PAINT IT RED AND MAKE IT HAPPY

Like any commodity, art is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it. But unlike anything else, its value is entirely subjective. For brand-name artists to emerge and command breathtaking price-tags, a makeshift consensus is necessary. How does this happen? Or, as Robert Cottrell once asked: "Why $73m for a Rothko--and not $7.3m, or $173m?"

There is no real answer to this riddle. But the patterns of precedent are fascinating. Sarah Thornton (an occasional contributor to The Economist) attempts to dissect the hype in "Seven Days in the Art World", a clever look at the weird culture of the contemporary art market. Though rooted in the art boom (the book was released in November 2008), it features some timeless insight into what sells, what doesn't and who the players are.

In a chapter dedicated to an evening sale at Christie's, an interview with Keith Tyson yields the following gem: "Everything else is trying to sell you something else. Art is trying to sell you yourself." He also seethes: "The auction is the symptom of something much more complex, like a rash. It is vulgar, in the same way that pornography is vulgar."

It does get a little icky to read about all the buying and selling of aesthetic real estate (if not so titillating as pornography). When it comes to what does well at auction, Thornton discovers the following. Artists looking to make a buck should take note:

* Brown paintings don't sell as well as blue or red ones.

* Happy paintings sell better than gloomy ones.

* A male nude doesn't go over as well as a buxom female looking expectant.

* Male artists command far more at auction than female ones.

* Try to keep a work smaller than the standard dimension of a Park Avenue elevator.

* Collectors don't want to deal with anything that needs to be installed.

* A lot of artists who are doing well now will be worth little in ten years.

~ EMILY BOBROW

Picture credit: Maurizio Cattelan, Untitled (2007), photographed by mackz (via Flickr)