« Spreading the word | Main | Take a look around »

April 15, 2010


Don Hall

Adam -

I see your essential point but don't you see that by placing the term value in such a way that it is, by your own definition, only measured by how much money people will pay for it, you completely minimize the art to nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold?


I don't think assigning a price to something turns it into a commodity.

A commodity is something the public perceives as interchangeable with another product of the same type. So if I sell apples and you sell apples and the public believes that all apples are the same then we have ourselves a commodity and you and are going to have to compete based on price.

It's not the price that created the commodity, it's the thing itself.

I have (and I'm sure you have as well) see art that thrilled us, changed, made us think, etc. I've paid a lot for those experiences as a reflection of the value they gave to me.

That's how I see entering a marketplace, you give value and then you try to get some of it back. I'm not saying it's always a 1 to 1 thing. You may have to give $5 worth of perceived value to get $1 back but that's still how I see it.

Don Hall

Thus our eternal disagreement.

I see the value of theater far beyond that of assigning it monetary value.

The comments to this entry are closed.