One of the commonest questions asked by the general public [along with ‘how long did it take to do?] is’ why does some art cost so much? Both pointless questions but part of the inexplicable myth. Price/quality and time/quality are in themselves seemingly rational differentials between success and whatever its opposite might be but neither are rational in any sense that the non-art public would understand. There is a naïve belief that contemplation of the two questions or even acceptance of the answer will lend understanding.

A recent Jeff Koons sold for $91million which in some ways is surprising given that scarcity is often cited as one of them major reasons for accelerated pricing. Koons, Damien Hirst and Richter among others pump out works on an industrial scale and still generate sales records. The art market is “a market for unique objects’ according to some but given that everyone and anyone with a museum of private collection now owns a Koons, a Hirst and a Richter that argument really doesn’t hold water.

The reason some artists’ work sells for millions of dollars is because there’s a consensus in the art world that those works should sell for millions of dollars. Should? It all comes down to what can be described as indicators or signals. A voice such as a noted curator decides that the work of an artist is saleable for whatever reason and a museum buys it. There are two signals or indicators. Ears prick up. The self-perpetuating machine cranks up. If so-and-so says it, then it must be true. The power this lends to individual curators and other voices is incalculable. In step the investors who need know nothing about art at all other than that there is a profit to be made and the trading begins. The art market really operates as a consensus marketing machine. If a handful of the ‘right’ people give an artist’s work impetus then consensus is reached. What is does is to concentrate sales on a very narrow group of artists. Whether those artists will live beyond their time or even last long enough to make it into the history books is a whole other question. The filter of history may well consign Koons to the sidelines as a mere novelty, a passing fad, albeit an expensive one. Short of then destroying 99% of his extensive output, and making him a scarcity, the bubble bursts and the consensus shifts.

What’s interesting is that all of this has nothing to do with popular opinion. The general public holds no sway in spite of media moguls suggesting that they do in terms of headlines. There will never be a street march supporting or denying a particular artist that achieves much of anything. Ai Wei Wei can be publicly marched off by authorities and imprisoned all he wants but those decrying censorship will have little or no effect on prices. It could help of course if he was dead because then the scarcity rule would apply although like other big names, scarcity of work hardly comes into it. Notoriety can be an indicator as can mystery. Bansky has been stencilling on walls for what seems like forever but his much-protected anonymity, real of otherwise, lends his offerings a uniqueness. Having them on walls also helps. Given the intractability of most masonry, his work comes into the non-fungible category although as Basquiat found, there were those willing to demolish part of the building to get their hands on one of his works. He helped considerably by dying at the convenient rock star age between youthful promise and incipient establishment.

So, what does all of this say about the world of art? Artists as a whole would like to be taken seriously and willingly put themselves in a position of vulnerability by even considering entering the marketplace. A few sales is one thing, a lot of sales is commendable but success on an industrial scale requires a particular mental and physical stamina. Self-doubt can’t come into the equation. An ego the size of a building will be a necessary component. It is essentially a runaway train, if you can get on board. The misunderstood, least business-like artist may well be the one who missed the train but on the other hand, may also be the one who retained his or her sanity.