Conspicuous Consumption: The Art World Goes Bananas

Source: Clemens Posch / Unsplash

Has the art world gone bananas?

At a recent Sotheby’s auction, a controversial cryptocurrency entrepreneur, Justin Sun, bought a piece of art for $6.2 million. The artwork, Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan, features a banana duct-taped to a wall. It was originally displayed in 2019 at Art Basel Miami Beach. Sun then held a press event in Hong Kong on November 29, 2024, during which he ate the banana.

Are these just delusional acts born of having too much money? Are they symbolic of the times, in which the ultra-rich are disconnected from the lives, struggles, and quotidian pleasures of everyday people? Maybe so. How do the rest of us even think of a banana stuck on a wall as a work of art valued in the millions?

Art and aesthetic experiences

Art is not a natural kind. It can be many things. It can be a pretty picture that pleases, a film that transforms, an image that challenges, an object that repulses, a vehicle for propaganda, a catalyst for social change, or a reflection of who we are and what we value. This value can be deeply idiosyncratic. I might pay a lot of money for sharp kitchen knives, but the price of designer cookware seems ridiculous to me. We pay for experiences and objects that we value, a value that might not be shared by others.

In thinking about art through the lens of neuroaesthetics, a colleague and I previously proposed an aesthetic triad to frame any aesthetic experience.¹ The triad consists of sensory-motor, emotion-valuation, and semantic components. Most artworks have elements of all three, but some works weight some components more than the others. Looking at a van Gogh, we might be immersed in its vibrant colors; at a Jackson Pollock, in its dynamic movement. We might react with horror at a painting by Francis Bacon or with calm at a canvas by Agnes Martin. Or we might laugh at a urinal on a pedestal by Marcel Duchamp—that is, if we are in on the joke.

Duchamp’s infamous urinal, called Fountain (1917), is regarded by many art historians as one of the pivotal works of 20th-century art. That and other works of conceptual art get their power from the semantic component of the aesthetic triad. The shape of the urinal or the color of the banana might be sensorially pleasing, but it's the idea behind the art that gives it its power, its value.

Cattelan and Duchamp are pranksters. They are poking fun at and having fun with the art world. The Cattelan piece is not even subtle about its humor. Its very title—Comedian—signals the artist's intent. But surely $6.2 million is a punchline even the artist did not envision.

Value for sale

Among the five most expensive artworks sold recently are:

• Salvator Mundi by Leonardo da Vinci (c. 1500) sold at Christie's in New York for $450.3 million.
• Interchange by Willem de Kooning (1955) acquired in a private sale by hedge fund manager Kenneth C. Griffin for $300 million.
• The Card Players by Paul Cézanne (1892–93) purchased privately by the Royal Family of Qatar for $250 million.
• Nafea Faa Ipoipo (When Will You Marry?) by Paul Gauguin (1892) sold privately to a Qatari buyer for $210 million.
• Number 17A by Jackson Pollock (1948) sold in a private sale to Griffin for $200 million.

Even if you find these pictures more appealing than a duct-taped banana, are they truly worth between $200 and $500 million?

Aesthetic experiences are rooted in non-utilitarian values—what we value in objects beyond their function. While we pay for clothing to keep us warm, we typically pay special attention to how clothing makes us look and feel—and are willing to spend a premium for that added value. Similarly for food, for homes, for cars, and for furniture. We infuse the mundane with the magic of aesthetics. The observation that many people have favorite numbers and dislike others attests to the fact that we can value abstract constructs. Why not a high-profile joke?

Sun compares his art to the value of non-fungible tokens, themselves an abstraction in which people imbue value. He promotes his conspicuous consumption as an iconic moment in the art’s provenance.

As is true for most ironic humor, a question remains: Who is the target of the joke?