===================== HES POSTING ====================
Conference on "Economists and Art, Historically Considered"
CALL FOR PAPERS
On April 3, 4 and 5, 1998 a small conference will take place under
this rubric, sponsored by the Duke Departments of Economics and Art
and Art History. The conference will be held at the Thomas Center,
Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
For many years economists have wrestled with how art should be
considered from an economic point of view. What is the nature of
the art market? Are there important externalities? Is art a
public good? What, if any, public funding is appropriate? What
sort of product is involved? Are standard tools of analysis
adequate to deal with the very fine differentiation of product in
art markets or, in the case of old master paintings, for exmaple,
with true uniqueness? Up to this point, there has been only
sporadic attention paid to what economists have said about art.
We know that Ricardo sidestepped analyzing the market for fine
old books because, he said, they were not readily reproducible.
Marshall called old masters an exception to the theory of
temporary equilibrium pricing because at auction the same or
similar paintings could fetch quite different prices in
successive sales. But many other economists have had active
mental and practical involvements with art and the arts. Adam
Smith, long before Walter Benjamin, devoted an essy to
replicability and value in the imitative arts. Keynes, often
along with his artist friend Roger Fry, was engaged repeatedly in
various attempts to secure arrangements for the production of
works of art, cooperatives mostly, but run by professionals so as
to free the artist-producers from the pressures of the market and
worries about their next meal. Art figures prominently in the
thinking of the American Institutionalists, for instance that of
Clarence Ayres. Ruskin and Morris wrote about economics from the
perspective of art, in some sense harking back to the aesthetic
dimension in moral philosophy that has since been lost from
political economy. Aesthetic and market valuation are now
typically seen as opposed and irreconcilable; yet successful
artists, and dealers, have always found ways to bring apparently
competing claims together.
We invite proposals from economists, historians of economic
thought, art historians and others, which promise to recover and
place in perspective a range of the engagements between those in
the two spheres, art and economics. Listed below are a few
topics that we know have been touched upon by economists, artists
or art theorists. We would like to revisit at least some of
these engagements in depth. Proposals will be especially
welcomed that involve cross-disciplinary collaboration. All
proposals, however, should have a strong historical cast.
This list is not meant to impose bounds, but is merely
suggestive.
1. The industrial organization of art.
-- what motivates artists to produce? Is artistic creation
analogous to invention and innovation? Are entrepreneurs artists
manque, or the reverse? -- what determines the demand for art?
Is utility maximization a useful device here? -- has market
competition been perceived as a salutary force in art? -- what
are the main imperfections on the demand and the supply sides? --
is there a "right" sort of firm for art production? -- what
experiments have been tried in the past, and with what economic
content: producers cooperatives? National Endowments? Arts
Councils?
2. Art and civilization/art and social accomplishment.
-- are there identifiable links between art and civilization,
and what is the measure of the contribution of art? Is art
"appreciation" a better yardstick than product, for assessing the
"good" society? -- does the periodic urge to reach for a
"scientific" aesthetics have anything to teach us about the
quality probem in art? -- what responsibility does the state
have in constraining degeneration of the national patrimony in
art?
3. Art and ideology.
-- art has been inextricably linked with power structures,
ideology, patronage of various sorts, and even capitalism and
empire. What manifestations have there been of these
interconnections, and how have they shaped economic
rationalizations, where these have been thought necessary? -- in
what forms has art been co-opted to reinforce state ideals and/or
national identity?
4. The economics of (near-)unique objects.
-- auctions have been developed to cope with this feature of
art, but aside from auctions, what has been the history of
thinking about the near-unique object within economics? -- what
does the presence of such objects, and the existence of
well-known anomalies
challenging the law of one price, do to the notion of "law" in
economics?
-- economists, historically, have often evinced discomfort with
"fashion", changeableness, the apparent non-constancy of prices
in the world of art/fashion objects. In what ways does art
challenge standard and deeply held convictions within economics
about competition, regularity, arbitrage, etc?
5. Art, luxury and the morality of consuming non-necessaries.
-- has art suffered at the hands of economists because it seemed
a diversion of resources away from "productive" ends and
"essential" consumption? -- what ways have been found around the
"problem of luxury"? Are there other examples, comparable to the
invention of the category "magnificence" by the medieval church
to justify spending on religious art?
6. Legal issues stemming from uniqueness, reproducibility and
copyright
-- the history of rights to images: privileges. droit de suite,
etc. -- the business of art fraud, from an economic-theoretical
perspective.
7. Interactions between economists and artists.
-- are there interesting parallels between art theoretical
assessment of quality/worth and economic thought about value? --
on a personal level, are there many examples of fruitful
interaction between representatives of art and economics,
comparable perhaps to some which have existed between surveyors
and perspective artists, or between mathematicians and artists,
or between art theorists and economists? -- why did economists at
times find themselves heavily involved in art maters (Keynes, for
one)? Why have some artists felt angry about economics (Ruskin)?
A selection of papers from the conference will be published in
the 1999 special issue of History of Political Economy.
Proposals should be a one-page outline, and should be sent to
both Craufurd Goodwin ([log in to unmask]) and Neil De Marchi
([log in to unmask]).
Craufurd D. Goodwin Telephone: 919-684-3936
Department of Economics Fax: 919-681-7869
Duke University E-mail: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 90097
Durham NC 27708-0097
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
