Among the recurring questions raised by the public about the contemporary art market, the main one is: how do you calculate the price of art works?

Moreover, this question often comes with another, which is the same but phrased differently: how do you recognise art works?¹

Since we dealt with this last question in the editorial of the WHO'S WHO IN INTERNATIONAL ART 2007 edition (`The question to experts: What is art?') – still available on www.whoswhoart.com, and which prompted numerous and flattering reactions from readers and internauts, including our artist members – this time, we shall limit our study to the price of contemporary art.

In order to understand this question of the price, let us remember that it is not raised innocently. What we mean is that it often reflects the public's incapacity (sometimes shared by artists, art gallery owners and historians)² to understand why prices are so high³, especially when considering contemporary art works which are so difficult to decipher: for example, how is it that a monochrome (even by someone as famous as Yves Klein) or a pile of stones (from a Richard Long) can cost so much? In fact, how can they cost anything at all?

Let us try to answer that, step by step.

“A load of rubbish!”

According to specialists, what we understand by contemporary art emerged in the early 1960s and includes some very different types of works. Nevertheless, most of them seem to have been very poorly made. So much so, that some people reckon “even a child could do that”.⁴

Even Picasso, in his days, got to hear the remark: “This is a load of rubbish, you're painting like Picasso!” Interviewed by Jacques Chancel in his famous Radioscopie programme (on France-Inter), The writer André Malraux recalled a comment from a former member of the French resistance in WW II, who was not familiar with Modern Art: “That guy must be a bit of a wizard, you know. I could do what he does, but he manages to sell his works at a very high price!” Modern Art and black magic: a question of enchantment...

This sums up the difficulty when pricing 20^th and 21^st century art works. But why is this question still so frequently raised by people nowadays?

What is left of the judgement criteria inherited from the past

Whoever visits the showrooms devoted to the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th centuries at the Louvre museum – to name but a few centuries and one museum – will not be surprised at the similarity between the artistic and the financial value of a painting by Rembrandt, Nicolas Poussin or François Boucher. The amount of work carried out by each artist (and his studio) is quite obvious. And so are its particularities. There is no need to be an art historian or an art school graduate, contemporary or not, to gauge the skill, the experience of those artists who were called “masters” for a good reason. All the more so since, in those days – let us recall it too – painters were a lot more cultured than ordinary craftsmen. Their paintings contained knowledge: because of the mythological, religious or historical themes which they often alluded to, you had to be quite an erudite to really grasp them.⁵

True enough, some might find their financial value (too) excessive, but no one will deny that it is in keeping with the “visible” work. Moreover, historians have since then been able to give every artist from the past his exact place in relation with his contemporary peers and with artists from future generations.

Therefore, the first external sign to consider, one likely to justify the price of an art work (in the eyes of the uninitiated or doubtful public) is: the visible excellence of the work. Which, to put it simply, is the same as saying: “I couldn't do that!”

But is that enough? No, it isn't. Another distinction has to be made because, from the Renaissance, artists have progressively become far removed from the status of craftsmen. Skill alone is not enough.

You also have to take into account the contribution made by every artist. For example, although Rembrandt lived at the same time as Nicolas Poussin, an obviously different vision of their time has come out of their respective brush. One understands, without going further into it, that the visible excellence of their work and the fact that they were contemporary does not make them identical.

To continue along this line, one cannot deny the visible excellence of Gérard Dou's work (see, for example, “The Hydropic Woman” painted in 1663) but you could hardly regard him as superior to Vermeer and his “Lacemaker” painted in 1665. Historians deemed one of them better than the other (although somewhat late). Hence the difference in prices, which are hardly questionable.

Besides, at all times people have liked some artists better than others. For a while at least. Some are fashionable, others not so much or not at all.⁶ This may justify the fact – another point to consider – that some artists are more expensive than others, regardless of the singularity of their work in the eyes of historians. However, we must also remember that the popularity of fashionable artists who are only just that, fashionable, will sooner or later revert to its just historical (place) value. If not disappear altogether.

We know what happened to the star artists of the second half of the 19th century, who sank into oblivion at the beginning of the following century, like the illustrious painter William Bouguereau. A living legend, he received many prizes and was very famous until his death in 1905: “We have lost count of the numerous titles awarded to this painter who, after getting the Rome Prize for the second time in 1850 (...), drew to himself all the medals, presidencies and honours which made the glory of European painting at the end of the 19^th century”.⁷ Artists like Bouguereau (or Alexandre Cabanel, Léon Gérôme, etc.) were as famous then as Jeff Koons, Maurizio Cattelan and Damien Hirst are today.

Not to mention Picasso, Duchamp and Warhol. Just to give you an idea of their importance on the artistic scene at the time.⁸

The judgement criteria from the 20^th century onward.

Marcel Duchamp's urinal, which was not created by Marcel Duchamp and was signed Mutt, is priceless.⁹ Yet, the original has long disappeared. This oddity is extraordinary but nonetheless real!

It is difficult indeed not to mention this work, as a shortcut, to understand what makes the 20th century judgement criteria so different from those of yesteryear.

When faced with Duchamp's urinal and the works of artists who regarded him as a master whose example they were to follow right from the sixties – some historians regard him as the father of contemporary art – it is easy to understand that skill is not an essential ingredient, either to appreciate the work or to decide on its commercial value.

It is true to say that abstract art also raised major questions among the public and artists alike. Just like the Impressionists, Cubists or Fauvists did in their days... But it is also undeniable that they convinced the art world in the end.¹⁰ Indeed, because they broke away from the habits of the moment, these major movements were criticised for a while, before finding their place within the history of art. The predicted rupture hadn't been so radical after all: we were still talking of painting, sculpture...

But with Duchamp, who was more famous in the United States than in Europe until the second half of the 20^th century, things were different. It was more than a mere rupture. It was a revolution. It was like making a clean sweep of the past, of history, of the reference points and the skills which had been passed on from generation to generation for several centuries, to enter a new world, associated with Modernity and therefore Science and Progress; and, indirectly, a new history of art, which would have a significant repercussion on the training of artists at the end of the 20^th century.¹¹

In a way, although Marcel Duchamp's century was the 20^th century, one could certainly argue that his century/era didn't begin until the sixties. And the same goes for the new history of art to which he led the way.

And what does that consist of? In the end, we have the production of concepts applied to the field of fine arts, which have become visual arts through the development of new media (video, performances, photography, installations, digital art, etc.).

If an artist's concept is deemed relevant by the major decision-makers and prescribers of the moment (critics, curators, art gallery owners), it doesn't matter if the making of the work leaves much to be desired – in fact, it isn't necessarily carried out by the artist himself¹² – its price will be indexed in tune with such relevance, in view of the other concepts explored since Duchamp's days.

This also means that even painters, even sculptors, along with installation artists, photographers, video-makers, etc. are judged according to the same conceptual criteria by the intermediaries who make art officially known among the institutional world and on the market.

In this case, it isn't the painter's skill which matters – even if a new type of skill was born with Duchamp and his followers -, nor is it his knowledge of the history of Painting since the Lascaux era which will captivate the mind. What is judged is his capacity “to paint an idea”, to illustrate a concept through a means of expression brought down to its sole ingredients: colour, medium, size, type and context of action, materials, etc. Even the public itself, even what a particular gesture or sign means to the public, especially if provocation is sought as part of the work, just like a tube of paint or a canvas.

From this viewpoint, it makes no difference whether a painting is figurative or abstract, it has left the field of representation and is based on a sheer concept, around which the painting is built, and validated, if it has been deemed relevant.

Thought-communication¹³ has taken over from traditional skills, thus giving way to a new kind of skill residing entirely in a personal choice – that of the artist – to be deciphered. Hence the lack of understanding expressed by most contemporary people who still look at a painting from their time as if they were looking at an 18^th century canvas, or at an installation by Nam June Paik as if it were a sculpture by Rodin...

Indeed, nobody needs an instruction leaflet to understand “The Thinker”, even if the spectator does not necessarily perceive all that Rodin wanted to express through his sculpture. Both the body and the mind are summoned there. There is a tangible and personified reality which mobilises the mind, whether you are an erudite or not. But can the same be said of some television and radio sets harmoniously piled up and working, like Nam June Paik's work called `Voltaire'? The idea isn't to laugh at them, it is only to understand the lack of understanding of the public and therefore the need to give an explanation for those who wish to go beyond the initial stage of mockery or indifference – although people might laugh later, if the explanation given makes them smile more than anything else.¹⁴

On this basis, it is clear that we have to distinguish between two categories of works, and therefore of artists: those who are in keeping with the history of art since the Lascaux paintings (such as Balthus or Bacon) and those who emerge among the new history of art since Duchamp. Of course, this is a summary, but such distinction remains relevant to define the characteristics of the so-called contemporary art.

Marketing assessment is a priority

To understand how the price of today's art is calculated, we therefore have to situate the work within “its” history: another point to be considered. And what else?

Then comes the value of the assessment, which we have already mentioned. But we must come back to it because, in the end, this assessment is what determines the selling price of an item. And since we are talking of market value, the first people to be consulted are art gallery owners.
These “influential” merchants are to be found mainly at the historical art fairs (Art Basel in Basle and Miami, Fiac in Paris, Art Cologne, Arco in Madrid) and among their young rivals (especially Frieze in London, Armory Show in New York, Art Bruxelles, Art Forum in Berlin, Artissima in Turin). All these fairs fight over to be as visible as possible on the international market in order to draw the most influential sellers and buyers, including institutional decision-makers.¹⁵

Then, if there is a convergence between these prevailing professionals and the institutional and critical world, the popularity of an artist will be gradually confirmed at public sales. It will then be the object of careful attention from big collectors like François Pinault in France – or merchant-collectors such as the advertising executive Charles Saatchi in London, himself an institution whose own choices certainly don't go unnoticed, especially among merchants.

A small group of artists thus see their prices rise and even soar on the market, while the others are noticeable only through their absence. The latter ignore the expert advice of the market when meeting with the public. But then what about their prices? How do they know how to “set” their prices?

The price of independence

The artists who have chosen to remain independent from the market or who do not have a place in it for the reasons given above, set and keep an eye on their prices themselves.

We are not pretending to give here an all-purpose formula, however, it would be interesting to consider a few aspects, which we feel are essential.

First of all, nobody will regard the experience of an artist as being worthless: a beginner, whether coming out of an art school or self-taught, has to set his prices lower than a more experienced artist. The number and, above all, the value of the exhibitions in which he has taken part must also be considered by a potential buyer. Distinctions, which can be awarded even if the artist is not listed on the market, also have a role to play, unless the artist had to “buy” them, something which still happens from time to time, unfortunately.

Despite the prevailing rules these days, we advise the public to pay great attention to the execution of the works on show. Without dissociating them either from the works on offer on the reference market, or from the works which have been praised by historians. This is why it is useful to talk with the artists, to gain knowledge about their practice, their relationship with art in general and with their work in particular.¹⁶

Aware of how difficult it is for the public and the artists to gather evaluation material that is independent from the art market, some intermediaries have got together some useful tools to sort out and classify works which are not listed on the market. Apart from our own work done within the exhibitions and editorial activities of the WHO'S WHO Art club international, including this edition, there is also the search engine www.artrinet.org, directed by French historian and critic Francis Parent, which places artists and the public back at the heart of the artistic news. Then there is a short and daring Manuel d'évaluation d'une œuvre d'art, [A guide on how to evaluate art works] subtitled “Petit vade-mecum à l'usage de l'amateur fervent mais échaudé” [A small handbook for fervent art lovers who got their fingers burnt] (Éditions d'autre part) by Roland Biétry, PhD, a lecturer in Delémont (Switzerland), who justifies himself saying: “Who is it by? How much does it cost? What do the critics say about it? What does it matter! At last here is a guide which enables art lovers to forget about all the contingencies of fashion, snobbism and mercantilism. Strictly based on what there is on show, the criteria put forward give everyone the means to form an opinion by justifying it. A lecture on freedom.”

Nevertheless, nobody, in the past or now, on the market or elsewhere, ever guarantees that the asking price is fair. In this field, which is arbitrary to say the least, including among artists, a good price is first of all the price which the buyer is willing to pay. Not the selling price on the tag. Therefore, at the end of it all, it is up to you, the buyer, to judge on the fairness of the asking price, once you have appreciated the relevance of the work.

The editorial staff



¹ On this topic, you may find it useful to read the joint publication Qu'est-ce qu'un chef d'œuvre?, with texts by Hans Belting, Arthur Danto, Jean Galard, Martina Hansmann, Neil MacGregor, Werner Spies, Matthias Waschek (Gallimard, 2000).

² In his last Histoire de l'art (Flammarion, 2002), the French art historian Jacques Thuillier only devoted 3 pages (out of 365) to contemporary art, judging it wiser to postpone the analysis of this `multitude of small groups, which all claim to represent `modernity' and to be the `live art' of our time. Such proliferation started very early, even before 1968. It would be impossible to list them all.' In the collection of texts (Tout) l'art contemporain est-il nul? compiled by Patrick Barrer, the reader will find critical analyses of contemporary art written by twenty people or so: critics, historians and philosophers, sociologists, writers, artists. (Favre, 1999)

³ Even Chinese contemporary art has seen its prices rise tremendously in no time at all. Such is the case, for example, of works by Zhang Xiaogang, sold for less than 10,000 euros ten years ago and now worth more than 700,000 euros (Le Nouvel Observateur, 26th Oct./1st Nov. 2006).

⁴ See J'en ferais autant, subtitled `Comment vaincre les préjugés en peinture' [how to get rid of the prejudices about paintings], Christophe Flubacher, Ides et calendes, 1997.

⁵ See Vie et mort du tableau, Laurent Wolf, Klincksieck, 2004.

⁶ The biography of the charming Madame Vigée Le Brun (highly praised in her days), gives us a brief insight of it (by Françoise Pitt-Rivers, Gallimard, 2001).

⁷ Excerpt from L'aventure de l'art au XXe siècle (p. 67), Chêne-Hachette, 1990.

⁸ As to the contemporary era, you only need to have a look at the catalogues of the historical art fairs held over the past thirty years to discover the promoted and already forgotten artists – and not always rightly so.

⁹ So much so that even a broken replica by artist Pierre Pinoncelli on show at the Centre Pompidou has been valued at 3 million euros (in 1964, Marcel Duchamp renewed his 1917 deed, acquiring some new urinals to produce a limited edition, which he signed).

¹⁰ Let us take this opportunity to refute the persistent belief that all those artists who lived at the end of the 19th century were undermined by poverty and a lack of understanding from the public. In her book Les mirages de l'art contemporain (La Table ronde, 2005), Christine Sourgins recalls the social background of most impressionists, including Van Gogh, and the rapid progression in the price of their works (pp 152, 153, 154).

¹¹ By historian Jacques Thuillier: “Indeed, one of the characteristics of that era, is the sudden break away from traditional techniques. Architecture is still based on skills which cannot really disappear. But in the other fields, all the experience which had been conquered again since the Carolingian days disappeared in less than thirty years. Nowadays, a sculptor doesn't know how to model a knee or a hand. A painter doesn't know how to draw a shoulder or a torso. In most schools this is no longer taught. The phenomenon developed at an amazing pace. It spread to Japan and China, where only a small portion of artists stick to the tradition: the others follow occidental patterns.” Op.cit.

¹² Such as Jeff Koons in the United States or Fabrice Hybert in France.

¹³ The 20^th century art is a series of statements, manifests, concepts and ideological struggles, of which an anthology such as Art en théorie, 1900-1990, directed by Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, reveals the creative power, and sometimes a disconcerting ingenuity, to say the least (Hazan, 1997).

¹⁴ Something which the playwright Yazmina Reza (and the audience) did in her play called “Art” which was shown round the world with great success, as we all know.

¹⁵ While other fairs deliberately turned their back on the market and its rules which they find absurd. For instance, Europ'ART in Geneva, which is establishing itself as the alternative fair par excellence, presenting intermediaries and artists in a different way and, above all, presenting other intermediaries and other artists.

¹⁶ Following this editorial, the reader will find the 20^th and 21^st century main historical artists, whose importance has been underlined by the artist members featured in this edition (also mentioned under the heading “favourite artists” in each artist's biographical notes). Enjoy the instructive reading!