Apollo’s Refraction – Part 3
by Scot Kelly
In the 1st part of Apollo’s Refraction, I outlined 3 broad categories (or processing modes) for valuing art. In part 2 of Apollo’s Refraction, I expounded upon the intuitional and emotional categories and gave a few examples. In this 3rd part, I will tie this all together with a discussion on the third category – rationalization.
Rationalization encompasses all of the thought equations that we put together and solve for an individual art piece that we are viewing. The particular thought equations that we work through generally derive from the various perspectives (e.g. collector, artist, art dealer, art historian, art publisher, etc.) we hold and the depth of our knowledge base.
The simplest example is an uneducated art viewer looking to buy his or her first art piece. After registering an intuitional response and possibly making an emotional connection, this viewer will begin to analyze and rationalize whether they will derive sufficient value from this piece relative to the price being quoted. This rationalization process is unique to each individual and may encompass placing a value on their initial intuitional and emotional responses along with the value they derive from their knowledge base. In addition, external valuations, opinions, marketing spin and sales persuasion may be factored in during this rationalization process. In fact the list of factors that can be put into these rationalization equations is almost endless.
Now we could write a simple equation for this:
V = (w) I + (w) E + (w) R
Where V = value, w = weight (an individual’s relative weighting of the factor), I = intuition, E = emotion and R = rationalization.
But in reality, this equation oversimplifies the process each individual goes through. Also, in general the only part of this valuation process that is quantitative for an individual is when they have completed a first pass of the valuation and they compare this valuation number to their own net worth, bank balance, credit available, etc. For the most part, all of the other components and rationalization are of a qualitative nature and cannot be reduced to a precise quantitative equation. The only other thing that I will say about this valuation process is that generally we perform many passes of the process. Each time a new element is introduced (e.g. new information on an artist, an art dealer’s experience, auction history, etc.), we will change the weights of the components and come up with a different value.
Before I wrap up, I will give my answer to the question asked in Part 2 of Apollo’s Refraction: Which emotion is more important, the artist’s intent or the viewer’s reaction? The answer is that it largely depends on many of the factors that we have been discussing. For example, let’s say that I have very negative emotional reaction to a painting and the majority of the art community (including my dealer) cites this work as an example of a very different and positive emotion. Whether I buy into the majority view or discard it will depend on the strength of my emotion, the persuasive power of the dealer, how much I value the consensus opinion, whether I have a strong connection with the artist or whether I am willing to weight the emotional part of the equation close to 0 because I view purchasing the painting as an investment and therefore place little or no value on displaying and enjoying the painting. In general I would say that an individual would value the artist’s emotional intent more if they consider themselves an art investor. If they consider themselves an art collector who is more intent on displaying and enjoying the art piece then they would most likely value their own emotional response over the artist’s intent.