# How does minimalist art sell for so much money? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331 "2012-10-10T17:28:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/41 "2012-10-11T17:54:37Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’d be curious to hear if the people who think modern art is all just conspicuous consumption and social pressure feel the same way about design and aesthetics generally. Is an Eames chair just an overpriced La-Z-Boy in your eyes? Is Fallingwater just a blockier prefab home? > > If not, why do you appreciate the careful design and aesthetics of those things, but not modern art? Because with almost all modern art a pretty much identical copy can be produced for way below these prices. Certainly, there is a value in attractive design. But when you can get an indistinguishable copy for a hundredth of the price it is an irrational thing indeed to pay for the original\* \*Of course I accept that you could be doing it for investment, but that’s basically relying on other people’s irrationality persisiting. However I fully support the mordern art market. I see it as a way of redistributing income from boring people to creative loonies (the artists) and intelligent people (the succesful art investors), on average. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/42 "2012-10-11T17:56:38Z")
Meh. That doesn’t make it any different from buying first edition books or a hundred other parts of the economy in which value cannot be measured in purely utilitarian terms. ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/43 "2012-10-11T17:58:31Z")
I agree - and find all those things very silly too. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/44 "2012-10-11T18:00:17Z")
> [@dataguy](#): > > Tiger Wood’s skill is not subjective. It’s evidenced by score sheets. Jackson Pollock’s skill is not subjective. It’s evidenced by the number of his works hanging in the Met. One’s beloved by millions of golf fans, one is equally beloved by millions\* of snooty Harvard types. - alright dozens might be closer ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/45 "2012-10-11T18:07:47Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > Because with almost all modern art a pretty much identical copy can be produced for way below these prices. Well, that’s a broad statement. I would say the opposite: classical representational art is easier to create an identical copy of. (But I’m not talking minimalism here, but contemporary art in general, which spans a lot of different styles.) I’d be mighty impressed if someone can copy something like, say, Gerhardt Richters [Ice 2](http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/146995), for instance, with all its palette scrapes, textures, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/46 "2012-10-11T18:16:44Z")
Knorf’s Law: There’s no piece of art, no movie, no book, no piece of music so beloved, that there won’t be someone on the Internet who is proud of him or herself for disparaging it. ---
**Author:** ![dataguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eada6e/32.png) [@dataguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dataguy)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/47 "2012-10-11T18:25:54Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > Jackson Pollock’s skill is not subjective. It’s evidenced by the number of his works hanging in the Met. > > One’s beloved by millions of golf fans, one is equally beloved by millions\* of snooty Harvard types. > > - alright dozens might be closer We seem to have a different idea of what “subjective” means. The world’s best golfers can be identically ranked by anyone with access to their scores. The world’s best artists can be ranked by the number of paintings on display? Is that what you’re suggesting? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/48 "2012-10-11T18:29:18Z")
The best painter in the world therefore is Thomas Kinkade. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/49 "2012-10-11T18:49:51Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The best painter in the world therefore is Thomas Kinkade. No, it’s that guy who does the poker playing dogs. Or maybe the sad-eyed, big-eyed children. THAT’S artifying! ((Personally, I think Pollock does interesting things with his splatters that make them fun to look at. Mondrian’s useless. Minimalism is a fraud. IMHO, YMMV, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/50 "2012-10-11T18:51:03Z")
> [@dataguy](#): > > We seem to have a different idea of what “subjective” means. > > The world’s best golfers can be identically ranked by anyone with access to their scores. The rules of golf are completely arbitrary, and have no particular importance. There is no objective value to being skilled at hitting a ball (of a specific but arbitrary design) with a club (of a specific but arbitrary design), on a course (of a specific but arbitrary design) under rules (of a specific but arbitrary design). Why should he make any more money than a world class Curler? Is there something about the ball and club and course design that makes it inherently more important than what you find in a Curling… thingy? The value of golf is subjective. Its value is based on how golf makes people feel, how much of their interest (and money) is spent towards golf. So too with art, some artists draw interest more than other artists, so they get more money. Some sports draw interest more than other sports, so the participants get more money. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/51 "2012-10-11T18:53:15Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’d be curious to hear if the people who think modern art is all just conspicuous consumption and social pressure feel the same way about design and aesthetics generally. Is an Eames chair just an overpriced La-Z-Boy in your eyes? Is Fallingwater just a blockier prefab home? > > If not, why do you appreciate the careful design and aesthetics of those things, but not modern art? Since I used both “conspicuous consumption” and “social pressure” in my post, I think I’m one of the people you’re addressing. But please go read my post again. It wasn’t about modern art. I didn’t claim that modern art was conspicuous consumption. I claimed that owning _original_ art was, regardless of what the art is. I appreciate both the Eames chair and Fallingwater. I think they’re awesome. I appreciate modern art, too, although I have my preferences like anyone else. I love Jackson Pollock’s art. I had a print of one of his paintings on my wall when I was a teenager. It cost me $6.99. Appreciating design or aesthetics is orthogonal to overspending on something. We all have our own definition of overspending, but I’m going to go out on a limb and claim that spending millions of dollars on a painting has a lot more to do with proving that you’re an important person with a lot of money than it does with wanting to look at and experience the art. Obviously, there’s more to art than can be captured by a print. I’ll drop $20 to see a museum exhibit, too. > [@Tapioca Dextrin](#): > > Jackson Pollock’s skill is not subjective. It’s evidenced by the number of his works hanging in the Met. Swing and a miss. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/52 "2012-10-11T19:02:16Z")
I do think that people hold the position I was rebutting. But as for your own position, I understand your argument better now. It has nothing at all to do with modern art since it applies equally well to the Mona Lisa. Yours is just a slightly different refutation of the OP. I am still curious why you think the motivation for having an original is necessarily social. I think humans desire originals of things for all kinds of ineffable reasons having little to do with social status. That’s why they buy first editions of books, and collect unopened action figures, etc. And with art, arguably, the reproduction is never quite perfect. ---
**Author:** ![dataguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eada6e/32.png) [@dataguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dataguy)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/53 "2012-10-11T19:02:59Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The rules of golf are completely arbitrary, and have no particular importance. There is no objective value to being skilled at hitting a ball (of a specific but arbitrary design) with a club (of a specific but arbitrary design), on a course (of a specific but arbitrary design) under rules (of a specific but arbitrary design). Why should he make any more money than a world class Curler? Is there something about the ball and club and course design that makes it inherently more important than what you find in a Curling… thingy? > > The value of golf is subjective. Its value is based on how golf makes people feel, how much of their interest (and money) is spent towards golf. So too with art, some artists draw interest more than other artists, so they get more money. Some sports draw interest more than other sports, so the participants get more money. All of this is beside the point. There is a standard, objective measure for golfing skill: Number of strokes. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/54 "2012-10-11T19:06:28Z")
Well. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/55 "2012-10-11T19:06:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > And with art, arguably, the reproduction is never quite perfect. This is the best reason to own original art. I’d pay hundreds of dollars for an original piece of really great artwork (which is why I don’t own any except stuff I’ve been given), versus a $10 print because the quality is so much better. So I understand how really rich people might spend tens of thousands on orignal art. Now, when you talk millions, you’d be able to hire someone to reproduce a fake of what you’re wanting for much cheaper, and at that point it becomes somewhat of a social status thing. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/56 "2012-10-11T19:08:15Z")
Stroke-count is an objective measure of “golfing” skills, since any arbitrary definition can be objective within it’s own community framework. But it isn’t an objective measure of entertainment value. Similarly, hanging your painting in MOMA is an objective measure of success in art world, since (again) any arbitrary definition can be objective within it’s own community framework. That doesn’t make it an objective measure of aesthetic value. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/57 "2012-10-11T19:23:02Z")
> [@dataguy](#): > > All of this is beside the point. > There is a standard, objective measure for golfing skill: Number of strokes. The point has to do with money. Why does some minimalist art sell for lots of money, why does Tiger Woods earn lots of money golfing? Tiger Woods doesn’t get paid because he can use fewer strokes to complete a golf tournament. He gets paid because millions of people are fans of golf, and when he competes people are drawn to watch and spend money on golf related activities. The subjective valuation of Golf vs. Curling means Tiger has an opportunity to make a lot more money than a Curler who is by far the greatest of all time. The fact that we can objectively measure his golf performance doesn’t validate the amount of money he makes. We can objectively measure art too,the greatest artist of all time is… Van Gogh, for having the highest Sale Price Average, but here come Picasso who has a lower SPA, but many more AA’s (Auction Appearances). Pollack leads SFA (square foot average), but his BSP (Brush Strokes per Painting) really sucks. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/58 "2012-10-11T21:07:32Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Knorf’s Law: > There’s no piece of art, no movie, no book, no piece of music so beloved, that there won’t be someone on the Internet who is proud of him or herself for disparaging it. Awesome. And so true, too. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/59 "2012-10-12T00:15:12Z")
> [@MDKSquared](#): > > I mainly refer to stuff like > > [http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object\_id=109750](http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=109750) > > or a lot of the works by > > [Piet Mondrian - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian) > Example: [Piet Mondrian (1872-1944) , Composition with Blue, Yellow, Red and Gray | Christie's](http://www.christies.com/Lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4277071) > > or stuff like this by Lee Ufan (whose art was featured at the Guggenheim not too long ago. As an example one of his vertical blue-line pieces sold for $410,000): > > [http://seaofgray.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/picture-aspx.jpeg](http://seaofgray.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/picture-aspx.jpeg) > > Call me ignorant but I just do not see how this stuff gets valued so highly. I don’t understand what sets this stuff apart from art anyone else makes. Why can’t I make a painting that’s just a shade of red and sell it for millions? What is the differentiating factor that makes some art successful/valuable and others not? You’re not ignorant, you are just thinking with your own pockets. Your perspective changes when you have hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. These pieces generally don’t come off a printing press. The law of supply and demand forces these prices up when an artist becomes well known. Thats why prices go up when the artist dies, the supply becomes fixed. How much would you pay for the crappiest painting by Ceczanne or Renoir? If you look at their paintings today, a lot of them don’t really look all that special but this one sold for a quarter of a BILLION dollars: > **[The Card Players](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Card_Players)** > > The Card Players is a series of oil paintings by the French Post-Impressionist artist Paul Cézanne. Painted during Cézanne's final period in the early 1890s, there are five paintings in the series. The versions vary in size, the number of players, and the setting in which the game takes place. Cézanne also completed numerous drawings and studies in preparation for The Card Players series. > One version of The Card Players was sold in 2011 to the Royal Family of Qatar for a price estimated at $25... I have no appreciation for art and I don’t “get it” considering that a lot of the best stuff is in the public domain but for the people who seriously collect art, its an investment that pays dividends as long as you have sight. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331/60 "2012-10-12T01:24:52Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > Because with almost all modern art a pretty much identical copy can be produced for way below these prices. I can get you a dozen people who could paint the Mona Lisa, and it would only cost you a couple hundred bucks, tops. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-minimalist-art-sell-for-so-much-money/637331.md?page=4)