Art pricing for dummies

When times were good, no one questioned the pricing mechanism for artists - whether new or established. Emerging artists began scorching the art index, often overtaking their seniors with prices that had little foundation in reality. Inevitably, the financial crash left them floundering. Six years later, galleries dealing with only contemporaries continue to experience rough weather, their memory of those years a chimera of something glimpsed and the faint hope that achche din may be around again.

Needless to say, this has added to the pressure for establishing a viable fiscal value for art. How much should you pay for a drawing vis-à-vis a painting? A watercolour as opposed to canvas? An early work when pitched against something more recent? Unfortunately, buyers are still attracted to signatures rather than art itself - or maybe that is fortunate given how little most know of art, preferring the decorative to the serious. In such case, the herd mentality in wanting to acquire that which is deemed collectible might serve better than allowing for their own taste. The global advice to novice collectors - "see with the mind but reach with the heart" - can only be applied with caution given the unschooled consensus towards a kitsch aesthetic honed by lack of exposure.

So, how does pricing work? A colleague is scandalised that newbies with mediocre talent demand prices that are nothing short of outrageous. Are they being foolish or foolhardy? (I'd settle for merely ambitious.) Comparisons truly are odious, and the square-foot formula unjustified: just study the different price points of any master's work to understand the financial parameters bestowed on works of different quality.

In these insecure times, and particularly with regard to artists with less than a decade's work to show, you may want to seek resolution to the following questions: Does the gallery representing the artist have a history of standing by its artists? Has a catalogue been published for the show? Has the artist participated in group exhibitions? Had a solo show? Each of these adds a notch to an artist's worth, but this is still kindergarten stuff.

To move into the big league takes more than just exhibitions and books. The fortunes of a rising star are linked with participation in biennales and triennales around the world. Within India, the Kochi Biennale is already becoming a mandatory touchpoint for artists who count. Participating in seminars, being part of panel discussions, or peer reviewed in art journals, these are steps that notch up the level of an artist's seriousness - and longevity - thereby helping to determine his fiscal worth. Equally important are the collectors - do "serious" collectors own works by the artist? Museums?

Curation in India is viewed as a lightweight activity, but internationally curators are taken more earnestly than critics. Do they consider an artist serious enough to include in Documenta? Kunsthalle? Biennales aside, even art fairs include serious projects, and artists now compete to be a part of both - the former for the intellectual rigour, the latter for the market. Auctions, the secondary market, and public projects, add to the interest - and value - of an artist.

Finally, of course, there is the investor, that hard-wired pro who is thorough with risk aversion diktats and knows to recognise an artist's financial longevity. If an artist has found place in an investor's portfolio, you can bet his value is at least set to rise in the long term, thereby setting off a bull run in the short term. The collector in you may opt to be subjective, but an investor can only ever afford to be objective. The value of an investor's cheque may well be the truest measure of an artist's worth.

Kishore Singh is a Delhi-based writer and art critic. These views are personal and do not reflect those of the organisation with which he is associated