What is judged to be valuable art?

There are different values, monetary values, historical values, or the art being able to get the artist’s intention across – that can be also considered a value.

Some factors I found from: Paola Kathuria

The Factors:
Artist - Who did it? (A small cheap pencil-drawing found at a second-hand shop by Van Gogh when he was 10 will be perceived very valuable only because of the artist)
Exclusivity - How many exist? Is it a one-off? 10s, 100s, 1000s or more?
Direct contact - Did the artist have direct contact with the paper (e.g., did they apply paint to it) or in the printing process (hand-made wood block from which a unique print was made)
Size - How big is it? (The bigger the better.)
Medium - Oil, pastel, watercolour, acrylic, pencil, digital
Effort - How long did it take to make? Five seconds, five years?
Skill - How skilled the artist is in the chosen medium
Venue - Where it's being sold - an art gallery or an outdoor fair
Price - How much is it? Higher the price, higher the perceived value
Rarity - Is the artist still alive and producing works or is this one of a limited set of works?
Artistic merit - Is it a good picture?

The Artist part I do agree. Famous dead artists's works are sold for an obscenely high price; too bad they're dead.

It is mentioned in this article that the writer arranged these factors in decending order of importance. Well I dissagree with some of them.

Artistic merit, depending on which value you mean. Monetarily, the painting might not be a fantastic picture but due to connections, branding or rich people buying art blindly, it can be sold for a very high price. So even if its very valuable, it does not mean its a piece of work well done. I thought skill could have been a subset of artistic merit. having insights and talent with the use of medium elevates the potential to get the idea of the artist accross to the audience

Exclusivity - Do play a part in raising the value of an art piece. Something like how a limited edition of expensive branded goods can make potential buyers go into a flurry to get it.

Direct contact - won't actually have any much effect on its valuability unless the artist is dead. Scarcity has a part in raising the value of the art as the artist is nolonger available on earth to create more art pieces(in this case having touch the canvas and then dead means that no other canvases(or other medium used) can come in contact with the dead artist)-- this make the art valuable. eg other prints can't give the same feeling as how Warhol's can. You would look at Warhol's prints and say, "His hands held this before.. whoaaa." You wouldn't have done it to some other random work of art.

Effort - when people buy valuable art for a high price, they certainly do not want to feel cheated. like paying millions for a few strokes of brush called abstract. However in some cases, what people consider valuable and worth their money is the very idea itself and not how long or how much effort is put into conveying this particular idea.

Medium wise, Oil, pastel, watercolour, acrylic, pencil, digital well digital art certainly does not cause and will not cost higher then an old master's art piece, this example is a wee bit off topic. But a good piece of painting will still have higher value compared to a good piece of digital art, probably cause digital at isn't really recongnised to be "tedious" enough for their value to be on par. pencil art, i have a feeling that the value can't be too high. Maybe partly due to the durability of pencil as medium.

Venue - The same piece of art in a branded auction house compared to when placed in a art gallery housed in a suburban area. of course it would have cost more to attain in the BRANDED auction house. its like buying mentos from Popular instead of a mama shop.

All these are factors which affect the value and it is all interlinked, interwoven that you can't actually separate and define one specific point that can be able to determine the value of art and how is one partucular piece of art valuable.

1. What is the studium of this photo?

2. What is the punctum of this photo?

Roland Barthes theories of photography to examine some photos. Barthes explains two sets of meaning in a photograph:

1) Studium: "meanings that are nameable," "given cultural meanings that we understand at once" (44)

The Studium “is some kind of an education that allows discovery of the operator”. In other words, this type of photography is more about liking rather than loving. And as Roland Barthes writes about it “I glance through them, I don’t recall them: no detail ever interrupts my reading. I am interested in them (as I am interested in the world), I do not love them.” In other words they are sort of general, without something that adds an unusual and unique twist or character.

Thus I would define Studium as something that does not capture my mind, something that invokes GENERAL associations and is more like “I looked at it and moved on without any special feelings”. It might be a very simplistic interpretation of Studium, however, in my opinion it explains why a viewer does not come back to see a photograph one more time. It is one out of many.

Having seen an idea of what Studium is, it doesn’t fit in the question it seems. Maybe it’s some noun verb problem, pretty confusing. “Is this photo studium?” Odd.

So what is the Studium of this photo? Looking at this work as a photo, it isn’t something that would catch my eye or make me remember it. (Partly cause I don’t retain anything at all, stm uhhuh) But if I were to have fantastic memory, I would have taken note of the slight tilt of the frame captured and the angle where the photographer took it from. Taken from a slightly lower right angle the end of the photo seems to be at the upper left hand corner of the photo. Okay. So maybe I would have remembered it for its non-regular and different angle of capture.

2) Punctum: "a personal memory based not on the public archive but a private repertoire," "stings the viewer...some detail (some accident in the photograph)" (44); "occurs when there is a match between a signifier in the scene (in the photograph), and a scene in the memory" (45)

On the other hand, Punctum is more interesting to Barthes. Punctum is something that “Pricks and bruises”. Usually, we won’t find it in photographs that appear on newspaper pages, glossy covers of tabloids and advertising banners. Punctum might be found in the pictures that capture and hold our mind and breath. Punctum is more about unexpected. It is when an object becomes a subject in the eyes of a viewer. It is when Punctum strikes him by serving in a role of a magnet because it makes a viewer to come back. It is when one particular photograph is not just another out of many.

So what is the punctum of this photo to me? By right, this shouldn’t have like anything to do with me. (This half pasted wallpaper? I don’t even have wallpapers of that design) But looking at it for approximately more than 5 times in a min for the last more than 5 mins, It kind of dawned on me that this not so random photo taken, that style of the shot(If this “style” is really one and not due to mistakes and height problem) coincides with how I would have taken my photos. But the punctum ends here. It most certainly does not capture my mind or breath. And I’m not overly passive. Oh yeah it is kind of unexpected that one would actually take this shot down. If the person was taking it down for the design it wouldn’t be from this awkward angle. They would have taken it straight on so as to capture as much detail of the paper. Or perhaps this exhibition does not allow cameras so they took from their torso height (body shielding the cam from the security. Ha) So comparing all major factors, I deem this photo having no punctum (unpunctum) towards me.

whooo fantastic i cannot upload any photos. blogger rocks. i love blogger.

What is this work made of?
First thing that came to mind was marble. black marble.
why? cause it looks polished? maybe its some black rock who knows.(wait a minute. isn't marble rock?) then again, marble is hard work for the sculptor. anyhow, it maybe made of fiber glass. (makes me think about canoeing) metal maybe? most def not clay. but i think its still possible to make it with clay. fashion it then make it black and glaze it. I'm pretty fixed on the idea that its made of black marble. worst come to worst maybe then alloy. yknow, public display and all, have to have certain amount of durability.

What do you think the title is?
"Evil Blobs"
JOKE.
emits negativity, looks like some alien particle in our body.
ready to invade the body and make you sick.
"Alveoli"
yknow the one you have in your lungs. just that its black.
smokers, i think you get an idea how your lungs look like now.
"Diabolical Infestations"
Well I don't know.
it really look like it can pass through membranes and sidle up to your dreams, corrupt it while making evil black froth.
"Snake Berries"
(lazy to think of a more sophisticated name for snake)
and then like what the other art bloggers have pointed out, it looks like clumps of BLACK BERRIES.
i cannot upload pictures for nuts so readers can refer to Wei Jiang's blog.(ample pictures, feast your puny eyes)
berries-fruits reminds me of the garden of eden
Black - nasty evil things (then reminded me of yknow the evil snake? so therefore Snake Berries)

What do you think the artist want to convey through this work?
Back to alveoli, maybe the artist is promoting the anti-smoking movement. what you see is what you get, evil shrouds this sculpture. of contamination, pollution, infestation and death. morbid shit. link to our society, maybe how vulnerable our society is to threats. social threats, racial disharmony(rumors, infect minds planting the seed of doubt -- link back to "Diabolical Infestations") H1N1(SWINE FLU), sars, avian flu. the flus.

What feeling are invoke in you when seeing this work?
I feel disturbed.
Hostility, dark and due to shiny surface - it appears well guarded, a fortress keeping its soft folds inside. berries are suppose to be EDIBLE. not in this poisonous form. (therefore DISTURBING) maybe its there to plant baby seeds of nasty thoughts into baby minds.

Why do you think this work is suitable for public display?
Yes, because its approved by the authorities and therefore displayed as captured in the picture. Besides, its viewer interactive friendly. it engages the viewer, make them think what does this blob mean. since its abstract, it can subject to many different interpretations. no sharp edges, comfortable to sit on. as mentioned earlier, durability counts; should be durable enough for people to touch without toppling, crumbling and falling into pieces.