The price of art.

Have you ever wondered why a piece of art that looks like the sort of thing a six year old might create could be valued at tens of thousands of euro? I have heard various explainations but I have a theory which to me seems more plausible.

Lets say a wealthy individual wants to avoid paying a lot of tax on his income. Now, lets say this individual has a son or daughter or niece or nephew who is not particularly talented at anything. Well, all the wealthy individual has to do is pay an enormous amount of money to his untalented relative for an artwork that person created. The highly inflated art purchase can be written off against taxes just like gym membership. That way the money stays in the family and it explains why a few lines on a blank canvas can fetch 25,000 euro or why 75,000 is paid for a painting of two bland rectangles.

This theory does not apply to almost all artists or their work. The theory only pertains to the wealthy paying high prices for what I would consider talentless rubbish.

For this theory to work, the wealthy would perhaps be more likely to purchase these overpriced artworks from each others offspring rather than their own, thereby evading suspicion from the taxman. It is of course entirely possible that such paintings do fetch genuine high prices afterwards because collectors may assume the painting really is worth what was originally paid. (The Emperor`s invisible clothes effect).

Am I wrong?