Thread: Is it worth it?

Originally Posted by joebehar

Four "versions" Each of them one of a kind....I understand what you're trying to say, but the indisputable fact is, every painting is one of a kind. There may be others that are very similar, but that's where it ends.

I have not seen any of the versions in person, but I'm willing to wager a fine tub of premium shaving soap that each of them has its own "presence" and speaks to the viewer differently.

Thats probably the case for sure, wondering if the 4 different version were done one after the other or what kind of time between all of them?
was it because of popularity? financial gain? family rendition?

I've bought art before - not on this scale of course - and I can completely understand how someone could offer this kind of money. More than anything else (yes, even razors), for me art is so personal in what it says - I've bought pieces for twice what others had thought reasonable because it said something to me that it did to no one else.

Clearly the value of things like art is not in the inputs (paint, canvas, frame, talent) like it may be with something like a car. Or at least the utilitarian car. Higher end cars, as Birnando mentioned, are different I think. But then higher end cars are marketed, and maybe even designed, to speak to people in a more personal way than a Volkswagen Golf GTi, for example, which clearly is meant to speak to people who like to speed, cut others off, run red lights and generally cause havoc and act like tools wherever they go!!! But I digress....

To top it off, the value of art seems to be related to whether the artist is dead or not also. I guess what that really is is scarcity. Dead artists make no more art, although it seems their family can usually scrape together some long-forgotten scraps of discarded rubbish and flog it for a last-ditch milking of their relative's talent. But again, I digress

To answer the more generic question about value, it is my studied opinion that in fact no, something is not actually always worth what someone will pay for it at any one moment. You've just got to look at house prices or the stock market to see that. People can be irrational and will sometimes do things that defy logic or good sense or *gasp* fiscal prudence. I've seen it, as I am sure a lot of us have. Personally I think there are excellent examples of bubbles waiting to burst in our very own beloved hobby, but I may be wrong there as there does seem to be a bit of the "art" about what we do - but whether that means prices will hold, or that we are creating a delusion-based market I guess only time will tell.

James.

Originally Posted by Martin103

Thats probably the case for sure, wondering if the 4 different version were done one after the other or what kind of time between all of them?
was it because of popularity? financial gain? family rendition?

As I understand it the 4 paintings are made within a time period of 17-18 years.
It was during a walk on a hill east of the centre of Oslo with two friends he got the inspiration for it.
The area in the background is basically the inner part of the Oslo harbour, where the new Opera house is situated now.
I have seen three out of the 4 in real life, and they are all distinct and unique due to the choice of colors and materials it was painted on and with.

A fun little story:
One of my very best mates when growing up on the east side of Oslo ended up as a small time criminal, and two of the many heists he pulled was stealing the version of The Scream that hangs in the National Gallery here in Oslo, and also The Vampire by the same artist.
I say small time because while he did some rather famous art-thefts he has still to even successfully steal as much as a bar of chocolate without getting caught eventually

The sad part is that the fella was a great sports talent and was offered a spot on one of the big football teams in our top-division...

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

So, they just auctioned off that painting-"The Scream" for 120 million. Other than the obvious comment that some folks have too much money the question to ponder is what makes something worth it's cost? Does it have to have some kind of intrinsic value or can some market just set the value. If you buy the Hope Diamond the value will never decrease because of its rarity but if they discover 3 more of these paintings besides the other two what happens to the value? Does the fact people are willing to pay mean it's worth the price? What happens if the market values something for X amount but no one is willing to pay it?

This not only applies to this particular painting but really anything else from an expensive watch to a fancy automobile to a house or bottle of wine or of course a razor.

I may be a little off topic here, please forgive if I am.

When my father was dying of cancer he said that he’d done things in his life that he wasn’t very proud of but his only regret in his entire life was that he had sold his inheritance of his grandfather’s homestead.

If I had the money I’d pay 10 times what its worth just to have it back in the family.

Beauty is indeed in the eyes of the beholder!

"What happens if the market values something for X amount but no one is willing to pay it?"

Market value is what something will sell for. If nobody will pay X amount, then the value has been shown to be less than X.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

To answer the more generic question about value, it is my studied opinion that in fact no, something is not actually always worth what someone will pay for it at any one moment. You've just got to look at house prices or the stock market to see that. People can be irrational and will sometimes do things that defy logic or good sense or *gasp* fiscal prudence. I've seen it, as I am sure a lot of us have. Personally I think there are excellent examples of bubbles waiting to burst in our very own beloved hobby, but I may be wrong there as there does seem to be a bit of the "art" about what we do - but whether that means prices will hold, or that we are creating a delusion-based market I guess only time will tell.

James.

Hmmm..interesting point of view. May I rebutt?

Irrational behaviour is not necessarily an indicator of worth or non worth. The fact is, people paid the crazy prices for houses and stocks, and by definition, that became their worth. After the bubble burst, people were either no longer willing to or not able to pay the same prices and hence "worth" dropped.

To quote a very loose analogy "if you give a kid a hammer, all of a sudden everything becomes a nail"

If I want "it" bad enough it will be worth it ..... at least until I get it. After that ...... well ..... who knows ?

Originally Posted by joebehar

Hmmm..interesting point of view. May I rebutt?

Irrational behaviour is not necessarily an indicator of worth or non worth. The fact is, people paid the crazy prices for houses and stocks, and by definition, that became their worth. After the bubble burst, people were either no longer willing to or not able to pay the same prices and hence "worth" dropped.

To quote a very loose analogy "if you give a kid a hammer, all of a sudden everything becomes a nail"

Of course you may rebutt! In fact, I think you just did

The "by definition" definition of worth simply doesn't hold any water for me. I would argue that if stocks and housing were truly worth what they were priced at, there would not have been a bursting bubble. It is my opinion that the "it's worth what people are willing to pay for it" argument is what creates the issues in the first place, as it feeds off the human tendency to become caught up in the group reinforcement phenomenon, which is not a rational approach to anything. Just because someone else does something doesn't mean it is right - just look at looting as an example.

I would argue that there are much better, systematic, objective ways to value something's worth other than vox populi - what people "reckon" is generally unsystematic and barely quantifiable, let alone repeatable under identical circumstances. So while "what someone is willing to pay for it" is perhaps the actual definition of somethings "worth", to me is a very poor measure little better than randomly selecting a value out of thin air.

James.

In fact, I should qualify what I have said by saying that one of my undergrad degrees was in Economics. We were taught that the market decides the value of goods and or services via the usual "supply and demand equilibrium" model that I think everyone learns in high school. However, one of the fundamental assumptions that underlies this model is the one that always breaks down in practice: the assumption that everyone in the market displays rational behaviour.

So I guess what I am saying, in my many-posted and long-winded way , is that until someone proves to me that everyone in a market acts "rationally", the "what it is worth to the buyer" model of value will never be a good one to me, as its most fundamental assumption never holds.

OK, I will shut up now.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

In fact, I should qualify what I have said by saying that one of my undergrad degrees was in Economics. We were taught that the market decides the value of goods and or services via the usual "supply and demand equilibrium" model that I think everyone learns in high school. However, one of the fundamental assumptions that underlies this model is the one that always breaks down in practice: the assumption that everyone in the market displays rational behaviour.

So I guess what I am saying, in my many-posted and long-winded way , is that until someone proves to me that everyone in a market acts "rationally", the "what it is worth to the buyer" model of value will never be a good one to me, as its most fundamental assumption never holds.

OK, I will shut up now.

James.

Oh no, please don't shut up, this is just getting interesting.

I agree with you that our free markets are not always rational, mostly unquantifiable and definitely operate on a whim a lot of the time, but they are still better than the alternative.

I, for one, do not want to live in a country where someone else decides how much I should spend on any given item. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ethical business and a free for all with shady practices does no one any good. In the end, an educated buyer is the only real solution to these boom and bust cycles we go through, but now I'm going back to the whole education thing again and we finished with that in another thread recently

I may be Canadian, but I'm still a proponent of free markets.