Art, pricing and exposure

[Wasker]

I read in the papers today that a self portrait of a smiling Rembrandt was recently discovered in England.
At first it was not considered to be a Rembrandt and was priced 2000$(!!) / 1300 €(!!), when the painting
was proved real the estimated price became 5 million $ / 3.5m €

In my opinion 2000$ for a painting, which is obviously done by a person with great craftsmanship and
knowledge in arts, is far too little.

Can we deduct from this that artistic skill if measured in economic compensation; is only 1/2500 of what
the name of an artist is? And as a consequence people who want to make a living out of art should
rather than honing their skills focus on marketing and exposure?

Which reminds me of something my boss replied when I asked him if exposure equals success;
"Average Joe is an idiot, if you market it nice he'll happily agree to pay for the air he is breathing."

Below is the picture, it is currently on display in Rembrandt's home so if you're around, pay it a visit.

[J Wilson]

That's a good question, and it does usually follow that an artist's reputation drives up the price of their work. People pay more for brand recognition, which we've known for a long long time. Nothing is as popular as popularity.

I think in this case, we have an even more extreme condition, because this is not just a painting by an artist with a great name, but a recognized master. This painting will have a place in history, and that further drives up it's value.

[Black Spot]

You haven’t factored in the rarity value and the bonus of being dead. I so remember having arguments with my Dad about copies just being as good should be priced as such – he just didn’t get copying was bad. I like to think that being unique in the first place should count more.

[Mirana]

Can we deduct from this that artistic skill if measured in economic compensation; is only 1/2500 of what
the name of an artist is? And as a consequence people who want to make a living out of art should rather than honing their skills focus on marketing and exposure?

You aren't going to get that kind of money from the art alone unless you are dead--bonus for "misunderstood while alive." In this day and age it's about the value of the art in things related to it...usually entertainment-wise.

Nothing is as popular as popularity.

Tell that to Bouguereau. :P You can be the master of your time, but that won't mean the general public will know crap about you when you're gone. ;)

[Rabid]

Your artwork will never be worth as much as when your dead ;) Wilson drives a good point. Nothing sells as much as reputation or life recognition. Makes me want to go into dowtown pittsburgh, strip naked and rub myself all over with P,B, and J. Sure there will be an arrest then. But my recognition will go higher. I call it, situational artistic economic awarness ;) Then my work will no longer be the artist, it will be the artist that turned himself into a sandwhich and got arrested. Intsant merit lmao!

[waranghira]

the logic of the high price when your dead is that you can't duplicate or make a new piece with the same style. It's like(or is) the rarity case.

you might study what's pop to get your works out there, but the next generation might not appreciate it. So, there's no real foolproof formula....
but being so good?