That's a good idea. One of Kant's critiques "demonstrates" that beauty (here, value) lies in the viewer and not in the object viewed. I could never agree with that because it is so anthropocentric. More of that 'tree falling in the woods' BS. All artists must deal with the problem of the narrowness of their (true) personal vision against the (possible) desire for that vision to be public enough that people will want to look at it, perhaps identify with it or even pay for it. To make art that people happen to buy is a different and higher aspiration than making art for people to buy. I think the greater fraud is to be found not between the art and its price but between the art and the artist. Of course it helps when the buyers can easily be herded; Leo Castelli knew this.
Originally Posted by keithwms