Running Head: ART AS A COMMODITY AND STORE OF MONETARY VALUE

Art as a Commodity and Store of Monetary Value

Gayle Tadler
October 2014
Understanding Art Through Londons Collections
Professor Victoria Powell







ART AS A COMMODITY AND STORE OF MONETARY VALUE Tadler 2
Art as a Commodity and Store of Monetary Value

To compare art to money is like comparing apples to oranges, as they are very different.
Art, often considered to be indefinable but for the purpose of this paper meaning the creative
expression or application of human creative skill and imagination typically in a visual form, has
nearly no physical use, whereas money, concretely definable as a medium of exchange, has
nearly every use (Stallabrass). Yet they do have something in common, they can both be
considered objects with storage of value. They also clearly work together, art being considered a
commodity and money the medium for which the value of the commodity is exchanged.
Moneys storage of value is more concrete and transparent in its market exchange rate, while the
value of art is more ambiguous. Art objects are not exchangeable one for the other like other
commodities, and their values tend to be more volatile and unpredictable than other commodities
based on the complexity of social and historical factors in the functions of the art market. It
cannot be ignored that there exists a strong relationship between money and art and as the world
becomes more globalized and commercialized consumers and artists cannot avoid placing more
importance on monetary value in the works of art they buy and create. Throughout this essay,
theories of the complex factors affecting the value of art will be discussed along with evaluations
of artworks that are exemplary of the influence of money on art.
The relationship between money and art has been theorized about for many years. In
1867 Karl Marx published the book Capital, and though not directly referencing art as defined
here, it is interesting how his ideas can be used in relation to art, which is commonly referred to
by writers today as the Marxian commodity theory of art. According to Marx, art is a commodity
of the greater structure of capitalism, within which art commodities are produced and considered
a fetish, or an object with abstract value. Marx explains, A commodity appears, at first sight,
ART AS A COMMODITY AND STORE OF MONETARY VALUE Tadler 3
a very trivial thing... Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in
metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. Fetishism is the projection of human nature
and desires upon an external object. Marx theorizes that all artists are cultural producers,
laboring for the benefits of the market, and that all art made within this system is a commodity to
be bought and sold as objects of desire upon which human feelings are projected (Marx).
Another important theory of the value of art rests in the work of Pierre Bourdieu in his
developments of different sets of symbolic capitals, which govern peoples placement of value
on different commodities. In his book Distinction Bourdieu writes extensively about what he
calls cultural capital or knowledge that is accumulated through upbringing and education, which
confers to social status (Bourdieu). He also develops the idea of economic capital meaning the
amount of income and property one has, which can correlate with cultural capital but can also
conflict as there tends to be social friction between those rich in one type of capital and poor in
another with those in the opposite position. Within this social context is where we see people
with a wealth of economic capital try to supplement their lack of cultural capital by buying items
of cultural capital such as fine art.
After understanding a bit of the social and economic theories surrounding the value of
art, one can begin to look into the scope of the art market. In the book titled Contemporary Art;
1989 to Present Olav Velthius writes a chapter titled Globalization and Commercialization of
the Art Market in which he introduces the art market as not much different from a century ago
due to the fact that fundamental market structure and principal actors remain the same as the
original dealer critic system established in France in the second half of 19
th
century still exists
(2013 p. 369). Velthius then explains that more recently the art market has become influenced
both structurally and culturally by three major entities; the rise of the art fair, the internet and the
ART AS A COMMODITY AND STORE OF MONETARY VALUE Tadler 4
increased competition of auction houses (p. 370). In a lecture given in 2008 at the Tate, author
Louisa Buck designates that the art market has a primary market, existing when the artist sells
their work and collects the money for the value of the work he or she has created, and the
secondary market, existing when buyers of an artwork sell the work to various others and collect
the money for its value as it exists in the market (Tate). Galleries and art fairs, maintaining
exclusivity for the culturally elite, tend to represent the primary market while auction houses and
the internet, being democratic and open to those who have the purchasing power, represent a
secondary market. Buck also explains these separate markets to have roles in which the primary
dealers and critics act as market makers and whose success in supporting and promoting of an
artist is reflected in the success of the works in the secondary market institutions. Buck then goes
on to describe the art market atmosphere of London during the financial crisis of 2008, and ends
by stating her belief that although sales greatly decrease a recession, it isnt necessarily a bad
thing for the art market as it gives artists more time to think about their art, rather than their
careers.
In Velthiuss writing he dives deeper into globalization and commercialization and how
these factors affect the art market as a world market. Through the previously described primary
and secondary market venues, people from around the world can partake in the art market.
Velthius explains that the uprising of this global economy disembeds the market from local
social structures in which it used to be at least to some extent embedded. [New institutions] have
contributed to a global market architecture, which channels the new wealth of buyers in
emerging economies to contemporary art (p. 372). Along with globalization comes a
commercialization of art, known as the process of introducing a new artwork into the market
characterized by mass marketing and promotion. Velthius takes a negative stance on this topic by
ART AS A COMMODITY AND STORE OF MONETARY VALUE Tadler 5
claiming that as a byproduct of commercialization, artists no longer are interested in producing
an uncompromised oeuvre of lasting quality, but more in earning short run-profits establishing
a quick career receiving widespread media attention, and gaining a celebrity status
Widely known for his art as being over commercialized and obsessed with the ideal of
the celebrity, Andy Warhol is an artist whose work is exemplary of the relationship of art and
money. Warhol, 1928-1987, was a pop artist, of which can be said that many pop artists behaved
like aggressive entrepreneur in acknowledging and capitalizing on the expanding markets and
audiences of post-war years. (McCarthy p. 26) Warhol was very open about his love of money
and fame, and is infamously quoted for saying, "Making money is art, and working is art, and
good business is the best art." The influence of money on Warhols art may be most evident in the
piece titled Money which he completed in 1982. The painting, like most of his paintings was a
screen print of large dollar signs repeated on the canvas nine times in different bright colors.
Warhol strategically uses the colors in the image dramatize the symbol, putting money right in
your face while the repetition of the symbol show the need for mass amounts of the capital.
A currently working artist with a similar air of money motivations surrounding his
artwork is British artist Damien Hirst. One of the most talked about artists today Hirst is a
conceptual artist who has gradually risen to fame from his provoking work in collages, paintings
and grandoise sculptures. As he and his work draw more attention, his price tags increase
drastically. An example of Hirsts involvment of money into his art is his sculpture For the
Love of God, created in 2007. Inspired by mexican celebration of death, this sculpture features
a human skull completely encrusted in real diamonds. This piece evokes a wow factor in
audiences and can be said to symbolize the deadliness of greed. Hirst, Like Warhol is also famed
for using creative business tactics in selling his art. On the 15
th
of September 2008 he put 223
ART AS A COMMODITY AND STORE OF MONETARY VALUE Tadler 6
works of art up for auction straight from his studio, bypassing dealers to use the normally
secondary market institution. This was also the same day that Lehman Bros collapsed, signally
the final realization of financial recession. What makes him so famous from this event is that
despite speculation that buyers would not appear from fear of the recession, all of his works sold
raising 111 million, proving that the aura of Hirsts work perserveres even through a massive
financial crash (d'Ancona p. 22).
Throughout the ages money has been a key motivator and influence behind the artists
eye, and becomes even more prevalent today as consumers start to view art as a commodity-like
form of cultural capital. Art, inescapably like money, is a store of value subjective to those who
view it. In a recent Evening standard magazine interview to promote his newest exhibition, Hirst
is quoted saying, Maybe the ultimate value is the value that the viewers assign to [the work]
when the artist is gone (d'Ancona). Though the art market today may be seen to be a bubble,
there is something to be said about the important value of which art holds as an object of human
creativity.



ART AS A COMMODITY AND STORE OF MONETARY VALUE Tadler 7
Works Cited
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.
d'Ancona, Matthew. "The Hirst Enigma." Evening Standard Magazine 3 October 2014: 20-24.
Marx, Karl. "Part I: Commodities and Money." Marx, Karl. Capital Volume One. London:
Lawrence and Wishart , 1867.
McCarthy, David. Pop Art. London: Tate Publishing, 2002.
Stallabrass, Julian. "Money, Disembodied Art, and the Turing Test for Aesthetics." 1997. The
Courtauld Institute of Art. 15 October 2014
<https://www.courtauld.ac.uk/people/stallabrass_julian/stallabrass_ground-control.pdf>.
Tate. "Money: Louisa Buck." Late at Tate November: Behind the scenes. London, 10 December
2008.
Velthius, Olav. "Globalization and Commercialization of the Art Market." Contemporary Art:
1989 to the Present. Ed. Alexander Dumbadze and Suzanne Hudson. John Wiley & Sons,
2013. 369-378.