Wednesday, February 04, 2009

"Can you blame the public for believing that art is an investment, to be cashed in when expedient?"

At, Judith Dobrzynski tries to explain the widely divergent reactions of the art world and the general public to the Rose story.

She lists a bunch of reasons why the public has come to see art "as a tradeable commodity."

One good reason that doesn't make the list is that (whatever else it may be) art is a tradeable commodity. People trade it every day! (Even museums.)

The Art Market Monitor had some similar thoughts a few days ago here ("What seems to amplify the problem is the very success of art in recent years in market terms. Without a market value, the museum would not be a container of assets the university might view as, well, assets.").