Banana sold for $6 million

[Cato]

I'm sorry but no. Cato you've written many insightful posts but this isn't one of them. It is not psychology, it is rarety. Moon rocks don't come into play because they are too rare ever to be used as a commodity. BTW the non-corrosive property of gold was also important when it was used as a standard.

But this is beside the point, money is mostly digital these days, but it is a matter of social acceptance of its value. In contrast, the artwork in question doesn't have any value established by society as a whole. The article, as well as your post, posit an unspoken assertion that just because value has an element of subjectivity it must be wholly unjudgable. I'm surprised that you would take such an approach, as that is the #1 reason students reject English class! They posit the same egalitarian stance if it is not wholly objective then any criticism as to lack of sound reasoning in their papers by you can then be dismissed out of hand.

No, obviously if one person does not believe gold has value, but everyone else does, then yes, gold has value.

As I mentioned, the Incas - as a society - thought gold was nice, but did not understand the Spanish desire for it.  They did not value it in the same way that the Spanish did.

This is why you have bubbles: a large group believes Commodity X has great value, the price rises quickly, then suddenly popular opinion says, "Uhhh, no, not interested any longer!" and POP goes the price.

Hula Hoops of the 1950's are an example: some investors were stuck with warehouses full of them when the craze died!

[DavidW]

There is a society of art connoisseurs who value this thing very highly. It was sold at one of the most reputable art dealers in the universe.  The fact that there are non-connoisseurs who don't rate it  is neither here nor there when it comes to its value qua work of art.

I admire your clever use of language. Anyone that doesn't admire that banana is a "non-connoisseur". No true Scotsman fallacy.

[Mandryka]

I admire your clever use of language. Anyone that doesn't admire that banana is a "non-connoisseur". No true Scotsman fallacy.

No that's not what I meant to say at all.  My point is that there is a group of connoisseurs who value it highly. No doubt there are others who don't. That's the case sometimes with questions of value - I'm not an art historian by any means, but I know there are connoisseurs arguing against the merits of Manet, Poussin, Picasso, Italian renaissance painting which is not from Florence or Venice, I'm sure I could think of others.

[Madiel]

No, obviously if one person does not believe gold has value, but everyone else does, then yes, gold has value.

As I mentioned, the Incas - as a society - thought gold was nice, but did not understand the Spanish desire for it.  They did not value it in the same way that the Spanish did.

This is why you have bubbles: a large group believes Commodity X has great value, the price rises quickly, then suddenly popular opinion says, "Uhhh, no, not interested any longer!" and POP goes the price.

Hula Hoops of the 1950's are an example: some investors were stuck with warehouses full of them when the craze died!

A key reason the Incas didn't value gold highly was because they had a lot of it.

That's the point. You're treating valuation as if it's purely subjective and failing to tie it to the physical reality that the abundance of gold was not equal in different parts of the world.

Spices were highly valuable in Europe because they did not grow in Europe, and getting them to Europe was difficult. Nutmeg was incredibly expensive because it took several years to get a shipment from the small group of Indonesian islands that was the only place it grew, not because only Europeans liked nutmeg.

[Cato]

A key reason the Incas didn't value gold highly was because they had a lot of it.

That's the point. You're treating valuation as if it's purely subjective and failing to tie it to the physical reality that the abundance of gold was not equal in different parts of the world.

Spices were highly valuable in Europe because they did not grow in Europe, and getting them to Europe was difficult. Nutmeg was incredibly expensive because it took several years to get a shipment from the small group of Indonesian islands that was the only place it grew, not because only Europeans liked nutmeg.

I will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

Most people will not pay millions for a banana taped to a wall, because they do not believe it is has any value, despite the abundance of bananas and walls! 

Even if walls and bananas were rare, there would still be no value to such a piece of supposed art.

[Madiel]

I will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

Most people will not pay millions for a banana taped to a wall, because they do not believe it is has any value, despite the abundance of bananas and walls! 

Even if walls and bananas were rare, there would still be no value to such a piece of supposed art.

Well no, I have to disagree there. If bananas and walls were rare objects I imagine the perception of a banana on a wall would be very different. I really don't think you can separate your reaction to the art to the fact that the materials involved are so commonplace.  As I said earlier, one of the issues here is that the physical art form can be reproduced so easily.

People used to rent pineapples for display as part of table centrepieces.

I think people would pay a LOT for a moon rock by the way. But they're not for sale because they are both extremely rare and of great scientific value. When you can't put a price on something that is quite different to saying the price would be zero.

[Kalevala]

I will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

Most people will not pay millions for a banana taped to a wall, because they do not believe it is has any value, despite the abundance of bananas and walls! 

Even if walls and bananas were rare, there would still be no value to such a piece of supposed art.

Cato (and others here), you might want to read this story of stolen moon rocks.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2003/november/apollo_111803

K.

[Cato]

Cato (and others here), you might want to read this story of stolen moon rocks.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2003/november/apollo_111803

K.

I will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

 

[Madiel]

This is a bit silly. Moon rocks are not art. Why does beauty come into it? MOST PEOPLE would understand that prettiness is an irrelevant criterion for a moon rock.

[steve ridgway]

I will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe) most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

"Most people" are of no concern to current art/literature/poetry/music - it's for "connoisseurs" alone. For the vast majority, "the function of art is to be ignored" .

[Kalevala]

This is a bit silly. Moon rocks are not art. Why does beauty come into it? MOST PEOPLE would understand that prettiness is an irrelevant criterion for a moon rock.

*Did you gentlemen notice that besides trying (*and probably succeeding in some cases) to sell them for high amounts, that they also destroyed a lot of the scientific value (according to that FBI article) as well as destroying 30 years of research notes?

*I believe that they sold some of them, but perhaps it was caught early?  Looking again at the article, looks like they caught them before they were able to sell any of them.

From the FBI website:  "What damage did they do? The young thieves did more than just try to sell off a collection of lunar samples worth as much as $21 million. In the process, they also contaminated them, making them virtually useless to the scientific community. They also destroyed three decades worth of handwritten research notes by a NASA scientist that had been locked in the safe."

K

[AnotherSpin]

"Most people" are of no concern to current art/literature/poetry/music - it's for "connoisseurs" alone. For the vast majority, "the function of art is to be ignored" .

Yes, most people don't perceive art. They wouldn't be able to distinguish a Vermeer painting from a banana on a wall, or a Beethoven sonata performed by Arrau from a phone ringtone. There's nothing wrong (or right) about this — it simply what is.

What matters is something else: objects acquire value only through human perception. Without someone to look or listen, art has no value. A Vermeer's piece lying on the Moon would have exactly the same worth as any stone on its surface. Beethoven sounding in a desert is no different from the howling of the wind.

Value arises where there is perception. Why would a person decide that a particular perceptual object is valuable? It is entirely arbitrary, and in this sense, there is no difference between a Vermeer and a banana.

[steve ridgway]

Value arises where there is perception. Why would a person decide that a particular perceptual object is valuable? It is entirely arbitrary, and in this sense, there is no difference between a Vermeer and a banana.

I am starting to feel that the only objects that are valuable are those that are valuable to me. It's a clique of one .

[Madiel]

*Did you gentlemen notice that besides trying (*and probably succeeding in some cases) to sell them for high amounts, that they also destroyed a lot of the scientific value (according to that FBI article) as well as destroying 30 years of research notes?

*I believe that they sold some of them, but perhaps it was caught early?  Looking again at the article, looks like they caught them before they were able to sell any of them.

From the FBI website:  "What damage did they do? The young thieves did more than just try to sell off a collection of lunar samples worth as much as $21 million. In the process, they also contaminated them, making them virtually useless to the scientific community. They also destroyed three decades worth of handwritten research notes by a NASA scientist that had been locked in the safe."

K

Yes, I did notice. To be honest I'm surprised they didn't get longer prison sentences than they did. You would have hoped that somebody working at NASA, even as an intern, would understand that they were actually destroying the most unique qualities of the rocks (their pristine state), but apparently that was not the case. They were both greedy and stupid, and personally I find the stupidity even more egregious than the greed.

[Spotted Horses]

How many works of art have gotten as much attention here as the banana? I think it is brilliant in it's way (sort of like Cage's 4'33", as someone mentioned above) but it is beyond me what the person who spent $6 million got for his or her money. If you buy a Rembrandt you get the privilege of seeing it on your living room wall, the hope of selling it for more someday or the notoriety of owning a Rembrandt. Anyone can tape a banana to their wall fee of cost, which I guess eliminates the first motivation. Can the $6 million person sell it for more later?

[AnotherSpin]

I am starting to feel that the only objects that are valuable are those that are valuable to me. It's a clique of one .

It cannot be otherwise. All objects, whether valuable or trash, exist only in your perception. When 'me' dissipates, the objects also vanish, losing qualitative parameters such as 'value'.

[Mandryka]

"Most people" are of no concern to current art/literature/poetry/music - it's for "connoisseurs" alone. For the vast majority, "the function of art is to be ignored" .

Here in London that is not the case. The Tate Modern is very very popular - in terms of visitor numbers at least as frequented as The National Gallery.

[Cato]

It cannot be otherwise. All objects, whether valuable or trash, exist only in your perception. When 'me' dissipates, the objects also vanish, losing qualitative parameters such as 'value'.

Yes, I have seen many things where supply and demand, aesthetics, and price were all irrelevant: hardly anyone had a desire for the items.  e.g.  I have spoken with antique dealers from Ohio to Florida: antique oak furniture, especially large pieces, are not - or are hardly - selling anywhere.  "I can't give them away," was the lament from every dealer.

[San Antone]

My wife and I have been great fans of Antiques Roadshow (the PBS show).  I've noticed that in recent years some items which had been the most desirable have plummeted in value because a younger generation of buyers simply do not value them as much as previous ones had. 

Some of these changes have been very surprising - what the dealers call "brown furniture" - what I think of as the definition of an antique - has lost much of its value.  19th century ceramics, glass, and pottery - generally small mantle pieces - has lost most of its value.  The only pottery that has retained and increased is Native American Southwestern work.

For all but the necessities of life, value is a perception.  However, a banana?

To me it is not worth more than 30 cents, or so, no matter how it is displayed.

[steve ridgway]

Worthless stuff I saw yesterday - $6,000,000 short of being great art .