Art Valuations, Who do you trust?

Artists because they are by-and-large creating with a devotion and sincerity for their own pleasure and commitment. Beware the artists who become marketers and dealers themselves like you-know-who. They're producing a product and marketing it for far more than its true instrinsic value. Art historians follow closely behind as they have no agenda other than some bias in their own taste. That's easy enough to recognize. For instance, Robert Hughes once made a false statement about Pollock that he couldn't draw. He was, in fact, good a drawing and worked closely with Thomas Hart Benton which is early work not-so-curiously resembles. Hughes does double as a critic and that's always seemed to be a strange fish indeed. It still admire his outlook on art history -- "The Shock of the New" has no been equalled as far as a media art history.

I voted for museums because they have a vested interest in seeing that the provenance of their holdings is as solid as possible. The museum that suddenly discovers that its Etruscan statue, for example, is wrongly identified, will have an awful lot of egg on its face...

Hey TK good to see you again. And yes I agree museums have the most at stake. The Met got egged a few years ago and the director had to resign!

Shoot! I lost my next brilliant response - but I'll try to reconstruct.

It all sort of depends on what is meant by "contribution". If you build from the bottom up, then the most important contribution has to be made by th artist: without the artist there would be no dealer, no patron, and no museum.

There is also the question of what is meant by "valuation", as the poll said. Price? Aesthetic? Quality, relative to other works of the type or time?

Is an artist competent to judge his work that objectively? I put a price on my paintings, and people pay it - but what does that tell anyone about the contribution that I have made?

I trust museums; they are run by a large team of educated individuals; the jobs of which are competitive ( I really doubt many slouches get hired by museums); and get rotated, are fairly democratic in this sense, are held accountable because of their use of public money. Their performance is subjected to public taste, and how well they use the money, plus in my heart of hearts; as I know several museum employees, they take their role as "public educator" as art cconnoisseur quite seriously.
Galleries I have a real problem with, but I won't go there.
Artists are in so many shapes and sizes; I know sincere ones and real b***sh****s too.

Colorific it is do good to read you great to see you here and contributing.

My vote went to Museums, as some of them are well informed about the subject not with irrelevant motivations. But I miss an item "Yourself."

Joanne; thank you for the compliment, that's just sweet of you. I am happy to say what I think some where, where I believe it is welcome and perhaps some one is listening, and where so many people seem to care about art. This is definitely one good result of the internet; and I enjoy everyone elses points of view; keeps me thinking

Well it is true. Your post in art for the masses about Henry Moore, right on point.

Valuation? If we're talking the $ value, I'll look to the people that the museums and insurers usually look to - the trained appraisers. It's kind of a funny group, as they are like writers in some ways - they don't need to like the subject, or really 'know' anything about it - they just (and it's an enormous just) have to know what the $ value of something is. They often call in other experts for specific input, but bottom line have to make their own decision based on very cold hard facts.

I once thought I'd like to be a specialty lines appraiser for an insurer that dealt only with art and antiques. Turns out I love the stuff too much to be a good 'cold-hearted' appraiser.