Reflective Log/ Research: Artnet News Article, Losing Connection with Value

The Value of Art: Money, Power, Beauty

Who decides what art is worth?

Key Points:

What Determines the Commercial Value of Art?

• Like currency, the commercial value of art is based on collective intentionality. There is no intrinsic, objective value (no more than that of a hundred-dollar bill). Human stipulation and declaration create and sustain the commercial value.
• The reason that many people continue to be astonished or enraged when they hear that a particular work of art has been sold for a large sum of money is that they believe art serves no necessary function. It is neither utilitarian, nor does it seem to be linked to any essential activity. You cannot live in it, drive it, eat, drink, or wear it. Even Plato considered the value of art to be dubious because it was mimesis, an imitation of reality.
• We pay for things that can be lived in, driven, consumed, and worn; and we believe in an empirical ability to judge their relative quality and commercial value. No matter how luxurious, such things also sustain the basic human functions of shelter, food, clothing, and transport.
• What makes one painting or sculpture more or less expensive than another in this primary market is usually size.

Reflections:

• This article provided a further insight into the 'value' of art and how art can be given this value. It goes back to Marx's use-value, objects with a use value are worth more.
• This article echos the Sotheby's value of art episodes. 
• Overall I think this article could be good to look this term, if I want to go down the route of this critique further, but it's not very relevant right now. 
• Overall, I believe I am going to discard this connection with the commercial value of art as it doesn't really appeal to me anymore, and I feel I have exhausted this approach. I am more interested in the material itself, or sculpture itself, and the process of making.