I’ve decided to start a new series here on the blog. I will share things I’ve noticed. I see little things here and there, and wonder about them. I thought about starting a different blog to house these thoughts, but how many blogs does one guy really need?! Here’s he first in the series:
I was in San Francisco a few months ago, and I noticed some things about art. I was in a beautiful high-end art gallery near Ghirardelli Square. The salesperson took quite a bit of time with me and walked me through several art pieces. Reproductions of the art in question were selling for $60,000 and $70,000. This was an enjoyable experience.
After visiting the gallery, I stopped to watch a street artist one block down from these same galleries. She was dirty, a bit rude, and looked destitute. She asked if she could draw a picture of me for a dollar. I declined, but ended up giving her a dollar after she chided me for taking a picture of her.
It took me a few minutes of reflection to notice that she was engaging in the same creative process as the artists whose work was on sale 300 feet away: making art for sale.
This made me wonder about the value of art. It it only display that makes a piece of art valuable? Is it availability? I realized as I handed her the crisp dollar bill that I was paying with a piece of art: a portrait of George Washington, that’s available to anyone willing to provide a dollar of value in exchange. I briefly considered the possibility that the George Washington portrait pointed to availability driving value, but I realized that the street artist in front of me was willing to provide me with an original for a very small amount of money.
I realized instead that the value of art comes from context. The salesperson in the gallery was willing to learn about my taste and sell me on the story of the pieces of art I was considering. The person on the street was not cognizant of the source of her art’s value. If she was, she would be able to charge me for the application of her talent.