it even really been done?

When I think of buying and selling art, I think of owning art. And unless the street art is graffiti on the side of your house, there isn’t a way to really own these things. Therefore, I wouldn’t consider paying money to watch a performance artist as buying the artwork. Things can get complicated, however, when these performances are videotaped.

Currently, at PS1 there is an exhibition entitled 100 years that offers a century worth of performance art chronologically and in different media, mainly in print and on video. Dadaist poem manuscripts start off the exhibition, while videotapings of more recent performances bring the show to its end. It would be interesting to know how many copies there are of the videos and whether there is some sort of exclusive ownership deal.

Anyway, my point is these things are fuzzy. Once we get started on the serious interviewing and data-gathering, these sorts of issues that seem interesting now might get overwhelming.

]]> By: Cleo http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/2010/02/09/commoditization-or-something-like-it.html#comment-385 Cleo Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:49:26 +0000 http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/?p=1199#comment-385 Oh...yes, agreed. I think art lawyers should make the list of people to talk to. Oh…yes, agreed. I think art lawyers should make the list of people to talk to.

]]> By: Jenn Lena http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/2010/02/09/commoditization-or-something-like-it.html#comment-384 Jenn Lena Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:28:13 +0000 http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/?p=1199#comment-384 I like Andrew's point a lot. I hope the team will address it in a future communique. I like Andrew’s point a lot. I hope the team will address it in a future communique.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/2010/02/09/commoditization-or-something-like-it.html#comment-383 Andrew Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:50:20 +0000 http://www.rethinkingmarkets.org/?p=1199#comment-383 'Can't be monetized' is an interesting concept because it admits of different dimensions. Off the top, and indulging in loose thinking here, resistance to monetization can be: (1) the object itself is ephemeral and lacks material stability or continuity; (2) the object is subject to other institutional forces, such as legal prohibitions, that prevents it from being monetized at a given point of time, or perhaps for perpetuity, (3) the object isn't recognized by the 'system' as *art*, and can't be incorporated into art pricing / market systems; (4) can't be monetized *for you* but can be for museums, or 'connected' people, or auction houses, or dealers. Each limitation seems to give rise to compensatory mechanisms. Agents, for instance, could be seen as having the function of heightening the probability that artistic performances (which are monetizable, but only for a select # of people able to buy tickets and attend) are nevertheless available to unspecified future audiences, thus leading to a 'generalizability' of the 'art' through monetary function. Forgeries, reproductions, and underground art markets are other ways of making unavailable art available. (In fact, I think monetization might be an instance of the problem of how to make the unavailable available, and thus inevitably to whom and for how much and for what purposes). Among the specialists your team might be talking to are art lawyers (perhaps that was in the proposal). I find the stuff on blockage discount rules pretty interesting, since it's a minor example of how pricing is sensitive to expectations of what (and how much) is going to be available in the near/long-term future. Of course that's what prices are, but it seems to have a weird dynamic in art markets - waiting for estates to clean out their closets, to put it tactlessly. ‘Can’t be monetized’ is an interesting concept because it admits of different dimensions. Off the top, and indulging in loose thinking here, resistance to monetization can be: (1) the object itself is ephemeral and lacks material stability or continuity; (2) the object is subject to other institutional forces, such as legal prohibitions, that prevents it from being monetized at a given point of time, or perhaps for perpetuity, (3) the object isn’t recognized by the ‘system’ as *art*, and can’t be incorporated into art pricing / market systems; (4) can’t be monetized *for you* but can be for museums, or ‘connected’ people, or auction houses, or dealers. Each limitation seems to give rise to compensatory mechanisms. Agents, for instance, could be seen as having the function of heightening the probability that artistic performances (which are monetizable, but only for a select # of people able to buy tickets and attend) are nevertheless available to unspecified future audiences, thus leading to a ‘generalizability’ of the ‘art’ through monetary function. Forgeries, reproductions, and underground art markets are other ways of making unavailable art available. (In fact, I think monetization might be an instance of the problem of how to make the unavailable available, and thus inevitably to whom and for how much and for what purposes).

Among the specialists your team might be talking to are art lawyers (perhaps that was in the proposal). I find the stuff on blockage discount rules pretty interesting, since it’s a minor example of how pricing is sensitive to expectations of what (and how much) is going to be available in the near/long-term future. Of course that’s what prices are, but it seems to have a weird dynamic in art markets – waiting for estates to clean out their closets, to put it tactlessly.

]]>