/lit/ - Literature

the economic value of a work of art is determined by the value of the taxes dodged through the purchase

Claiming that economics does not have a proper way of appreciating works of art is like claiming that ethics does not deal with motor mechanics well enough.
This is a categorical error brought about by mistaken assumptions on the "universal applicableness" of a certain field.

>>15591989
Surely it has to do with generalizing averages, and taking into account past labor spent in developing a skill? If a kind of art takes in general similar levels of skill and time to create but someone is capable of doing it fast, I don't know if we should pay them less.

>>15591989
Have you read Baudrillard’s essay on art auctions? He talks about exactly the problem you come up against
>tl;dr arts value is the value it has a signifier in a regime of signs, rather than any type of economic value as it’s commonly understood to exist

>>15592046
yeah, but there's less labour an artists need to produce a higher quality product when he improves during his lifetime.

So by the LTV a begginer work should have a higher value, since there's much more effort involved.

And there's not really an average time of creating an art piece.
The opening of evangelion was made in 2 hours, the four seasons of vivaldi was made in 3 weeks and the nine symphony took beethoven like 10 years to develop his ideas to make it.

>>15591989
>austrian denition of supply and demand
Austrians never said value stemmed from supply and demand. Price does. Austrian's stance on value is that it is subjective, nothing in the good has intrinsic value, value is brought and withdrawn to the good according to its place on everyone's value scale, which is compatible with a theory of the value of a work of art.
I don't get why there's still a debate about value theory, austrians solved it 150 years ago it's quite a simple problem

>>15592062
*as a signifier

>>15592021
Not at all? Why divorce the two? It's definitely a loss when your economic system can't promote what we want or value

>>15592062
>>15592067
yeah, but there's things that doesn't have a price using a supply and demand value thing.

You could argue that the value of something comes from subjective desire.

But is very hard to argue you could put a price on aesthetical value.
And some things have aesthetical value, but like admiring a sunset or sunrise or watching a landscape while travelling.

That sure has an aesthetical value, but is very hard to put a sunset on supply and demand terms.

By example, how do u argue on supply and demand shit, like the value of your own family history, of your own grandpa photos when he was younger.

But that would be like saying that art is completelly subjective, so pollock has more "value" than a lesser known XIX century artist.

But this higher demand (using the market demand) doesn't imply a real aesthetic value.

Aesthetic value exist beyond your subjective perception.
We could argue the definition of what is beauty.
But beauty has an objective value, like a beautiful girl has value because she's pretty, or a smile has value because beauty is objective.

Even if nobody could agree on why X sunset was pretty, it has an aesthetical value.

Even the art pieces that are ugly has an aesthetical value (a negative one, but the value is still there) and nobody could argue they have a beauty value, but intelectually they still have a value.

>>15592132
Yeah man I’m the top person you quoted and I totally agree. Art isn’t priced due to aesthetics or common concepts of value. I’m the exchange offered by way of art has nothing to do with the non-monetary value of art. Aesthetic values are decanted into the exchange value system by which they lose any sense of determinacy as aesthetic value.

>>15591989
>It's absurd to think that demand determines the aesthetical value of a product
Indeed, but why think that? It seems like you start out by discussing economic value, but then abruptly switch to aesthetic value. Economic value need not track aesthetic value and vise versa. The fact that Harry Potter sold more copies than Lolita doesn't mean that it's better or that Rowling is a better writer than Nabokov. It just means that it sold more copies, no more than that. In any event, Leland Yeager's essay, "Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty?" may be of some interest here:
https://mises.org/library/market-test-truth-and-beauty-0

>>15592166
It's odd because when you apply this to morality, on the job or by manufacturer, you similarly diverge into nothingness.

>>15592166
do u have any readings from philosophers that deal with this issue?

It bothers me that the exchange value is usually the most important thing to value a piece of art.
Like how many units it sold.

>>15592177
Thanks.

I'm sure smarter people have seen this contradiction that the price of a product or how many shit it sold has any effect on the aesthetical value of a piece.

>>15591989
Commodity fetishism is a helluva drug.

>>15592177
That's a complete miss. Why adopt one metaphysics of value for one and a separate for the other? If anything they do coincide eventually in that what ppl value today are superficial things.

>>15592198
Economic value is ultimately determined by whether, and how much, someone is willing to pay for something, for whatever reason. That's pretty much the complete opposite of aesthetic value. Suppose that, due to the way he treated women, everyone living today would refuse to financially support anything that has something to do with Mahler. No one wants to pay for Mahler's work. Would that somehow diminish the aesthetic value of his fifth symphony?

>>15592268
That's begging the question, my point was if we regard value by popularity, or supply and demand, even seeing it as a terrible way to value art, morality... quite literally anything, why would we value our opportunity (or economics) in the same manner? We wouldn't, I don't get the divide

>>15592132
>But is very hard to argue you could put a price on aesthetical value.
You don't put a price on value, that doesn't mean anything. Price must be considered as a social variable arising out of the fact that different people value things differently. The price would grossly be the mean of everyone's subjective valuations.
A sunset's value is just your subjective valuation of it. It becomes the price you'd be willing to buy it for as soon as you express this value in accordance to an other good. Like it'd be willing to give up 100$ right now for a sunset, or i'd be ready to seel my car for a sunset right now. In both cases, you would have expressed your price for a sunset. The price becomes a social variable when everyone's personal price are aggregated to become the price of the good.

>By example, how do u argue on supply and demand shit, like the value of your own family history, of your own grandpa photos when he was younger.
Well the price of your family photos is very low as almost everyone's doesn't give a shit about it. You value it a lot, say you would give up 50$ to keep it, but most of the people won't give up anything for it. On aggregate then, your photos have a very low price despite the fact that you value them a lot.

But beauty has an objective value, like a beautiful girl has value because she's pretty, or a smile has value because beauty is objective.
Price nor personal valuations claim to put the right value on a good. If you consider objective value of a work of art to be a thing, it would be irrelevant economically

>>15592306
If beauty has an objective value why not quantify it? Leaving the price of aesthetics etc up for a mass subjective valuation seems to throw the baby out w the bathwater. I don't get why go through all this effort to define aesthetics, morality, science etc on objective terms then make the ability to carry those out on purely subjective terms

>>15592306
Again, but we're now fall back into another issue.

Does the aesthetical value of something exist independant of human subjective opinions?

Sure, if your entire point is that the supply and demand law is only meant for the market value of a piece of art.
But we're back at the same point, the market value doesn't determine the aesthetical value of a piece of art.
Many times both contradict each other.

So, if your argument is that the aesthetical value is something subjective (like austrians say), that means there's not such concept of beauty.

And I disagree, I think there's some objective measure of beauty that is independant of subjetivity.

>>15591989
materialism is the greatest evil to ever exist

>>15592020
this

>>15592323
Well you could quantify it if you want, just find out how. But it would be a categorically different theory than economic value.
Price and economic are praxeological categories, they stem from actions. Trying to find out what is the objective value of a Renaissance painting has nothing to do with economics. And even if you were to find out what were its exact objective value, why would you fix its price on it ?
The methodology of economics doesn't involve metaphysics, and if you think value stems from action, which i do, then praxeological reasoning and not metaphysical reasoning must be employed.

"""Economics""" is a spook.

Things are worth what I think they're worth. If you disagree, fuck you.

>>15592369
Praexological reasoning is a metaphysical position. It's a utilitarianism or a pragmatism. There's no reason to think economics works this way but the universe doesn't. It's contradictory. The question becomes why use a pragmatic value when you wouldn't and couldn't apply it everywhere. Our legal system cannot operate like that. Any economic system that does is backwards by definition.

>>15592284
If I understood you correctly, my answer would be that economic value is inherently the function of exchange, whereas aesthetic value isn't. Money is a social institution. An apple has no economic value before Friday joins Robinson Crusoe on the island and bargains with him. A painting by Klimt, presumably, has aesthetic value even if no observers exist. So something like "majority will" is good for economics, but not necessarily for other areas.

Art is currently over valued. There's a near limitless supply to art (anyone create it) and demand compounds negatively as reproduction of art is dirt cheap. Additionally, the labour involved in creating art has no real "cost". It's neither physically or mentally demanding.

I'm not against art but I think anyone who creates art as a primary occupation is a fraud. Everyone can and should create art as a hobby, and their source of resources to live should come from a sacrificial occupation that converts effort into product.

>>15592432
t. american

>>15592432
this. but it is marginally better than fiat money, which IS limitless in supply (provided you're a jew)

>>15592428
An apple does have an economic value before Friday joins Robinson. If he's willing to hike and work for 2 hours before finding an apple, then the apple is worth at least 2 hours of hiking, this is economic value.
Once Crusoe shows up, it adds exchange value to the apple. Maybe Crusoe would be willing to exchange a fish for an apple we don't know. Social interaction only widens the range of possibilities the value of a good can have, it doesn't create value

>>15591989
This is actually a nice idea if you also consider that "everything's a little bit art," and let it bleed out from there, but:

>marxist theory of labour
I'm not big on Marx but I'm pretty sure the marxist theory of labor is not that labor equals time. Or at least, that would be a naive theory of time to pair with your theory of labor.

Let's say you're playing a videogame. There is only one item that can be crafted. It is crafted via two different ingredients, one each, which are otherwise not useful. In this sense their use/demand is by-definition identical. Suppose then that each item takes 30 minutes to obtain. Does this imply that they fetch the same market price? After all, they have the same demand, and neither takes more time to supply. Are they always going to be the same price?

The answer is no. It's probably no challenge to test this empirically, but it isn't hard to just think it out. For example, consider that one item is obtained by completing a strenuous 30 minute long dungeon, and the other is completed by an easy and yet 30 minute long minigame. The minigame may take 30 minutes, but if it's such an easy thing to play that I could, for example, open ten windows of it at a time to gather an order of magnitude more material, then this means I can create ten times the supply. It's still 30 minutes per item, but it may just be a tenth the task. Time is not just a line on which you are either laboring, or not laboring; it's more like a pie-chart growing up into a cylinder, which for any cross-section, you may be laboring a different percent. I mean suppose you're waiting tables and one server waits ten tables while another waits one; they aren't doing the same labor, even if their shifts last the same time.

>It took me 2 days to make crappy drawing when today I can make a much better drawing in 5 minutes.
Shouldn't the time spent training be in some way factored into how long you spent on the drawing?

>Also, the austrian supply and demand doesn't work either.
>That would imply that pop radio trash has higher value than a more avant garde piece of jazz, because the demand is higher, then their value should be higher.
I think they'd just whittle the claim down to "I'm not judging the intellectual work, but the value of the rights to an mp3 file." Though yes, it's hard to say what the difference is, and you could probably reword this in terms of copyright values or something like that, which probably adds more problems than it solves.

>>15592428
Yeah I'm saying value itself should be universalized not compartmentalized. Economics, with capitalism, is the only value that's defined by supply and demand. Considering that's a big value system, of opportunity, it's really deleterious to all the other value systems, including legal

>>15592476
Not op but value of labor can be tied to anything, time is certainly a measure of labor. The point was labor itself can't be a good value system. Even if you work really hard, ignoring time, at the start of some new hobby, it takes a lot more effort. So you would argue the first paintings are worth more than say some a week later. If you define labor's worth as the whole time up to that point you still get issues in that after 20 years of steady labor of learning a task you can paint some shit as a joke and it wouldn't earn its value from that labor. Value can't come from man

>>15592180
Wait till you realize this concept broadly applies to the majority of cultural parts of modern life. “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Should be flipped in the 21st century to “Why is there nothing rather than something?”
>>15592182
As I said above, check out Baudrillard’s essay an art auctions. It’s in the book For a critique of the political economy of the sign. The whole book is a collection of essays the develops these ideas. Baudrillard in general is very much in this sort of world of ideas

>>15592777
My point wasn't it was nothing. I deny nothing can exist. I'm saying why have an economic system valued on almost nothing while valuing everything else on an objective system

>>15592799
Is not saying nothing can exist (though if you read Sartre he makes it an important ontological entity) but rather that like the art auction, many of our cultural ideas have a nihilation at their center. A basis that is fundamentally indeterminate.

>>15592555
Okay, so then we can split all the terms. Labor, time, supply, demand are all not eachother. Obviously they're related in that you can have a supply of time, and that on time labor may occur, but I'll assume none of these terms are coextensive.

Give me an example of two things which require identical amounts of supply, time, and labor, which are also equally demanded, which do not fetch the same price when put on the same market. Inevitably one of those first four things needs to be different for the price to be different.

>>15592872
two paintings by the same author, one which is pollitically correct and the other which is seen as racist by the left.

>>15592872
I'm not arguing they can be split up, I'm saying even if they are split up they still don't coalesce into a good universal determinant of value, which would be applied to art, law etc. The labor theory of value (in regards to your second paragraph, a mixing of Marxist + austrian theory of value) cannot be applied as well as a more objective value system.
Yes in the current system of economic value those value systems would uphold it's own value systems. That's begging the question

>>15592894
difference in demand

>>15592908
>they still don't coalesce into a good universal determinant of value
But if value stretches beyond those four categories, then it sounds be possible to present the example I requested.

>That's begging the question
Only in the sense which utilizing value in the first place is.

>>15592953
>it sounds be possible
should be possible

>>15592953
No you're making the defining variable, dollars, of value to test value in a system which upholds those values.

I'll give you an excess of your system, more than what's already been given. Cash me outside girl's music shot off simply due to perversion of 20's aged men. Her music certainly isn't better than many musicians.

Watch The Banker's Guide to Art and The Black Box of the Art Business and you should be up to speed.

>>15591989
Once again, the retard forgets to differentiate price from value, and is confused when his microeconomics are in conflict with macroeconomic theories.

>>15592953
It's similar to saying tell me 1+1= anything but 2 if we define 1 after 2 and + as how much after the left number is by the right number. That's a terrible way to test your ideology

>>15592986
Price is economic value. There's no definition which argues contrapositively

>>15592973
>Her music certainly isn't better than many musicians.
Then it's not her music which she's profiting off in the first place.

Though on the subject of simps, donations are actually a much cleaner example to use than art now that you mention it. It takes essentially zero time, supply or labor to set up a patreon (or at least not much more for one patreon than another), and if it's a "pure-donation" there's arguably no product to be demanded. So why would some people donate one amount of dollars while others, who may well have the same amount of dollars, donate none at all? Sentimentality? But then how do you know this isn't just something under demand? You could say "I don't demand that there be beggers in the first place," but if the donation is under the expectation that it generates something for the donator (less beggars) then that again gets into demand (not a "pure-donation" anymore).

>>15592987
No it isn't at all like that. Anon has claimed there is something which exists outside the terms, which they fail to capture. I've asked "what?" and the reaponse is "things I don't like are liked."

>>15592993
t. consoomer

>>15593088
Listen idc about how things are valued in this system. Even if it was by coincidence all valued objectively it's still a bad system of valuation.
Her music is valued at x dollars, which coincides w radioplay, inclusion into the small list of art, the news hyping up or down the music. Not to say ppl don't have inherent value but to say this system values this music correctly is ridiculous. In fact it's just a sit on your hands approach valuation. If this conversation gets sold, perhaps through a yt video, saying I am correct or you are, and it makes money. Does that increase the value of either of our truths? It's a ridiculous backwards caveman system

>>15593114
If you aren't buying things for-their-value in the first place then why should we care if a bad artist's work sells for twice as much a good one's?

>>15593112
I've presented plenty of examples. If I help an old lady cross the street and I get more views of it on yt or interviews etc and someone defeats cancer but gets less views, does that mean we should avoid getting vaccines and instead solely opt to help older ladies or whatever example

>>15593114
I'm arguing economic value is a bad indicator of value overall. They tried to divorce price from economic value in capitalism. Definitionally that's what it is

>>15593149
Why have a system that promotes that period? It comes w many issues when economic value is separate from ethical, educational, legal, aesthetic values etc. You get nothing by divorcing them

>>15593171
Why do you think they're being called separate? There's >>15592894 and its reply.

>>15593177
Because we don't judge legal values by supply and demand? That would promote a commodification of the prison system.

>>15593153
Yeah I'd just go join one of those "marathons for old women crossing the street" fundraisers.

>>15593177
Even the marx labour theory of value would make a bad legal system. They're horrific just the consequences of a value system like that in economics are less immediately obvious cf legal etc

>>15593199
And never get a vaccine buddy. You'll have a lot of decrepit ppl to walk across. The system supports itself. That's how you trick yourself man

>>15593194
Saying they aren't separate is not the same as saying they're identical. Economic value gets used in economics. Moral value should be used in moral cases. Aesthetic value in aesthetic cases, sure. But once it becomes time to purchase an aesthetic item, there is going to be overlap. I mean that's what trade is, value for value, hopefully in such a fashion that each party sees increase.

>>15593216
No anon the joke is that these marathons don't happen, it's an unreal example.

How many paintings would you step on to get one innocent man off death row?

>>15593273
>Saying they aren't separate is not the same as saying they're identical.
Oh, pic

>>15593273
No value is value. It's either determined objectively or pragmatically. Every other system attempts to solve value in their system objectively. Economics is the only one getting away w this subjective crap so far. If you don't think objectively that feminists painting portraits w period blood, and done terribly, is worth as much value as say the mona lisa then you see the issue with economical value being determined rousseauianly by the spirit of the ppl. It leads nihilism. If your work isn't valued for your work then why make worthy work. Just do crap that smells and sell out.

>>15593314
I'm kinda curious what he meant by that unless it was just a pragmatic slip of the tongue

>>15593316
>No value is value.
mind your commas

>Every other system attempts to solve value in their system objectively.
Aaand how many of them have succeed in this venture? Do we have an objective theory of artistic value? Do we have an objective theory of moral value? No, we have a bunch of competing theories that would all like to be objective but simply are not.

>>15593329
My greentext of myself? I'm saying that A and be being not separate, as in them having overlap, is not the same as them entirely overlapping.

>>15593342
We're on a shit messenger board site and if you can't follow along then you shouldn't be here. That's a terrible cope w ur ass punctuation and mine for this whole thread.

Yes they do succeed. Our legal system isn't selling men to china to pay off our debt and our economic system can't either by virtue of our legal system.

>>15593355
>A and be
welp

>>15593355
Value is value, it is not some dialectical morphing of them all. They're predicates of value. Look up predicate logic

>>15593367
Welp to whoever didn't understand it. If a debate comes to the vehicle of communication the point is lost

>>15593358
>We're on a shit messenger board site and if you can't follow along then you shouldn't be here. That's a terrible cope w ur ass punctuation and mine for this whole thread
You're really taking that much offense to that? It implies the exact opposite of what you intend without the mark, it holds more "value" than other mistakes.

>by virtue of our legal system
He says while blissfully ignoring the degree to which his legal system is made possible by economic ones. Noone has solved morality, noone has solved art, they aren't objective and you have to be a retard to think this. Get mad that I called you a retard instead of over my comma note.

>>15593375
>Look up predicate logic
see my own post: >>15593314

>>15592084
Economics is not about proposing philosophical systems, anon. Hence, it's not about ethics, it's not about morals, etc. As any other science, it takes the reality as a given, whatever we may think of it, and seeks to understand it by formulating some rules about it's movement which have some degree of predictive movement. That's why your objection to the austrian theory is wrong, and also to the LTV which does not seek to explain art pieces because it deems it as irrelevant to economic systems.

Hey. I see some people saying that economic value is void because it can't replace moral value. So then for art, let me repeat the question: if not money, how many paintings would you step on to get one innocent man off death row?

>>15593391
Not by this >>15593367

You can be more correct than not. Saying 1+1=2 can't be 100% objectively proven correct but it's more correct than any other number.
Ethics is 100% proven correct but it is more correct now, even economically, than having slavery is and so on.
Economic value isn't separate or prior to legal value. You need a good legal system for the economy to work otherwise there's no stores economy etc. You can't say the same about legal system. Every tribe had and needs a legal system. Even intrafamily you need a sort of legal system. If it's shit it has bad consequences and this is completely without an intrafamily currency etc

>>15593441
both of those are me

>Ethics is 100% proven correct
shame I already used that image

>>15593400
That's proposition logic

>>15593423
Yes these are philosophical systems of deriving economic value. Perhaps you should study philosophy on your own cause university perverted your mind on what philosophy is. It's not ethics it's metaphysical implication which would be ethics

>>15593461
Yes I know that's you moron. The fact that you felt ashamed shows it wasn't a joke

>>15593475
>seeing irony means I'm ashamed
I'm starting to wish I'd taken frog collection more seriously

>>15593466
You don't have idea what economics is about. A theory of value seeks to formulate a rule to explain exchange ratios in markets. It's not about "value" as a universal category. If we think, or not, that, say, being brave is something valuable, that doesn't fall in the field of interest of economics. It's not what economists talk about when they think of value. They're just talking about relative prices

>>15593491
That seems to be all you're good at. If it's that's the joke then that's the joke. The irony would be if it wasn't the joke

>>15593466
>That's proposition logic
They translate, assuming by predicate logic you meant a language sophisticated enough to have quantifiers. It's not as if I can't write out what those circles indicate.

>>15593503
Yes inside applicable economics that's all economics is concerned with, yes. In elementary math they're not interested in number theory or what the operation signs are just 1+1.

>>15593509
That's gibberish

>>15593512
Did you just google that? Yours is prop logic. It's entirely distinct from predicate logic much less polyadic predicate

>>15593515
Yes because you're dumb lol

>>15593518
Theu translate. If you want to say that the thing which these things all belong to is not itself their point of overlap, go right ahead, pick your favorite tounge.

>>15593513
Let me put it in these terms: economists usually say tastes and preferences (which determine value) are exogenous: they don't try to explain them, they just take them as given. Explaining why people thinks things are valuable is a task for sociologists or philosophers, not economists

>>15593523
The artist's last argument

>>15593545
You can't translate quantifiers into red logic. An x reads every y is untranslatable into prop logic except as a wff of α. Which is meaningless in pred logic

>>15593563
Sure. Now what was your objection?

>>15593549
Yes and they also are forced to assume they are endogenously rational self serving beings. You can't just pretend it's examined in a closed system. By disregarding the particular of what humans value they set up a value system for them. Of course this rational man doesn't work. I'm sure you've studied applied economics. That's entirely off subject. The subject is the definition of value and the examination of it. You just said 'the economics I study doesn't touch it.' I'm sure it doesn't

>>15593582
That it's prop logic and you were supposed to use pred. It doesn't support your argument. Even if your image was different the sentence doesn't make sense

>>15593582
Also I object to you saying they translate it goes without saying lol

>>15593549
I can metaphysically explain why what you're studying doesn't touch it

>>15591989
Read Living Currency.

>>15593596
>and you were supposed to use pred
Where and why?

>>15593624
God ure dumb lol
This and pic >>15593375

>>15593645
In what way to you object to the post above it?

>>15593650
You can't say in prop logic that something is not it (separate) and it. It's a contradiction. You mean to say value has as a predicate Economics, Legal etc

>>15591989
>It contradict both the marxist theory of labour and both the austrian denition of supply and demand.
>A piece of art takes more effort to a begginer than the same time when he's a master.
>It took me 2 days to make crappy drawing when today I can make a much better drawing in 5 minutes.
>So over time, the effort I put into a drawing should less, since is easier to me now.
>So by this logic the price of my drawings should be lower, since they take less time and effort to make.
>But in reality the older I become, the higher I could charge for them.
Ackshchually for example a pair of shoes is worth N, if it takes you longer to make it, it's still N. If in that timeframe you can make two, you earn 2N. You're looking at it the other way around.

I don't agree about putting art through a value measurement like labor, but it could perfectly work if you had some sort of academia or union to estabilish reasonable prices.

$1,400,000

A painted metal frame with integral motor (shredder) which (has) shredded a paint/canvas "painting". 2018, "Banksy"

>>15593650
Here btw

>>15593673
Yeah, you're not talking about the post above it.

$91,000,000

Rabbit, Jeff Koons 2019

>>15593742
Are you referring to this? >>15593316
The core part was your bad logic

$450,300,000

Salvator Mundi, Leonardo da Vinci. c.1500

>>15593800
And? Yes there's a supply demand value of art. The question is whether it gives a correct value if you use labor theory of value or Austrian.

>>15593800
Refer to this >>15593141

>>15593773
Do you not know the difference between above and below?

>>15593856
That's my response to your above moron

Look at it this way. You have an enormous amount of liquidity, you'd like to hold it someplace. Salvator Mundi sold for $179,400,000 in 2015. A realized capital gain of $270,900,000 to sell it in 2017 for $450,300,000

For myself, I think Banksy's Shredder painting is worth at least $20,000,000 and if I had $1.4 million I'd consider buying it

>>15593875
amd it has nothing to do with formal logic, so I'm telling you to try again

>>15593883
Completely off topic. Nobody is asking how the value of supply demand works. The topic was how does defining value by ltv and supply demand work as a similar value measurement for aesthetics unless you're arguing any art that is worth 1mill is more aesthetic than a 10k worth art

>>15593885
God your ability to read is horrid >>15593673
>>15593718
Ask again and I'll cite again

>>15593885
I love highlighting your stupidity so I'll do it again before you ask.

You screwed up on saying prop logic translates to pred logic and your argument about value was contradictory in prop logic so you should've used pred logic.

I know being in college makes you think you're worth something but you are incredibly stupid and were outtasked. So you should probably reidentify yourself outside a college student who maybe majors in economics. And if you're not even in college then you need to drop the weights and get humbled. You're not the shit you think you are. You can be wrong and you're going to have to accept that and not hide behind weights or exogenous traits like being in college

>>15593911
Cite again and you'll have said nothing about >>15593273. You don't have an argument. The entire chain of posts above that is just you saying "you wouldn't price justice, why would you price art" when the exact same problem happens with justice happens when you replace dollar bills with paintings. Why is money's inability to buy a righteous judge disqualify economic value, when the same thing happens with paintings and art? It is such a completely obviously throwing of the baby out with the bathwater because people think their art is too good for this or that system of economic value.

>uh but I think you should talk with trees like this instead of loops like that
Don't care

>>15593940
lmao, guessed it; nothing to say about the subject, everything to say about the other

>>15593970
>The entire chain of posts above that is just you saying "you wouldn't price justice, why would you price art" when the exact same problem happens with justice when you replace dollar bills with paintings. Why is money's inability to buy a righteous judge disqualifying economic value, when the same thing happens with paintings and art? It is such a completely obvious throwing of the baby out with the bathwater because people think their art is too good for this or that system of economic value.
there

>>15593970
Quit using my words. You don't know what they mean. I've made my point and I'll let you dig yourself in deeper. Have the final word, good day

>>15593996
>Quit using my words.
>Have the final word
And the question remains unanswered: how many painting would you burn to free an innocent man?

>>15593901
I'm suggesting the price is approx.value of anticipated appreciation. But also, on a relative basis.

Whatever aesthetic basis of value is relative... while "it sold for ..." is independent event.

The market is just a quorum signalling device, signifying itself, in the price. The art has no integral subjective parts other than the arrangements.

Obviously Salvator Mundi means something to a Christian. The Bunny has something to do with Art itself, and the shredder painting is inclusive of everything, including your opinion of it. Thats added value.

Does originality count for anything?

Why it doesn't contradict Marxian economics:
Your art is the sum of your mastery of the craft, not its individual creation.

Why it doesn't contradict Classical economics:
A products merit has nothing to do with its accounting success; please google: 'micro-economics - inferior and normal goods & income elasticity of demand'.

Also economics is a science, please post any other economic threads in /sci/.

>>15591989
My take on it is art is madness for the rich, who have so much money that they don't answer to the supply and demand law anymore. It's clearly fetischization of useless items in order to gain social status. In the end, those fucker probably feel empty, with their Renoir in their gigantic living room, or their New Yorker "art galleries".