In our current society there is a reoccurring trend of buying art based solely upon its value, not its atheistic beauty. On another day at another time I would argue for humanity and our culture saying that the idea that we “only buy art based on value” is a falsehood, but I currently find myself between a rock and a hard place. While I want to say we value art based on aesthetic beauty, the trend points in the exact opposite direction of that. While I will not deny that using art as a form of investment can be beneficial to all parties involved in the deal, art should not be only recognized by who signs their name at the bottom. Personally I believe that art needs to be valued upon aesthetic value, but I do see the benefits of using art as a tool of investment. The only issue with putting investments into art is that art is such a subjective market; at any time the piece you invested in could become valueless. With that being said people have many different reasons to buy art. For some it’s because they truly do love the piece and want to own it because they appreciate the time and effort spent. However, hypothetically speaking there are people who are going to buy the last known Picasso because it is the last known Picasso and that painting would be most likely the most expensive painting ever.
During my research for the auction I was given approximately six paintings to do research on. Out of the six the majority of them are currently being held in museums making finding the price of the paintings near impossible. However, through research I can approximate the average cost of a piece of art by a certain artist. For the most expensive painting ever sold painted by Johannes Vermeer the cost was 42 million dollars with premium. A less expensive painter whose most expensive work was 17 million was Henri Matisse. To many people it seems absurd that Matisse’s paintings do not sell for more than they do, but I am not inclined to agree due to the fact that I do not find Matisse’s paintings to be as nice as some landscapes that I have seen from various other artists. For these two paintings that I was comparing the Vermeer was the more pleasing of the two. It just happens to be the more expensive of the two as well. There is a major difference between these two, but they are also similar. While they are both portraits of women, the Matisse is painted with vivid color schemes that do not resemble human tones. The Vermeer is very natural and is plainly a portrait and is not trying to be anything else. Being a fan of realism the Vermeer is the one that most fits that mold. While I believe surrealist paintings are beautiful in their own way, I do personally do not find them as appealing as the realist pieces. With that being said art is truly subjective and the reasons for liking a certain piece are endless, making the analysis of why people buy paintings a hard subject.
The Econ Diaries 