The price of a work of art has nothing to do with what the work of art is, can do, or is worth on an existential, alchemical level.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Art is often valuable precisely because it isn't a sensible way to make money.
There must be some one quality without which a work of art cannot exist; possessing which, in the least degree, no work is altogether worthless.
Art is only a means to life, to the life more abundant. It is not in itself the life more abundant. It merely points the way, something which is overlooked not only by the public, but very often by the artist himself. In becoming an end it defeats itself.
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Money is something that can be measured; art is not. It's all subjective.
There can be nothing exclusive about substantial art. It comes directly out of the heart of the experience of life and thinking about life and living life.
Art is the ultimate luxury good, but one that can make you think, give a you a blast of beauty and enhance your life. Even if the work's made of plasticine.
Can works be made which are not 'of art'?
Does any art have a practical value? People love to talk about how expensive a painting is. That's the only way we can talk about paintings in this century.
The work of art, just like any fragment of human life considered in its deepest meaning, seems to me devoid of value if it does not offer the hardness, the rigidity, the regularity, the luster on every interior and exterior facet, of the crystal.