The Law Of Art & The Demand Of Scarcity.

Scarcity is a topic that regularly rears its head toward art culture, both within the digital and physical art world. The metrics of how we determine value within art are complex. I believe scarcity exists on multiple levels beyond supply. I think art, in itself, exists within a unique form of scarcity, in that oftentimes, art that is created is in a sense, one of a kind or possesses inherently unique aspects that are exclusive to that piece or person.

There is a sentiment throughout the digital and physical art world that scarcity is largely determined by how much an artist puts out and how many pieces of the art they release. An overextension of the amount of art put out is often viewed as a form of devaluing the work. This is understandable to an extent, as many people desire exclusivity, the feeling that the work they collect is tailored to their own possession.

But this line of thinking is largely fueled by capitalistic sentiment and often contradicts artistic expression when left unchecked. When an artist creates a body of work, But its often not about supply and demand, although that is at times considered, but about a journey, the story and thematic scope that the work embodies. These stories can begin and end with a single piece or extend on for years. The determining factor of this is simply intent. There is a powerful degree of scarcity that often lies in the unique style and perspective of the artist.

So the pressure and expectation of scarcity among demand is tricky and largely depends on what the collector is looking for. Does art appeal to you as something to hold solely for monetary value, or are you interested in the creator’s journey and how their art impacts the world around them?

But in all fairness, I don't think collecting art for the sake of monetary value only is a purely negative thing, as I believe any actionable move that improves an artist’s survival and helps them financially is a good thing. If someone spends vast quantities of money on art, it is understandable that they would want to know that what they purchased still holds some of the value invested on a monetary level.

Where the downside comes in at is in regards to how it affects the culture at large, how it can normalize the commodification of art and the perception of art as a product, which can have dangerous consequences.

I do think there is a proper balance between the two. We cant expect all investors or consumers to view art from a purely artistic level, but investors and collectors shouldn't expect artists to reform their creative process solely to fit monetary scarcity metrics.

But that is the point of these conversations, right? For us all to have a better understanding of art, its value, and what it means to us as creators, consumers, investors, and collectors to inhabit the same ecosystem.