What's so valuable about art?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

So ,as a corollary you can be highly technically skilled and also have a worthwhile  expression ** which would make the object more intrinsically valuable than if the opposite were true.

That makes the object more widely admired - if it's presented to the right public at the right time. Not much point in painting the most magnificent nude in the world if a prudish society immediately burns it, along with the painter. It may also give the object a much longer cultural life: the best products tend to be appreciated by generations with different fashions and tastes. If staying-power is intrinsic worth, okay, but it still depends on the audience response.

In modern times, when technical expertise is largely mechanical, and images of great skill and beauty can be mass produced - and there is no intrinsic value to any one of ten thousand identically perfect images. So, now what the public values in art is novelty, which can sometimes be pretty awful, and yet command a high price. So do fashionable names. A forgery that requires an expert with sophisticated equipment to tell apart from the original is worthless, simply because it was done by the famous hand. These valuations are quite arbitrary and changeable.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The "business " of art ,whilst it is in the OP  might be a red herring as to whether an artwork can have genuine worth.

Artistry itself has genuine psychological, social and cultural worth, but individual products are valued - or not - for a great range of reasons. I happen to admire south-western native  crafts to Renaissance painting, but both are a valuable record of human endeavour.  

1 hour ago, geordief said:

So ,as a corollary you can be highly technically skilled and also have a worthwhile  expression ** which would make the object more intrinsically valuable than if the opposite were true.

That makes the object more widely admired - if it's presented to the right public at the right time. Not much point in painting the most magnificent nude in the world if a prudish society immediately burns it, along with the painter. It may also give the object a much longer cultural life: the best products tend to be appreciated by generations with different fashions and tastes. If staying-power is intrinsic worth, okay, but it still depends on the audience response.

In modern times, when technical expertise is largely mechanical, and images of great skill and beauty can be mass produced - and there is no intrinsic value to any one of ten thousand identically perfect images. So, now what the public values in art is novelty, which can sometimes be pretty awful, and yet command a high price. So do fashionable names. A forgery that requires an expert with sophisticated equipment to tell apart from the original is worthless, simply because it was done by the famous hand. These valuations are quite arbitrary and changeable.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The "business " of art ,whilst it is in the OP  might be a red herring as to whether an artwork can have genuine worth.

Artistry itself has genuine psychological, social and cultural worth, but individual products are valued - or not - for a great range of reasons. I happen to admire south-western native  crafts to Renaissance painting, but both are a valuable record of human endeavour.  

1 hour ago, geordief said:

So ,as a corollary you can be highly technically skilled and also have a worthwhile  expression ** which would make the object more intrinsically valuable than if the opposite were true.

That makes the object more widely admired - if it's presented to the right public at the right time. Not much point in painting the most magnificent nude in the world if a prudish society immediately burns it, along with the painter. It may also give the object a much longer cultural life: the best products tend to be appreciated by generations with different fashions and tastes. If staying-power is intrinsic worth, okay, but it still depends on the audience response.

In modern times, when technical expertise is largely mechanical, and images of great skill and beauty can be mass produced - and there is no intrinsic value to any one of ten thousand identically perfect images. So, now what the public values in art is novelty, which can sometimes be pretty awful, and yet command a high price. So do fashionable names. A forgery that requires an expert with sophisticated equipment to tell apart from the original is worthless, simply because it was done by the famous hand. These valuations are quite arbitrary and changeable.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The "business " of art ,whilst it is in the OP  might be a red herring as to whether an artwork can have genuine worth.

Artistry itself has genuine psychological, social and cultural worth, but individual products are valued - or not - for a great range of reasons. I happen to admire south-western native  crafts to Renaissance painting, but both are a valuable record of human endeavour.  

1 hour ago, geordief said:

So ,as a corollary you can be highly technically skilled and also have a worthwhile  expression ** which would make the object more intrinsically valuable than if the opposite were true.

That makes the object more widely admired - if it's presented to the right public at the right time. Not much point in painting the most magnificent nude in the world if a prudish society immediately burns it, along with the painter. It may also give the object a much longer cultural life: the best products tend to be appreciated by generations with different fashions and tastes. If staying-power is intrinsic worth, okay, but it still depends on the audience response.

In modern times, when technical expertise is largely mechanical, and images of great skill and beauty can be mass produced - and there is no intrinsic value to any one of ten thousand identically perfect images. So, now what the public values in art is novelty, which can sometimes be pretty awful, and yet command a high price. So do fashionable names. A forgery that requires an expert with sophisticated equipment to tell apart from the original is worthless, simply because it was done by the famous hand. These valuations are quite arbitrary and changeable.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The "business " of art ,whilst it is in the OP  might be a red herring as to whether an artwork can have genuine worth.

Artistry itself has genuine psychological, social and cultural worth, but individual products are valued - or not - for a great range of reasons. I happen to admire south-western native  crafts to Renaissance painting, but both are a valuable record of human endeavour.  

1 hour ago, geordief said:

So ,as a corollary you can be highly technically skilled and also have a worthwhile  expression ** which would make the object more intrinsically valuable than if the opposite were true.

That makes the object more widely admired - if it's presented to the right public at the right time. Not much point in painting the most magnificent nude in the world if a prudish society immediately burns it, along with the painter. It may also give the object a much longer cultural life: the best products tend to be appreciated by generations with different fashions and tastes. If staying-power is intrinsic worth, okay, but it still depends on the audience response.

In modern times, when technical expertise is largely mechanical, and images of great skill and beauty can be mass produced - and there is no intrinsic value to any one of ten thousand identically perfect images. So, now what the public values in art is novelty, which can sometimes be pretty awful, and yet command a high price. So do fashionable names. A forgery that requires an expert with sophisticated equipment to tell apart from the original is worthless, simply because it was done by the famous hand. These valuations are quite arbitrary and changeable.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The "business " of art ,whilst it is in the OP  might be a red herring as to whether an artwork can have genuine worth.

Artistry itself has genuine psychological, social and cultural worth, but individual products are valued - or not - for a great range of reasons. I happen to admire south-western native  crafts to Renaissance painting, but both are a valuable record of human endeavour.  

 

 

1 hour ago, geordief said:

So ,as a corollary you can be highly technically skilled and also have a worthwhile  expression ** which would make the object more intrinsically valuable than if the opposite were true.

That makes the object more widely admired - if it's presented to the right public at the right time. Not much point in painting the most magnificent nude in the world if a prudish society immediately burns it, along with the painter. It may also give the object a much longer cultural life: the best products tend to be appreciated by generations with different fashions and tastes. If staying-power is intrinsic worth, okay, but it still depends on the audience response.

In modern times, when technical expertise is largely mechanical, and images of great skill and beauty can be mass produced - and there is no intrinsic value to any one of ten thousand identically perfect images. So, now what the public values in art is novelty, which can sometimes be pretty awful, and yet command a high price. So do fashionable names. A forgery that requires an expert with sophisticated equipment to tell apart from the original is worthless, simply because it was done by the famous hand. These valuations are quite arbitrary and changeable.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The "business " of art ,whilst it is in the OP  might be a red herring as to whether an artwork can have genuine worth.

Artistry itself has genuine psychological, social and cultural worth, but individual products are valued - or not - for a great range of reasons. I happen to admire south-western native  crafts to Renaissance painting, but both are a valuable record of human endeavour.  

 

I can't seem to post this.

 

 

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where’s the value? Original art can be valuable. Copies much less so.

The copies look the same, the value is in the providence, a contiguous story that is dictated by a historian; not the artist,,, 

[TheVat]

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

think that is to various degree true for most things. I suspect one could argue that e.g.. life sustaining things (say food or water) have intrinsic value as they have purpose, but the value placed on it would be extremely different based on situation. In that context, is there anything that one could think of that has a clear intrinsic (as opposed to situational) value?

It may help to distinguish between art with a pointed message (e.g. a political cartoon or a song that comments on society, current news, etc) and art that simply offers a new way to look at things or feel things (a David Lynch movie, an Impressionist painting, a jazz piece).  A song that warned people about a dangerous demagogue or a destructive war, for example, would have intrinsic social value even though it was fungible and about a situation - same with a printed political cartoon or poster or graffito.  It could help people survive.  So its effect could be (potentially ) objectively determined as valuable in a certain defined time frame.  

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

can't seem to post this.

 

Can you edit?  I see the site is up to another trick where it posts but lets you think it didn't by freezing on the text window.  Which is how your post repeats several times now.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It may help to distinguish between art with a pointed message (e.g. a political cartoon or a song that comments on society, current news, etc) and art that simply offers a new way to look at things or feel things (a David Lynch movie, an Impressionist painting, a jazz piece).  A song that warned people about a dangerous demagogue or a destructive war, for example, would have intrinsic social value even though it was fungible and about a situation - same with a printed political cartoon or poster or graffito.  It could help people survive.  So its effect could be (potentially ) objectively determined as valuable in a certain defined time frame.  

There's a band new dance but I don't know it's name

[geordief]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I said nothing about closing one’s mind to all forms of musical expression. That’s not even close to what I expressed

I don't  think I said  (or implied?)you did.I don't always address  exactly what an interlocutor has specifically   said  but may   say what comes to my  mind to emphasize what seemed important to me.

 

Argumentation does not feel  always a  virtue to me  (especially if ,like me you are not very good at it)

I am trying to understand a subject better rather than to show others are wrong 

I tend to admire artists  but am aware that  ,as people they are no better and perhaps worse than those without the skill.

For example,I feel that Dylan sold out (dropped out?)   but realise his abilities are such that my feelings count for very little.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Can you edit?

Not anymore. (Pity; I notice mistakes I should have fixed while it was open.) I see it was posted, and repeated apparently all the times I hit the button, inside the single box. I guessed it was a momentary glitch. About to find out.

Edited August 15 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

It may help to distinguish between art with a pointed message (e.g. a political cartoon or a song that comments on society, current news, etc) and art that simply offers a new way to look at things or feel things (a David Lynch movie, an Impressionist painting, a jazz piece).  A song that warned people about a dangerous demagogue or a destructive war, for example, would have intrinsic social value even though it was fungible and about a situation - same with a printed political cartoon or poster or graffito.  It could help people survive.  So its effect could be (potentially ) objectively determined as valuable in a certain defined time frame.  

I think we have not really defined what we mean with value here. Glass of water might have an intrinsic value,  but may be low where water is freely available and very precious where it isn't. And if we are not talking about monetary value then basically anything that anyone might enjoy at some level can be considered a value. Everything else is basically a judgement what one might consider more or less valuable. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The copies look the same, the value is in the providence, a contiguous story that is dictated by a historian; not the artist,,, 

Dictated by a historian? Please. (and: providence? a contiguous story? Is this the malaprop channel?)

The value isn’t dictated by the artist, per se. It’s not like artists can force their art to be valued. (see e.g. Van Gogh) It’s the people interested in the art that set the value.

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And if we are not talking about monetary value then basically anything that anyone might enjoy at some level can be considered a value

But if the value is intrinsic then there shouldn’t be a large disparity in who values it.

[Peterkin]

39 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Glass of water might have an intrinsic value,  but may be low where water is freely available and very precious where it isn't.

It may have relative value according to scarcity, but the value of life necessities is intrinsic to both the substance and to the life it sustains. So artistry - art as a human activity - has intrinsic social value, but any one particular example has an arbitrary value according who wants it. Which of ten equally talented and skilled students of Boudin commands a high price today and which nine are forgotten?   

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

The value isn’t dictated by the artist, per se. It’s not like artists can force their art to be valued. (see e.g. Van Gogh) It’s the people interested in the art that set the value.

It's the people that decide what is original, that set the value of a painting; it costs me nothing to own a copy of his work.

But in Banksy's case it's a team of people, that verify every peace of graffiti that appears on a wall, in a public place; the disappointment of those that saw a good peace of graffiti in their neighbourhood, only to find out it was only a local toe-rag that was inspired by him... 😣

[swansont]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's the people that decide what is original,

WTAF? Stop trolling.

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

WTAF? Stop trolling.

What's your argument about the rest of that sentence/post?

I heard the other day of an artist that couldn't tell the difference between his work and that of famous forgery artist, someone has to decide at a forensic level about the 'official' provinance (oops) of a painting that is up for sale; it's not like both paintings can be sold for half the price of the original, the value isn't in the picture itself.

[MigL]

The terms intrinsic and extrinsic have well define meanings.

The intrinsic value of an object is defined by the object itself.
A one dollar bill has a specific intrinsic value. So does an ounce of Gold, or a barrel of oil.

If the value of an object is determined by external conditions and circumstances ( to the object ), then its value is extrinsic.
CharonY's glass of water has extrinsic value determined by how thirsty the person who wants it is. And art, of all kinds, and using this 'broad' definition certainly falls into the extrinsic category.

As a caveat, you could make the argument that all value is extrinsic, because even dollars, Gold and oil values fluctuate due to market demands, but I will not be that pedant.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

The intrinsic value of an object is defined by the object itself.
A one dollar bill has a specific intrinsic value. So does an ounce of Gold, or a barrel of oil.

The intrinsic value of these objects depend on a promise... 😉

If I was a 1,000 miles from a shop, I'd rather have a knife.

[MigL]

Speaking of pedants ... 
😄 😄

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Speaking of pedants ... 
😄 😄

You got a meme/gif for that?

If memory serves, North Korean fake dollar bill's were of better quality than a US printed one, at some point in history.

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

A one dollar bill has a specific intrinsic value. So does an ounce of Gold, or a barrel of oil.

Those values are also extrinsic and defined by context and local circumstances. I’ve carried $1 bills in other countries and get no where when I need to trade it for food. It’s just a piece of paper with some colors and markings.

Same happens if I try trading a quart of oil for a candy bar at a high school. All of those things have values contingent upon local demand and desires. None have intrinsic value.

Value is a social concept to simplify barter transactions and is market dependent, IMO.

[TheVat]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Those values are also extrinsic and defined by context and local circumstances. I’ve carried $1 bills in other countries and get no where when I need to trade it for food. It’s just a piece of paper with some colors and markings.

Same happens if I try trading a quart of oil for a candy bar at a high school. All of those things have values contingent upon local demand and desires. None have intrinsic value.

Value is a social concept to simplify barter transactions and is market dependent, IMO.

Yes, intrinsic has been used loosely here.  If it means "material that directly has use, in its basic physical constituents, to satisfy the bottom tier of Maslow's pyramid (food, shelter, heat, tools)" then most of what surrounds humans in a city is only of extrinsic value.  The intrinsic value of Mona Lisa or a bundle of twenties is that you can toss it in a fire to keep warm.  The intrinsic value of a platinum bar is you can grind it up  put it in a catalytic converter and clean up the air a little.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

Yes, intrinsic has been used loosely here.  If it means "material that directly has use, in its basic physical constituents, to satisfy the bottom tier of Maslow's pyramid (food, shelter, heat, tools)" then most of what surrounds humans in a city is only of extrinsic value.  The intrinsic value of Mona Lisa or a bundle of twenties is that you can toss it in a fire to keep warm.  The intrinsic value of a platinum bar is you can grind it up  put it in a catalytic converter and clean up the air a little.  

The intrinsic value of art, is that it puts a smile on my face; when I need to walk 1,000 miles to a shop...

[TheVat]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The intrinsic value of art, is that it puts a smile on my face; when I need to walk 1,000 miles to a shop...

It does so through your valuing that art.  Therefore it is extrinsic.  Only if the art was a mechanical device that transported you to the shop would it also have intrinsic value in that regard.  (and even there, an intrinsic value as a transport tool would only be there if you preferred not to walk - a bus coming along is no use to the person running a marathon)

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It does so through your valuing that art.  Therefore it is extrinsic.  Only if the art was a mechanical device that transported you to the shop would it also have intrinsic value in that regard.  (and even there, an intrinsic value as a transport tool would only be there if you preferred not to walk - a bus coming along is no use to the person running a marathon)

 

It's just a smile, while I walk to the shop...

May be that's a Banksy... 😉

[geordief]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Yes, intrinsic has been used loosely here.  If it means "material that directly has use, in its basic physical constituents, to satisfy the bottom tier of Maslow's pyramid (food, shelter, heat, tools)" then most of what surrounds humans in a city is only of extrinsic value.  The intrinsic value of Mona Lisa or a bundle of twenties is that you can toss it in a fire to keep warm.  The intrinsic value of a platinum bar is you can grind it up  put it in a catalytic converter and clean up the air a little.  

I think it may have been me who used the description first in this thread.

But it I meant that it vindicates the value we place in our own existence

That it can be worth doing on its own account.

Not an original thought in the slightest  as the expression "art for art's sake" surrounds us all and is oart of the common currency. 

[MigL]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Those values are also extrinsic and defined by context and local circumstances.

I believe I already stated that ...

4 hours ago, MigL said:

As a caveat, you could make the argument that all value is extrinsic, because even dollars, Gold and oil values fluctuate due to market demands, but I will not be that pedant.

 

Jowever

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I’ve carried $1 bills in other countries and get no where when I need to trade it for food. It’s just a piece of paper with some colors and markings.

the value od that dollar is clearly defined in that particular country's currency at any money exchange location.
Ot might differ slightly from day to day as exchange rates usually do, but its value is defined.
Same with oil and Gold prices.

And the intrinsic value of Platinum is not its use in a catalytic converter, unless that use is defined also.
If the defined use is not considered, the only value any object has, is related to its unchanging properties, like mass, color, shape, etc.

There, now I've become pedantic also.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What's your argument about the rest of that sentence/post?

Need I have an argument? Did I claim that everything you said was wrong?

I said stop trolling. I see that you have not.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I heard the other day of an artist that couldn't tell the difference between his work and that of famous forgery artist, someone has to decide at a forensic level about the 'official' provinance (oops) of a painting that is up for sale; it's not like both paintings can be sold for half the price of the original,

provenance

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the value isn't in the picture itself.

Hence my mentions of uniqueness.

 

[StringJunky]

This is not even a subject for discussion, really. It is almost a truism that something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. It's monetary value is subjective.