The Value of Art:
The Three Factors that Make Art Valuable
BY SHION HAMAZUMI | JUNE 23, 2024
Unlike most things in this world, the value of art is difficult to measure. Yet, how do art professionals discover valuable art?
The value of art is nearly impossible to measure. Yet, each year, we hear countless stories of million-dollar sales in the market. Whether a collector, investor, or gallerist, everyone aims to discover artists with the potential to produce valuable masterpieces.
In recent times, such artists include the likes of Pablo Picasso, Alberto Giacometti, Jean Dubuffet, Henri Matisse, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, and other legends who frequently appear in our academic textbooks. Whether 10, 50, or 100 years from now, these are the artists who will continue to fetch million-dollar sales in the market. Here are the three things that art professionals consider when searching for artworks with great potential: technique, material, and context.
​
-
TECHNIQUE
As mentioned, there are three important factors that make art valuable: technique, material, and context. While an artist does not need to excel in all three areas, masterpieces typically exhibit extraordinary quality in at least one. The first factor that art dealers and collectors look at is technique.
Claude Monet, The Artist's Garden at Giverny (1900)
Let me give you an example. The image above, 'The Artist's Garden at Giverny,' was painted by the renowned Impressionist artist Claude Monet (1840-1926). Many Impressionist artists, including Monet, used a technique known as Broken Color, where they applied small, unblended strokes of paint to the canvas. Impressionism was a groundbreaking art movement that began with 'The Exhibition of the Impressionists' in Paris in 1874. However, the exhibition faced harsh criticism because, at that time, French art academies were deeply rooted in classical techniques and traditional values. Critics often dismissed Impressionist paintings as unfinished, mocking them for painting based on 'impressions.' This reaction is not surprising, considering they were used to more realistic paintings like the one below.
Jean-François Millet, Gleaners (1857)
Before Impressionism, there was the age of Realism, where artists focused on capturing the world in detail. The painting above, “Gleaners,” is by the realist painter Jean-François Millet (1814-1875). As you can see, he perfectly captures the ordinary farmer’s life as it is. Given their familiarity with such realistic depictions, it is understandable why critics denounced the Impressionists for painting merely out of "impressions."
The funny thing is, you can say that the Impressionists' paintings are actually more realistic than the Realists' paintings. They depicted one element more accurately than the Realists—light. It was thanks to their revolutionary technique of applying small strokes of paint that the Impressionists became capable of capturing light more effectively than realist painters. So, if you ever wonder why Monet's paintings can be valued at millions of dollars, now you know why.
​
2. MATERIAL
On April 9th, 1917, a salon in New York claimed they would accept any form of art for their exhibition. When the French artist Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) decided to bring his work to exhibit at the salon, the board members were shocked. Yes, it was a urinal.
Marcel Duchamp, Fountain (1917)
Although it had his signature “R. Mutt, 1917,” the board members rejected the urinal (titled “Fountain”) arguing that it was not a true form of art. But what is art? Does it have to be those flat paintings on canvas? How can a urinal be art? Duchamp's attempt sparked a whole new debate and completely changed the history of art. Of course, he used no technique for the urinal, but if his urinal can be accepted as art, it would mean that art no longer has to be on canvas. Unfortunately, we do not know where his original urinal went, but if it existed today, it would certainly have a “priceless” value as it is truly a history maker.
Kurt Schwitters, Merzbild Rossfett (1919)
Marcel Duchamp wasn’t the only artist to question traditional art. A revolutionary movement called Dadaism also explored "anti-art." The artwork shown above is by German artist Kurt Schwitters (1887–1948), who created collages from trash he found on the street. This showed that oil paintings on canvas were no longer the standard material used for art. These new materials were not just innovative but historically significant. During this time, many poets, authors, and artists were frustrated with traditional values and society. They believed that these values led to the horrors of World War I. As a result, artists like those in Dadaism rejected traditional art and sought new forms of expression. It is the historical significance of their use of new materials that makes these artworks valuable and worthy of study today.
​
3. CONTEXT
Until now, I’ve explained how technique and materials can make masterpieces historically significant and valuable. However, if you’re collecting or investing in contemporary art, context is the most important factor. After Marcel Duchamp introduced the urinal as art, creativity was no longer limited to traditional paintings on canvas. Anything can be considered art, just like how Andy Warhol (1928–1987) recreated an exact copy of consumer packaging, as shown with the Brillo Box in the image below.
Andy Warhol, Brillo Box (1964)
In 1964, American art critic and philosopher Arthur Danto (1924–2013) visited Andy Warhol's exhibition and saw the Brillo Box. He wondered, how can an ordinary object like these boxes be considered art? In his essay "The Artworld" (1964), he writes:
​
What in the end makes the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a Brillo box is a certain theory of art. It is theory that takes it up into the world of art, and keeps it from collapsing into the real object which it is.
​
If you've ever been to an art fair or gallery, you've probably seen some unusual art—like a banana taped to a wall, a wooden stick on a brick, or simply a white canvas. These artworks don't require great technique or expensive materials. However, they can still be worth millions of dollars because what truly matters is the idea behind the piece.
Pablo Picasso, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907)
I'm sure we've all seen masterpieces by Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) before. Let's be honest, his artworks are not the most beautiful pieces we've seen. In fact, you might even call them ugly. Yet, one of the biggest reasons why his works are valuable is because of their context. Picasso lived at a time when photography was becoming popular, making it hard for artists who lived to paint realistic images. Needless to say, paintings couldn’t match the detail and accuracy of photographs.
​
Many artists felt lost because photography could capture reality better than paintings. But Picasso found a way to go beyond what photography could do. While cameras capture only one view at a time with perfect accuracy, Picasso’s paintings showed multiple perspectives in a single artwork. He combined different angles and viewpoints in one piece, giving a more complete and layered view of the subject. This way, his art could show more than what a photograph ever could.
If you’re looking to collect or invest in contemporary art, understanding the context is very important. One mistake I’ve seen 90% of amateur collectors make is spending thousands of dollars on art just because it’s "beautiful" or "dramatic." Sure, having beautiful or dramatic pieces at home is nice to show off to your friends, but if the artwork doesn’t have the right context or historical significance, its value will drop. Picasso, Danto, and other legends created masterpieces that will stay valuable for centuries because their work is historically important, giving people a reason to remember them. Simply being "beautiful" or "dramatic" isn’t enough to ensure long-term value.
​​
​Trust me, you don’t want to be one of those people who calls me to sell their 'beautiful' art that they paid an enormous amount for, only to be told that it’s not worth anything anymore.
​
As we have explored, all the great masterpieces we know made their mark in history through their revolutionary use of technique, material, or context. These three factors are crucial because, unlike most objects around us, there are no other ways to measure the value of art.
To say the truth, other factors can come into play. For example, an artist with a wealthy spouse has a better chance of becoming successful, and artworks in countries like the U.S. tend to be promoted worldwide compared to those in Japan. While these factors are also important, we are talking about masterpieces with priceless value that will forever be remembered. Whether you call yourself a collector or an investor, these are the artworks you should aim for. If the artwork has no relevance to art history through either technique, material, or context, then there is no reason for any of us, especially the museum, to remember the work.
I hope this article helped you view art more critically as you build your collection. If you have any questions, you can reach out to me here.
About the Author
​
Shion Hamazumi
After graduating from Tel Aviv University (Israel), Shion has been working with Tokyo Gallery+BTAP. With over 70 years of history, the gallery boasts a wealth of collectors from around the world. Driven by his passion for art, he helps collectors understand the art market and share his love for art history.