The New York Times recently posted a very interesting blog about the rise and fall in the value of art and whether art is a worthwhile long-term investment. The post is here:
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/can-art-be-priceless-in-rocky-times/
One of the more interesting observations is made by Donald Kuspit, a professor of art history at S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook, who noted that certain artists are now in the cult of celebrity as much as the pantheon of great artists.
Kuspit states:
“The name is the high-priced, desirable, one-of-a-kind commodity, not the work, which has a certain incidental relationship to it. This has to do with the celebrity culture: artists have been absorbed into its spectacle. Their creativity has been appropriated by it, making every celebrity seem like a great artist in the making, and every artist a celebrity in the making, aspiring to make spectacular art.
The cult of celebrities among artists has replaced that of heroes. As long ago as 1961, the historian Daniel Boorstin observed, “The hero was distinguished by his achievement; the celebrity by his image or trademark.” Picasso and Giacometti are avant-garde heroes to art historians; to the market they are big names, amplified by money as well as the media. It is this that gives their art surplus value well beyond its aesthetic value. “