Art Financially
What defines value within art? Art itself has never resonated with me, specifically art as in paintings and ones that you must dive into to see the greater meaning. Even further, how can art be valued higher than other art if all art has a deeper meaning? How can one Artist create a painting that is deemed of greater value than one created by another artist? A painting from Pablo Picasso is usually valued greater than a painting from a local art major in college. When I look at Picasso’s self portraits I question how it is so valuable that he uses odd proportions and unconventional designs, when if someone were to create a cartoon with those proportions and designs no one would watch because it is so hideous to look at. (in my own personal opinion) Ed Ruscha who is another artist but many of his art pieces relative to Picasso’s are less disproportionate, but his art is not valued greater than Picasso’s. Picasso’s highest sold painting, Women of Algiers (Version O), was sold at $173.4 million dollars while Ruscha’s highest sold painting, Hurting the Word Radio #2, was sold at merely $52.4 million.
In my opinion, paintings should be worth the amount of money put into it, there should not be a false interpretation of value from other artists that somehow skyrocket it to the millions of dollars. I don’t even bring in that much money from people coming in, rather they make money from the fundraisers that occur to operate the business. I personally think that art is a charity case for the government and should be funded as much as they bring in, without these fundraisers. In 2019, it says from Americanforthearts.org that local art agencies get $860 million in funding, which is honestly a waste of money. Since there is no real value to a painting.
