Usually, the reason given for why fine art should commend high price is that it is meant to evoke new ways of thinking in the user.
Yet there's a sonata called 4'33 by John Cage, which is Cage sitting at a piano and doing absolutly nothing for 4 minute and 33 second.How come there's no one that wants to pay 10 k to see John Cage sit down for 4 minute and 33 seconds?
In classical circles, Cage provokes mainly debate (if you want to be unpopular at your daughter's piano recital, tell the teacher how much you admire John Cage's 4'33 and how air conditioners can produce music equal to Bach's) but his followers are akin to true believers and I don't think he is reaping a lot of financial rewards from it.
It sounds like a silly proposition.But is this less silly then someone paying 2.7 million for an upside down urinal or 1.2 million CAD for 2 blue lines and 1 red line in the middle on an otherwise blank canvas? The justification isn't all that different.
You could say that classical is unpopular, but so is modern art. Modern art even less so perhaps. It seems both cannot survive without wealthy patrons yet modern art is thriving while classical music isn't (at least in the West).
Thoughts?Bad marketing or something else?Are there any good books on art marketing?