Rembrant and the agument of the value in art

Here is a post in one of my new found art blogs that I posted about recently. After reading the post, looking at the picture and then reading the comments, I started to think, 'well this is very interesting'.

It's an argument (all though I'm not sure what side of the argument I'm on at the best of times) that I often have, sometimes just with myself if necessary. The argument is about the value of art and where it derives from. In this particular instance linked to above a painting of Rembrandt that experts have decided is not a self portrait by him, but rather a painting of him by one of his students has just sold for US$4.5 million instead of the predicted US$3,000 that would have been more appropriate of a painting of Rembrandt. So then the article and comments go on about how perhaps this buyer knew something no one else did, as a real Rembrandt can and does sell for US$25 million, in which case he got a bargain. And they say how it does look very much like a Rembrandt...

Well, this is the point of question for me. Should an art piece be worth something for who it is by or for its quality? If this painting was of a quality that it was almost impossible to tell that it wasn't a Rembrandt, then should it not be worth the same as Rembrandt? For what is it that made Rembrandt’s worth so much in the beginning, his talent, style etc?

The other side of the argument is of course that Rembrandt was the creative genus behind the style, and the copier of that style was just a copier. And of course the fame side of things comes in to play too; after all, most people would rather have a date with a famous person rather than someone that just looks like a famous person.

In reality, I would much rather have a real Rembrandt rather than a copy of a Rembrandt, but isn't it interesting, how much value we can put onto something and why!

art

While browsing some galleries websites the other day I came accross a quote on the Odipus Rex Galleries website - http://www.orexgallery.co.nz/ It is a statment that sums up how I see art, reading such things always put a smile on my face.

"Collecting art is more than putting something on your wall and waiting for it to increase in value. Artworks are about cultural learning and human achievement. They are tools for leading a deeper, more significant life."

Holly Solomon, influential art dealer, collector and early champion of cutting edge contemporary art.
(1934 - 2002) New York, 1990.

I have at times, from people, heard many interesting comments, mostly about art that perhaps makes them feel uncomfortable, or at least is something makes them feel that they wouldn't want it on their wall, not because it is not aestheticaly beautiful, but because of the potentialy contentious subject matter. I enjoy how this quote refers to art being about cultural learning and about leading a deeper life. Can we lead this kind of life without putting ourselves somewhere that is at times uncomfortable? I believe not, I believe growth comes from looking outside of our own understanding, accepting that other peoples truths are equally a truth as our own. I believe that art is something that can explore these concepts in a way that nothing else can. And our role as the veiwer of the art is to interpret it, contemplate it and attempt some sort of realation to it. (Of course this isn't always possible for a number of reasons, personal or otherwise, but I see so often people not taking the time to look at art as any thing other that a 2dimensional picture.) And of course the role of the artist is to explore these ideals through their chosen art form.

Anyway, these are my thoughts... and here is an image out of my recent explorings of abstract colour Aotearoa landscape.