Just because top incomes in the arts exceed those in other professions does not mean that the average income of artists is also higher. On the contrary, evidence indicates that the average income among artists is lower than in comparable professions.

Therefore, by going into the arts, artists endure an income penalty. If they were to choose another occupation, they would earn more money. According to an early us census report, only employees of the church faced larger income penalties than artists.
(more…)

When the government and donors bridge this gap between aesthetic and market value, the correspondence between these values increases. And as the conflict between modern and contemporary visual art groups gradually disappears, the correspondence between aesthetic value and market value in the visual arts also increases. Is there a long-term tendency towards convergence then? If that is indeed the case then the economist is correct after all. A number of factors point in that direction.

1. Consumers care about the opinions of experts, while experts are influenced by consumer behavior, whether they are aware of it or not. When the Saatchi brothers boosted the prices of Damian Hirst’s work and devalued Sandro Chia’s work, experts largely heeded the Saatchi’s behavior and changed their aesthetic judgments.
(more…)

Why do the contemporary visual art experts have more cultural authority than the modern (traditional) visual art experts? Apparently the avant-garde’s cultural capital is more valuable than the traditionalists. The avant-garde experts belong to the so-called ‘new cultural elite’, which challenges the traditionalist ‘economic elite’. The traditionalists are connected with the economic elite that has most economic capital. Thus we can say that the two groups differ in the composition of their capital.

These elites are obviously made up of different types of people. The economic elite can buy art; sometimes art that costs millions. The cultural elite meanwhile is made up mostly of well-educated wage earners with less money to spend and thus buy fewer and cheaper artworks. These elites have different social histories and thus, different tastes. The cultural elite tends to prefer avant-garde art, while the economic elite prefers more traditional visual art.
(more…)

The visual art market is a deep-pocket market. It offers a good opportunity for us to discuss the possible deviations between aesthetic and market value. In numerous countries over the last decades, a divergence between market and aesthetic value has developed in two important styles in the visual arts. In comparing these styles, a refutation of the economist’s notion that quality and sales correspond seems to emerge.

Modern (traditional) artists develop their art from within an existing long-standing artistic tradition. The motto is continuation with modification. Another characteristic is the emphasis on authenticity.
(more…)

Why does the art that experts judge as inferior often sell so well in mass markets? In fact, it sells better than ‘quality art’. This is a common phenomenon in the mass markets of books, cds, films, and videos. For instance, the market value of Steven Spielberg films is much higher than the market value of Werner Herzog films. The same applies to the books of Allistair McClean in comparison to those of William Golding. Nevertheless, most experts would agree that Herzog and Golding offer higher aesthetic value.

Unlike deep-pocket markets, it is unlikely that this phenomenon is caused by the variance in the composition of capital between average experts and average buyers. (Experts are likely to have both more money and more cultural capital than average buyers, but not necessarily in different proportions.)
(more…)