A Case Study About The Business Of Art From The Harvard Business School
Why would someone pay $500.00 for a trash-bin or $200.00 for a toilet brush? [1] Believe it or not, for those of us in the creative industries, there’s a lesson in the answer. In the article titled “It Is Okay for Artists to Make Money…No, Really, It’s Okay” [1] associate professor Robert D. Austin examines the apparent conflict between artistic and commercial objectives within creative companies. The PDF link [1] is the entire thirty-one page paper. The html link [2] contains the Executive Summary and Abstract. Some quotes to pique your interest:
“The Vipp example attracted us, as researchers, because the company sells products in categories that consumers have traditionally valued functionally, not aesthetically. Most people mostly care about how well a trashcan or toilet brush does its job. That has determined how much people will pay for one: how well it works. But not these trashcans and toilet brushes. There’s no way functionality alone can justify their prices. People must be buying something else—something worth a lot.” [1]
“There are three fallacies, often implicit, about relationships between art and commerce: (1) art is a luxury and an indulgence, (2) art is clearly distinguishable from “non-art,” and (3) commerce dominates and corrupts art, and subverts its purpose.”[2]
“…the interests of art, artists, and business can be best served if more commerce enters into the world of art, not less.”[2]
Links:
(1) http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-128.pdf
(2) http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6193.html
This entry was posted on Friday, June 19th, 2009 at 10:42 am. It is filed under Business Of Photography and tagged with Art, artist, artists, Business Of Photography, commerce, Harvard Business School, money, Robert D. Austin, Vipp.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
