I was thinking about what to write in this inaugural article on the SmartGallery blog and some ideas came up. From how to start an art collection to how to analyze the factors that influence its pricing. Searching, I wandered to the distinction between price and value, old buzzword prescribed by Oscar Wilde. And I ended up choosing the subjectivity of art and how to achieve objectivity in its valuation.

Art is a human science in general, but not necessarily, for that reason, subjective. In research, I collected several interpretations. From a gallery owner specializing in hyper-realism, who argues that people don't buy Basquiat because they like what they see, and that it is all a big distortion, even critic Jerry Saltz, who advocates the reinvention of skill and does not pay attention to the perfection of technical. Saltz argues that today's greatest contemporary artists are self-taught and that good art relates to the artist's context and timeless conditions. Another of his interesting observations is that we live in the world of Wikipedia and that it would be an open art world. Observation that contrasts with the stereotype of the closed and exclusive art world, in fact, a more realistic interpretation. Art and its tools, as well as its propagation, are more accessible to its producers, but Waltz himself argues that 75 artists dominate major international auctions and leading galleries.

The subjectivity of art is connected to the valuation and pricing of works by the principle of hedonistic pricing of art: here, we discuss the pleasure or satisfaction that the person feels for the work, as well as its aesthetic attributes, an important factor in price paid. In contrast to the historical series that are the obvious and usual way of pricing the works of the great masters.

Traditional economic factors also influence prices, but there is a science called Art Economics, which few know about and which has some interesting concepts. For example, it is well known that the majority of established artists have a value of 5% per year as they age. Another, resold works that appear at auction often tends to devalue with each sale. Here the question of supply and demand, if it is always for sale, collectors do not rush to acquire. Another curiosity is that the former owner of the work greatly influences its price, and works given as gifts by the artists are considered of lesser value by the market. Market defined as "smart" by Saltz.

Continuing in the Economy of Art, art movements are accepted by us but we never question how their hierarchy works. And, according to academics, it works as follows: there are the founders of the movement, who invented the style, and the followers, who are lesser known artists but who joined the movement. Regarding movements and even the great masters, everyone is best known for some objects in common in their main works, Dali with watches and his wife, Klimt for erotic women and this would be the second variable, the first being their main styles. Obviously, the most valuable works of these artists are those of their most well-known styles and objects.

Now focusing on local markets, defined by academics as competitive and with an unlimited supply, but of greater interest to us who aspire to start an art collection, there are some important objective factors in measuring the potential for valuing art, regardless of hedonistic valuation. Firstly, artists who live abroad and / or have international experience are more likely to appreciate themselves. Returning to Saltz's Wikipedia, the number of search results on Google by the artist's name is an objective issue in measuring the spread and notoriety of his work, also relating to the potential for appreciation. Finally, referring to an interesting New York Times article, which discusses the artist's profession and its stereotypes, the artist dedicates time and life to his work, in most cases, and needs to be paid. For what amount? There it is up to us, the smart market.