Art as Commodities Trading in art is similar in some ways to dealing in other commodities; one is subject to the market pressures of supply and demand. Although art prices often vary more then commodities according to arbitrary, factors such as aesthetics, authenticity, condition, rarity and provenance.[1] Yet even with such variances in value the popularity of art as a commodity remains. In all realms whether it is the artists, the dealers, the auction house or the collector’s the art market is clearly flourishing. From 1987 through 1991, Japanese buyers alone spent more than $8.7 billion on art, and these are only the official trade figures.[2] Nevertheless even with such vast amounts being spent on art there remains an uneasy relationship between art and money. The controversy laying in the question of what makes one piece more valuable than another and who decides such a value.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               This insistent need to reconcile both art and money is made apparent by Paul Alexander in his article Murky Image: The Question of Warhol’s Photographs. The author describes a battle between two parties each placing their own value on artistic pieces of works. The works in question include over 60,000 photographs produced by Andy Warhol, considered by many to be one of the most influential artists of the twentieth century. The two parties involved in this legal dispute include the Andy Warhol Foundation and Edward W. Hayes the former attorney for both the foundation and the estate of Andy Warhol. Hayes is entitled to 2% of the Warhol estate according to a legal contract between Hayes and Warhol’s business manager and executor. The two opposing sides agree on the value of non-art assets but differ on the value of Andy’s art in specific Andy’s vast collection of photographs. The foundation assessed the works at a price of $4 million based on a Christie’s appraisal, the defendant using an independent dealer placed the value at over $80 million. Christies applied a substantial blockage discount but even that discount doesn’t explain the discrepancy of $76 million. The question of what makes one piece of art worth more then others has now fallen into the hands of Eve Preminger, the Surrogate of the County of New York.                                        While Andy Warhol was alive he produced paintings, sculptures, prints and photographs. Warhol had pursued photography enthusiastically before his death even going so far as publishing three photography books. The one photography show Andy did have while he was alive was an enormous success with many celebrities in attendance. The show resulted in Warhol selling 98 photographs which carried price tags of $5000 to $8500. Cognisant of this fact, the Warhol Foundation still supported its low price tag on Andy’s photographs citing that Andy was not widely known to be a fine arts photographer causing little market demand for his photographs. The foundation consciously forgot to take into account that even Andy’s photographs warrant artist merit and a hefty price tag due to the fact they were taken by Andy Warhol a man who himself had a sense of celebrity. The author of this article implicitly paints the Warhol Foundation as being an irresponsible and shady organization by stating that “the foundation who placed so little value on Warhol’s photographs themselves sold 55 Polaroid at $4,500 apiece to an outside party”.[3] This one fact alone tarnishes the credibility of Warhol’s own organization. In the end the Judge agreed with Edward W. Hayes and the arguments he put forward. The Warhol Foundations underestimations of the photographs were not warranted as Warhol’s continued to be popular even after his death. The Foundation low estimate was merely a means to avoid paying the potentially enormous fees owed to Hayes. The judge endorsed the price of $80 million applying a 20 percent blockage fee arriving at a final value of $64 million. The author of this article could have closed his article with the defeat of the Warhol Foundation yet Paul Alexander chooses to play devils advocate by making the reader ponder the justness of the ruling. The author brings into the question whether a judge has the credentials to act as an art appraiser. Although the value a piece holds is governed by market pressures it is also governed by the value placed upon it by the individual. One person’s masterpiece may have a value of nothing to another depending on their
Join now!
perception of the piece. In the end the reader is left feeling that although justice may have been served the reconciliation between art and money often lies in the hands of those not in the best of positions to make such judgements.        Nevertheless, there are certain artists that capture the public’s imagination regardless of what they produce. These artists are the ones who have the ability to effectively reconcile art and money. One such great master is the late Pablo Picasso. There remains a constant public demand for Picasso related products. Picasso continues to be the most coveted by collectors, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay