Should there be a price on art?

take everything wrote: »

To me this seemed inherently illogical but not being an art afficionado i didn't want to get in over my head. So i suppose i just questioned it.

Basically i reasoned that if a given piece of art is priceless, would it follow that if you (or at least the person who holds this view) found themselves in the (unlikely) situation of a ransom demand for said piece of art or a loved one gets it, they would choose the art everytime and said loved one dies.

That seems to me the most obvious rebuttal of pricelessness of art.
Unless they would also invoke a different sort of pricelessness for the loved one. Then it's like comparing infinities. Is one infinity/pricelessness more than the other. Which would be inherently illogical. I think.

But apart from that the pricelessness thing these people invoked was because the subjective experience from priceless art was ineffable.

They maintained that the experience and appreciation of art such as this (for some people at least) was indescribable. I dunno about this even. Surely aesthetics can be formalised and described. And if their is a limit to this, isn't it just a limit of our own sensibilities in experiencing this piece of art.

Isn't it like: to a moron, the difference between war and peace and the great gatsby are indescribable. But to a literary reviewer, the aesthetic differences are somewhat describable. And as artistic sensibilities are refined (to a superhuman degree even) these differences and nuances in the respective aesthetics can be better described. So art in this way can be quantified (while still taking into consideration the relativity of subjective valuation of different aspects of aesthetics).

The pricelessness thing just rankles with me.
I tried to approach it from an economic point of view as well.
I mean an artist decides to create something and spends a certain amount of time doing this. Time he could have spent doing something else. But no, he valued that period of time creating that art as more important than other stuff that could have been beneficial to him or others. And that creative output was born out of an intention to create. That intention can be valued surely. Just like any decision-making in economics.

I wish I had the mind to learn to multiquote

When you say it's illogical, I might agree to some extent.
That doesn't mean it is or isn't wise though.

You mentioned that the artists creative output, was born out of an intention to create.
That isn't going back far enough to understand the framework art is built on.
Art is expression of the ego. We started painting on cave walls a long time ago.
The self was appearing.
That is why the best artists are tortured souls. It is based on the human capacity for self. An artist needs to feel like an individual. To be different from the world. In order to abstract their internal "black sheep" out into the subjective world, as a statement of the ego. A call to the collective.
The reason I think art based on love and peace is not popular, is because that does not resonate unconsciously with allthe other tortured selves out there viewing it. It's just they are not tortured enough to need to express it sostrongly. Instead they have other addictions for expression.
The artist who does not share their work, is doing an artistic form of "self talk therapy", just with pictures or music, or whatever their forms of expression are.

When an artist paints a picture that resonates strongly with these internal and external conflicts, they are pouring their "soul"(deepest sense of self?) into the work, time and result. To create a material manifestation of their deepest soulful expression.
How much is that worth?
All those neuron connections, all the information, pictures, time, emotions, insights that cannot be put to words.
There is some very very deep wisdom in paintings and music and even dance. Well, everywhere for the symbolic mind really.
It requires a certain type of intelligence or genius(logic is genius too). This intelligence often manifests in the "moron" as you say , because they are not built for left brain linear patterns of thinking, that is too slow, albeit more traceable and reliable in a scientific way.

They jump around those neuron connections from a more right brain dominant way, which grabs connections from everywhere through asymmetrical visual and audio patterns. Often using the visual and auditory senses to manifest their intuitions(genius).
I would say that the artists appreciation for symmetry(the external), is actually an abstract appreciation for asymmetry(the internal).
This is why those secret societies value mirrors and symmetrical reflections.As above so below etc etc.
And vice versa for the logical types too I would think. But then I haven't applied the filter of the extrovert and the introvert to bridge the gap, which explains many of the questions that might follow these ideas I have. A lot of it is my own thoughts from personal research. I could be wrong.

If a parent had a child ransomed for a beautiful painting of that same child as they are now.
It might be understood now that it is "logical" for a parent to keep the painting in some respects.
If the idea of the child is objectified to a large extent, the picture holds that materially for as long as it exists. It becomes very precious.
A child can grow up. Innocence can be corrupted.
Maybe it was a painting of an earlier time of the child(that might be easier to accept from our perspective).
If you can price your sense of self, you can price "priceless art".

take everything wrote: »

Basically the idea that art/the creative process can exist in a realm untouched by other aspects of life (everything is fundamentally connected afterall- and potentially by money tbh) is anathema to me.

Once art goes from the subjective to outside your head (social/economic sphere) it starts to have a value/price imo.

I would like to hear other views on this though.

The realm untouched, I think is this symbolic thinking.
What is the price of the symbol of the crucifix?
Imagine the logical work you need to do, in order to calculate all those variables, right down through every single interaction with the crucifix.
The impression it made through human history has been reflected back from the self of all individuals, back into the material world through symbolism.
That is why archetypes are important for us. They speak of intuitive things. The hero stands for certain things that would take ages to explain. And we continue to evolve this consciousness. Although in the media, it is used to manipulate society. Pretty much to enslave the world.
Society use art instead generally. Maybe the greatest artists are those who do the worst things.
Which might be an unconscious hint frommy intuition to go check out greek art and tragedy again, to have a more concise asnwer.. lol