Value and Paintings

On Wednesday, we spent our third week at the Indiana Art Museum. This week, we observed the modern art exhibit, displaying a collection of American and European works over time. There were portraits, still life paintings, sculptures, and more abstract pieces.

This display was different than any we had seen up to this point. In every other site visit, a large portion of the collection, were three dimensional objects. Many of them had functional uses, like dishes, cups, and vessels for serving food and drinks or clothing to wear. This modern exhibit was almost entirely paintings. In addition, there were a couple of sculptures, like a miniature bust and, from the more recent past, a wheel on a stool.

In “The Things We Carry” by Joshua Wolf Shenk, the focus is more on objects like maps or typewriters than paintings. However, it also talks about the concept of value. Shenk claims that “Value is not what we coax, toil, and scream for. Value is he coaxing, toiling, and screaming. Value is not relief but tension” (56). With this assertion in mind, I wonder how the values of paintings like the ones in the Indiana Art Museum are affected over time. How do their values change? Does their monetary value go up or down and by how much? How does the way people perceive value change and does that correlate with the monetary value?

I also wonder how many works of equal or greater value exist in the world today. If all private collectors decided to sell their art, would the value severely decrease? Will there always be paintings that are considered valuable? In a society where basic needs are not being widely met, how are perceptions and opinions of the general public on art changed or not changed?

This article also made me think about the more human aspects of art and objects. Shenk wrote about his grandfather’s Hebrew typewriter. Though he had tried to convince himself that its monetary value did not matter to him, having it appraised still affected his emotions and his outlook. What made this object so important to him was its story. Unfortunately for him, the story of his grandfather, a Rabbi in Corpus Christi, was far more significant to him that it would have been to the general public. In this case, even a specialized population, such as Jews, would still not be highly interested in paying a lot of money. However, Shenk got differing reports on how much money his prized object could bring in, showing how relative value is. When it comes down to the root of the issue, an object is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Since Shenk never went through with selling his typewriter, he couldn’t know its value with certainty.

Every object has a story. Most of the art in the Indiana Art Museum likely has a unique and meaningful story. I wonder how the people who painted the paintings that hang on the museum walls would feel about this part of their work’s story. Would they feel honored? Would they feel that it isn’t carrying out its purpose or representing them as they’d wish to be represented? Or would they not care so long as they made money off of the deal, desiring either wealth or just to support themselves?