On October 5, 2018, London Sotheby sold at auction a copy of «Girl with Balloon», a painting by Banksy, at a record price 1 042 000 GBP. As soon as the deal was done, the painting slid down, and half of it was sliced through by a shredder hidden in the frame. the sliced copy was consequently renamed «Love is in the Bin». A few days later, one art collector who owned a copy of «Girl with Balloon» reportedly sliced it himself in imitation of Banksy. Instead, it was estimated that the slices were only worth the price of waste papers. Three years later, on October 14, 2021, «Love is in the Bin» was sold at another auction for 18 582 000 GBP.
Apart from the question why «Girl with Balloon» is so expensive, why is the «Love is in the Bin» worth even more? If tearing the painting is a certain performance art, which I sort of understand, why can only Banksy himself do it to increase its price? Is price equal to artistic value? If not, what does price signify?
As for music compositions, the assessed price of a manuscript is unlikely related to its perceived artistic value. Suppose that two people are disputing whether Chopin’s «Ballade No 1» is a great work. They debate on the balance of the form, the naturalness of the melody, the design of harmony, and the practicality of technique. But it would appear totally absurd to argue its value basing on the price at which Chopin’s corresponding manuscript is recently sold.
What about paintings? To write this note, I took a look at some of the most expensive paintings on Wikipedia. For example, I find it hard to justify that «Salvator Mundi» by Leonardo da Vinci (450 300 000 USD) is several times more expensive than «Irises» by Vincent van Gogh (53 900 000 USD). What does it mean to say the price of «Salvator Mundi» is (considering inflation) some 4 times that of «Irises»? Nor is there an absolute reason that those paintings by van Gogh in a similar style are all so much cheaper than «Irises».
To sort out the mystery, let us continue the analogy in music. In my view, «Ballade No 1» is a greater work than «Mariage d’amour», but the costs to listen respectively to them doesn’t evidently differ. A ticket price for a popular piano concert and one for a classical piano concert are in the same order of magnitude. On Spotify you can listen to both, and listening on YouTube is virtually free. Obviously, when «Ballade No 1» is played at a concert, the ticket price isn’t some million dollars. The price of music, more or less, reflects the cost of physical transmission, rather than its artistic value, which people are free to judge.
Where does the confusion lie? There is a crucial difference between the cases of painting and music, namely that a painting is confined at a point of space and time; on the contrary, music, drama, poetry, and other forms of art aren’t. There is only one true physical realization which is «Irises», but there can be potentially infinitely many recordings of «Ballade no 1», or performances of «Antigone», or printed copies of «War and Peace». If economic principles are valid here, then the more supply there is, the less the equilibrium price. Thus a painting is hardly regulated by the supply curve, but other art forms are.
To complicate the matter, the pricing of physical works of visual art, I guess, is due much to the monopoly of industry. Paintings become Giffen goods, which more people demand even when their prices rise. They are a means for rich people to show off, to invest in, or even to do the money laundry. Critics, dealers, and collectors collaborate to hype the price, thus ensuring the value of their possessions.
To break down the vile system, our hope lies in Google Arts and other digital exhibitions, which overthrow the above premise that a painting has only one realization. Do yourself a favor, and see a van Gogh painting online, which is even clearer as you would see in a museum!
Furthermore, it is worthwhile to advocate digital art for the next generation of artists. A work of digital art can be copied and should be accessible to everybody. Though physical art has its merits, digital art surely has a lot more dimensions to explore.
Hopefully more people will value works of art, not by the price at which it is sold, but, well, by its artistic value—no matter what they think that is.
❧ October 28, 2021