Value of Art?

Today in one of my History of Art courses, the question of how and whether art should be valued came up. Half of the students in my class happen to be artists themselves, and I was absolutely shocked that for many of them, the notion of creating works for the purpose of selling is antithesis to their overall artistic value. To some of my classmates, they felt that they should not create something for the objective of it having marketability to the general public. Such would defeat the purpose of artistic creativity and freedom. On the other hand, some students stated that they felt if someone is creating a work of art, then they should be paid for the time and effort put forth.

We then started linking this notion to other aspects of life, relating it to how people often solicit services from friends or family for free – free medical advice from your friend the doctor, free legal advice from your friend the lawyer, free psychiatric advice from your psychologist friend. Are these actions then wrong, too? Where does the line for provision of services, in something that you’re an expert in, be drawn?

In my opinion, all works of art should be paid for. If I am going into a gallery to purchase a work of art, a work that someone put time and effort into, then the very least I can do if pay them for their service, their skill and their expertise. I would never go into a doctor and have an examination and not pay them for the work they are doing. In so many veins, art is an expression of creativity. However, for artists who have the making of art as their primary profession, it is essential that they are paid for their work and their time.

So, what do you think? Should art be paid for? Should works of art be created without any compensation? Is it not wrong for such to occur – for someone to put time and effort into a craft and then get nothing in return for the time and work. At the end of the day, we live in a world driven by a market economy, do we not?