THE Royal Academy of Art in the United Kingdom recently published a debate titled “Are high prices good for art?” by Georgina Adam, art market observer for the Financial Times; and J.J. Charlesworth, art critic and associate editor of ArtReview magazine. Adam says that money has allowed artists and art lovers new opportunities, while Charlesworth argues that high prices have turned artworks into mere investments. What do you think?
Yes, high prices are good for art
“EVERY six months, it seems, the prices for art take a huge lurch upward,” Adam says in the debate, noting that “such stratospheric prices are, in fact, only achieved at the top of the market, for very few artists, and on the secondary, or resale, market. Even rarer are artists who can even dream of such sums on the primary [first-sale] market.”
The primary market is created when buyers acquire new works either directly from the artist or through agents such as art dealers and galleries. The secondary market is located in the resale of pre-owned pieces often through art dealers, galleries and auction houses.
Nevertheless, Adams argues that the current boom is “overall good for art and for the art world. The sheer amount of money that is flowing into the market today—an estimated £47.42 billion in 2013—has given artists, and art, far more opportunities, a far higher profile, and a far more positive status in society than ever.”
According to Adams, this has enabled the artist to change public perception of his formerly marginalized career. Whence in the past, an artistic career would be considered a “no-no”, today’s highly visual, image-driven society has demanded creativity and imagination in multiple domains. “High prices have enabled many artists to follow their dreams and go places they couldn’t have dreamed of.”
And she sums thusly: “It’s not just artists and the general public who are benefiting—there are far more jobs available in the art world than ever before. Curators, art advisors, gallery staff, auction house specialists, artists’ managers…all have the high prices of art to thank for being able to do what they love. Now, is the art ‘good’ as a result of all this? This is another matter entirely, which future generations will have to judge.”
But no, says Charlesworth
“IT’S probably the case that high prices for art are very good for artists (and their dealers), and it’s always nice to see artists who are happy because they can now afford to buy themselves a new Porsche, or that second house in the south of France. But joking aside, what is good for artists is not necessarily good for art,” Charlesworth retorts.
He says that art is exciting, interesting and inspiring, or should aspire to be. “One does not need to own art to have an opinion about it, so its price is an irrelevance, since the cultural value of an artwork for a whole community is more important than the price a particular individual may want to pay for it. Contemporary art’s value to our culture isn’t reducible to what a tiny minority of wealthy people want to pay.”
For Charlesworth, the trouble today is that the cultural and social value of art is too often synonymous with the price paid for artworks. “In this, it is the tastes and predilections of very rich collectors that have come to count, above all else.”
“This would be alright if those collectors had good taste—great art of the past was often made possible by enlightened patronage. But collectors of contemporary art mostly don’t have good taste,” he continues. “What we see today is that a kind of art is being made which slavishly reflects the taste of those who buy it, regardless of whatever anyone else thinks. And whatever an artist might think to the contrary, an artist who makes art uniquely to flatter his collector’s taste, in anticipation of the cash that will follow, soon becomes a slave to it.”
This “financialization” means turning the buying and selling of art into nothing more than another asset class, just another investment opportunity. Its artistic value is, therefore, of secondary significance. This dynamic has the effect of eating that value from the inside.
Though there were other issues discussed in the Royal Academy debate, it also concluded in an open-ended manner: “What do you think?”