I just read an editorial in The Art Newspaper that makes an interesting correlation. Based on results from a study conducted by Antonio Rangel, Ph.D. (a Neuroeconomist at Cal Tech) and his research team, the AN author connects expensive art to stimulating the medial orbitofrontal cortex--the part of the human brain that registers pleasure. Did you catch all that? I surely didn't on the first go, so here are the helpful, contextual back-stories:

• "Marketing Actions Can Modulate Neural Representations of Experienced Utility" -- the paper itself, currently under review at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).


• "Why we like art less when its price goes down" -- the editorial at The Art Newspaper

After reading both, I'm still not entirely certain I've got things straight. Dr. Rangel and crew conducted their price tag switching experiment with wines, where, I cheerfully admit, you could probably take the label off a bottle of Thunderbird and tell me it was Château Lafite Rothschild. (Yes, I'd wonder if it had turned, but, still.)

Contemporary art, though? I really can't agree that price would influence my wanting to own something (or not). Why? I'd be looking right at it, not running it blindly past the old taste buds. You could put a gajillion-dollar price tag on some minimalist Styrofoam-and-twig construction, and I am still not going to want to buy/look at/dust that thing. Conversely, seeing a $75 limited edition Lowbrow print hanging on my wall every day might do wonders for my EU ("experienced utility," as referenced in the study).

That said, microscopic-spending non-speculators like me absolutely do not drive the Contemporary market. Just because I don't understand buying and selling art strictly on investment (rather than personal pleasure) terms doesn't mean that's not the way the world works. While I feel it would be rash to dismiss the editorial based on (my) subjective grounds, I'd love to hear what you think. Comments?