Art and Money Relations

Since time immemorial, art has been the primary means of aesthetic expression and the indicator of the cultural development of society. While the cultural value of many artworks exceeds material dimensions, it is hard to imagine how the masterpieces would be preserved without being involved in commodity-money relations.

Fine arts have not only for centuries belonged to the cultural realm but also served as a professional activity that brought revenues to the artists. Considering the era of Renaissance, for instance, one may notice that painting of altarpieces upon request of the patrons was a common practice for the masters of that time. Raphael Santi painted an enormous amount of altarpieces starting from less than 20 ducats up to 1000 ducats salary per work (A guide& par. 60).

One can make money on art, not just being a painter. During the last century, art dealing has become an extremely competitive business. René Gimpel, a prominent art dealer of the XX century, notes that it is not just earning money on selling artworks for the highest price, but also the way to promote and preserve the art. However, very often, the art collectors may be too vainglorious and would display all their pictures like rich children showing off their toys (qt. in Brewer 24).

The issue of the price of the works of art nowadays is rather contradictory. The recent Christies Contemporary Art Auction, where 495$ million were collected (Vogel par. 1), shows that influential people are ready to spend immense fortunes on the masterpieces that could hardly ever be compared to those of Raphael. This market will be developing, and the price possibly will be defined primarily by modern trends and the shrinking amount of masterpieces from the glorious past.

Overall, it can be stated that the relation between the artworks price and artistic value may be quite vague, especially concerning the newly created works. Since it is impossible to put all the artworks in the museums, the patrons of modern art might at least act more reasonable and spend money on some more socially important things.

The art as an infinite realm of the subtlest impulses of a human soul is often impossible to evaluate. While the work of art may be truly unique and of high cultural value, it may be not accepted by the public and considered good without meeting some selection criteria established in society.

Considering such criteria, Grayson Perry, in his article, names financial value, popularity, art-historical significance and aesthetic sophistication (par. 2) among the key ones. When it comes up to evaluating an artwork by those indicators, it may be hard to arrive at a conclusion whether art is good due to the very subjective nature of the question itself.

For those reasons, there exists a range of people who, by their position, have almost the monopoly right to put good or bad labels on the artwork. They are peer artists, teachers, dealers, collectors, critics, curators, the media, even the public (Perry par. 14), who validate a particular work of art. It is necessary for artwork not even to be considered beautiful; it is crucial to be named serious (Perry par. 21).

Linda Nochlin explores another often undermined but still blatant criteria as the artists gender. The history of world art had seen a minor amount of good women artists. Drawing parallels with John Stuart Mills idea of male dominance as primary social injustice, Nochlin states that women remained unrecognized in the world of art, not because of the lack of genius but because of the nature of given social institutions and what they forbid or encourage in various classes or groups of individuals (par. 29).

Thus, it can be seen that decisions about whether an artwork is good or bad are too often biased and subjective. To be recognized, art needs to get the approval of the experts who, in their turn, influence the acceptance of the artwork by the public.