It is a pity that the author did not pay attention to my remarks about the first film , considering their apparently " non-constructive criticism " in the spirit of " art is not for sale." And kept a false premise for the second article.
Over the previous article , I have drawn attention to the fact that art is ( currently ) is not a commodity in the scientific sense , ie nature .
( I certainly could be wrong, but it was , in my opinion , the only theoretical objection to the discussion of the first article.
The remaining comments were like " But Bob sells more." )
Based on the non-market nature of art automatically to carry on trade in works of art terms and techniques of marketing pointless.
Therefore, the art market turnover and prices - lame because many traders do not want to (or can not ) understand what they sell , and try to trade "by weight ."
Pointless teoretezirovat about a phenomenon , if not detected original nature of this phenomenon .
For example marketing question: why artists do not want to sell the painting for 500 if formal cost "production" made 150 ?
This does not answer the commodity logic.
Can I answer this question in the logic of marketing?
|