Why is there a double-digit million dollar difference between Damien Hirst’s shark in formaldehyde and the aquarium dances of Sasha Waltz or William Forsythe?
The answer is obvious? One is art and the other lasts 90 minutes. Stop! THAT difference is based on the inability to let go of our past as hunters and gatherers. And however reasonable it seems to treat dance and visual arts differently at the cash register, you might not do so quite as nonchalantly after examining the reasons that cemented your precept.
Like: the long-standing reputations of both art forms (built on criticism and popular prejudice), their respective aesthetic value (aka “beauty”), and, unavoidably, the money and time spent on either, two aspects much entwined.
“If I hear art …”
Assuming the above-mentioned are all three of them genuine artists, who have made a name for themselves in and beyond their domain, have garnered applause and met with suspicion, the striking gap in maximum turn-over remains. Why now is “a Hirst” so expensive? Because, probably after consulting an expert, some Jack Palance is willing to pay for exclusive ownership, and the art critics and other experts refrain from laughing. ...