Artistic Debate Issues: How to Most Properly Determine Value of Art

How do you decide which pieces of art are more valuable than others?

This is a tricky subject that invariably causes much debate. Some say it should be determined largely in monetary terms. That often means who created the piece, what era in his/her career, age, what is fashionable at the time, and saleability. Others take a more aesthetic viewpoint. But this is also arbitrary and subjective. Both, if considered entirely logically, are quite flawed.

So how do you determine which is best?

I'm sure that the comments section to this article could get quite lively with debate, and that would be desirable. I'd love to hear people weigh in on this matter.

To collectors, the monetary measurement seems the most effective. After all, there has to be some kind of rule for determining the price of items, and collectors are often looking for the most monetarily valuable piece to add to their collections. In a commercial world little else makes sense.

However, we are talking about art. These are pieces manufactured by humans using limitless mediums that begin as emotions, as thoughts, as abstract formulations of the unexplainable human psyche. These pieces are meant to elicit an emotional, abstract response as well as (but more so than) an intellectual one. To measure these items as valuable based only on what price they can fetch is an utterly ridiculous notion to many. This is where the aesthetic measurement comes into play. Some determine the value of a work of art by the degree of emotional and intellectual response they receive from it, regardless of the reputation of the artist in question, saleability, and fashion.

Most people, whether they realize it or not, measure art by a mixture of both these standards in any degree of possible variation. They are influenced by what educational systems, media, and other people tell them is valuable. They tend to like artists whose works sale for millions of dollars. If they are told that it is "collectible" material- so much the better! And often they will know these things about a particular work before ever they have the opportunity to actually see it for themselves. Or in some cases they may never have that opportunity, but they will still believe what they are told. Still, there is an equal amount of art that they will connect with on a purely aesthetic level, or that may have sentimental value (which is currently immeasurable). They will cling to these latter pieces as (or more) ferociously than the pricey items.

In view of that, is it even possible to settle the debate at all?