“On the Aesthetic and Economic Value of Art,” by Mark Sagoff. A Short Response
The aesthetic value of art— as defined by economic value— is an interesting point of inquiry to start a conversation. It is difficult to measure how an art market behaves, especially because factors such as: of the lack of regulation, the disappearance of guilds, and industrialized mass production of materials as the defining driver for availability, which lowers the quality of artist’s materials by favoring production geared toward other, more lucrative industries. This shift in ideology and change in the focus of product, has resulted in a favoring of novelty over craftsmanship, throwing aesthetic precepts into turmoil and often disregarding them altogether.
According to Sagoff, art operates outside the classic sphere of supply and demand. Since it’s not a utilitarian object, it becomes an object of “love, respect and esteem," which keeps the prices for these ‘cherished objects’ high and complicates their functioning as investments. His shift toward the stimulus-response model to justify the high prices paid for art is a clever one, yet he then turns the argument back on itself and tears it down by stating that if this model were what defined value, then forgeries would cost the same as originals because the ratio of stimulus-response is equal. I would venture to say that fine art trades in status as well as coin. Creating its own unquantifiable system of value.
As for aesthetic value, Sagoff goes on to propose the idea that a piece of art or an antique allows you to be in immediate touch with history, conferring the collector with the status of protector and preserver of the past which greatly complicates the matter of aesthetic value. Once an object becomes heritage, it turns into something to be cared for and passed down generations, as a symbol of history: “The difference between the aesthetic and the economic value of art, then, may be simply explained. It is the difference between the sacred and the profane.”