Art is a human endeavor that takes numerous forms and fulfills innumerable purposes. Its diversity is celebrated as an example of Homo Sapiens’ potential, representing the unbounded and endless nature of creativity—something transcendent. Indeed, art is mainly spoken of in terms of the incalculable and the immaterial, with language verging on the religious. “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance,” wrote Aristotle. “Art is to console those who are broken by life,” added Vincent Van Gogh. “You use a glass mirror to see your face; you use works of art to see your soul,” said George Bernard Shaw. With all this talk of inner significance, souls, and consolation, it would be easy to assume some spiritual dimension does come into play during the creation of art. But instead, what it illustrates is just how difficult it is to speak about art with anything resembling precision. Unlike more linear pursuits (like engineering or biology, say, where gaps in knowledge are identified and tackled systematically), art seems beyond our capacity to discuss with any rigor, much less define—or, God forbid, solve! It is an undertaking that remains ineffable despite our many years of trying to crack its code.
Ineffability is formally defined as the quality of being impossible to express in words. Merriam-Webster dictionary cites synonyms like “unspeakable,” “indescribable,” and “unutterable,” which all suggest a kind of powerlessness in the face of some immeasurable vastness. It is often conflated with inaccessibility, but the two are not the same. Something ineffable can be experienced and known, even if only fleetingly and imperfectly—like a feeling or an intuition. It just cannot be accurately conveyed through language. And this inability to properly communicate our experience of art leads us to use the type of airy language typically reserved for spiritual matters. It also leads to difficulties producing accurate appraisals of its worth. The problem? How can something be priced if we cannot reasonably discuss its value relative to other objects of its kind? How can we understand its worth if we cannot even define or describe it factually?
Some argue that art cannot—and should not—be spoken of in terms of the material. Nor, they add, should commercialism sully it. It properly belongs in the sphere of the incorporeal and ethereal, not in the realm of the mundane. Any discussion of money in relation to art is a sign that we have failed to grasp its true nature. We are missing the point. But this position puts artists in a position of extreme vulnerability, placing them at the mercy of wealthy patrons, savvy art dealers, and exploitative institutions who can, quite literally, profit off their efforts while leaving them in the lurch. While artists are encouraged to gaze at the stars, their pockets get picked, and often by those same individuals who encouraged them to ignore commercial concerns in the first place. But the truth is art has never been detached from the market, even in its earliest conception when creative artifacts were used as trade objects. Consequently, the romantic notion that art is separate from commercialism is not only historically inconsistent but also forms the basis for the art industry’s long record of economic injustice.
Others maintain that the ineffable quality of art is precisely what makes it so valuable. The fact that it cannot be accurately described or pinned down lends it an air of mystery and intrigue, which in turn imparts value due to its rarified, inexpressible character. It is unique and therefore precious. But if this held, every ineffable experience or good would be deemed valuable, which is plainly not the case. Most artists struggle to sell their work at a price that allows them to make a gainful career. Most art loses value after its initial sale and is unlikely to be resold at retail value, much less at a higher price point. Furthermore, other ineffable experiences outside the realm of art are not necessarily valuable. A headache, for example, is ineffable (at least in part), but few of us would pay good money for one. Therefore, ineffability, in all probability, has little impact on value. If anything, it is more likely a result or symptom of value. In other words, because something is valued, we attribute ineffable qualities to it, not the other way around.
So what does this all mean for the art industry? It means that ineffability, while an essential part of art, cannot be used as a justification for value. Nor should it be used as an excuse to reject commercialism. If anything, it is a reminder of how little we know or can say about art and serves as a call for further investigation. While our language may fall short, that does not necessarily mean that art—or life, for that matter—is ultimately an inscrutable mystery. It just means that we have not yet found the right words, the best explanations, or the most rigorous evidence supporting our many assumptions. Art is a human endeavor, making it the result of material processes that are, ultimately, comprehensible. Therefore, the honest pursuit of answers to the riddle of creativity will undoubtedly add to a growing lexicon and get us increasingly closer to being able to express the ineffable.
Perhaps that is where the value truly lies.