Now people look at 'The Scream' or Van Gogh's 'Irises' or a Picasso and see its new content: money. Auction houses inherently equate capital with value.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
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.
Money is something that can be measured; art is not. It's all subjective.
Capital is money, capital is commodities. By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs.
I don't know much about auctions. I sometimes go to previews and see art sardined into ugly rooms. I've gawked at the gaudy prices, and gaped at well-clad crowds of happy white people conspicuously spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
Art is often valuable precisely because it isn't a sensible way to make money.
A painting probably is the most shocking increase in value, from what it costs to make to what you sell it for.
People would rather have art or gold instead of paper money.
First of all, what in this world does not revolve around money? But money is a big part of film, unlike a lot of other art forms.
The value of a dollar is social, as it is created by society.
As an artist, you are aware there is this strange money market out there, but you have no sense of how it works.
No opposing quotes found.