GIVING VALUE - I KNOW WHAT I LIKE - I THINK?

I feel that I must move the blog in a new direction. My continuing to rant about politics and the disturbing world situation is essentially a waste of time as it does absolutely nothing to change the state affairs.  I am very grateful to people who bother to read the various entries and offer support and encouragement, but, sadly it changes nothing. I see lots of stuff on YouTube, reporting on events around the world, which has much wider audience and which might even reach people who are supporters of the likes of Trump and who might just change their views or, at least, begin to examine them. There are some pretty impressive commentators out there who have an audience of hundreds of thousands and even over a million viewers. They are loud and clear. 

In addition, as a member of their audience, I confess I tend listen to and view those commentators with whom I agree and who reflect my own thoughts on the current situation. I have quite often read stuff in journals that I have already mentioned previously in my own blogs. Not that I have any greater vision, it’s just that lots of people have the same view about the chaos in our current world, so it is not surprising that views are shared.  I do recall a lawyer friend who, having made a comment was told “Lots of people agree with that”, to which he said “Oh really!I must change my view at once.”. One always likes to be original, but one must face the fact that human beings, who have a grasp of civility, will share many of the same views. It is even more remarkable that so many of us place great value on many different things, even if our political views widely differ. 

As an instance in point, I show you a picture of Museums and Botticelli. In just three European cities, there are three Museums known the world over and attract a monumental number of visitors each year. In the Uffizi in Florence, Italy, we have a magnificent collection of works by Sandro Botticelli, full name Alessandro di Mariano di Filipepi (c.1445 - 17th May, 1510). He died 516 years ago - half a millennium - at the age of 65. Much of his work still exists. His painting of The Birth of Venus is valued at between $700 million and $1.2 billion. The painting entitled Primavera is valued at between $800 million and $1.1 billion. His Adoration of the Magi, in which he included his self portrait, is between $100 - $150 million.  According to a website dealing with the matter of the value of paintings, these are the comments:

“The Birth of Venus has no public sale history and is inalienable state property at the Uffizi, so any price is necessarily hypothetical. Based on top-tier trophy-market comparables (Leonardo’s $450.3m Salvator Mundi, Rembrandt’s €175m Standard-Bearer, and major Titian mythologies) and Botticelli’s own $92.2m auction record, a rational unconstrained estimate is $700 million–$1.2 billion. This reflects the work’s unmatched cultural primacy, extreme scarcity, and proven global capacity for blue-chip Renaissance trophies.”

“Primavera is an inalienable Italian national treasure in the Uffizi; any price is a theoretical, insurance-style estimate. Benchmarked to Botticelli’s modern auction ceiling and the top end of the global trophy market, a defensible open‑market valuation is $800 million–$1.1 billion.”

“Assuming the panel is a confirmed, autograph, museum‑quality Sandro Botticelli Adoration of the Magi, the preliminary market valuation is $100–150 million. This range is derived from recent top‑end Botticelli auction results, the extreme scarcity of museum‑quality Botticelli panels on the market, and the likely institutional buyer pool.”

You will note that the person on the right, facing out of the painting, directly at the viewer, in non other than Botticelli himself. 

These “valuations” are based on very specific commercial factors. The question of whether the piece is of historical significance, its rarity and substitutability, its market benchmarks and trophy demand, its sales history, its condition and any legal or marketability constraints. It is a matter of its artistic importance, relevance and magnitude. There must be something superlative about it. My question, however, is why do so many people accept the ‘value’ of an artwork, simply because they have read about of been told that it is a very significant piece of work. Why do so many people, who have never seen Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, queue at the Louvre, to have 30 or so seconds to pass by the painting and assess for themselves what they really think about the work? The lines are long and deep and access to the painting is very regulated to give all a chance to see the wonder of it. I can attest to the fact that it was not so in the 1950’s. At that time its was only during a couple of months in summer that there was any group hovering around the picture. In fact,  it was just another painting on the wall, with no particular special attention given it, other then its reputation. It is now apparently valued at between $5-20 billion. 

There is, in my view, something arbitrary and subjective about the entire matter of ‘value’. What gave gold such great value? Why is it prized so much that it sits as a bedrock of certain countries currencies? Why is the price of an ounce quoted on the stock exchange on an almost hourly basis? Why has it been valued so much since around 40,000 BC? Initially fashioned into objects and then into coins, it has engendered wars and vast movements and migrations of people. Its value has fluctuated up and down over millennia, yet why was the decision to choose it, as opposed to any other mineral, to have such significance that has become ingrained in the minds of men? 

One could also ask, at what point did a picture or drawing become so desirable as to become something worth bartering or paying for? When was it thought desirable to hang pictures on a wall or decorate the cave, or some other form of shelter, These are arbitrary decisions made as a result of some aesthetic whim. Indeed, who was the first person to draw a picture or create a carving or sculpture, not as a ‘sign’ for information or directions or for religious reasons, but for purely aesthetic satisfaction? Who was the first artist? Or was it just some spontaneous and simultaneous activity originating in the minds of human beings? Was it some form of survival mechanism in action towards more civilised behaviour?  

There are a multitude of things on which we place great value, ideas as well as objects. Over the years we have developed a myriad of value systems applied to thoughts as well as works of art, and the differences of appreciation or acceptance of those values is just as varied. Some of us are enthralled, some repulsed and others completely indifferent to objects which allegedly have value.

There is a short poem by American writer Stephen Crane, author of the Red Badge of Courage. He wrote:  

A man said to the universe, 
Sir, I exist!' 
‘However,' replied the universe, 
'The fact has not created in me 
A sense of obligation.’

I would ask, is there any value in that?