Chinese Art Pricing Chaos

I recently had a conversation with a few colleagues in the Chinese art market and came across a rather "magical" phenomenon: Modern artworks are priced by square footage, and some even use a "coefficient" multiplication! The formula (length + width) * factor, with the factor for newcomers being roughly 70-100 in RMB. This left me shocked! ??

I can somewhat understand calculating the price of calligraphy and ink painting by square footage, as Chinese rice paper is traditionally priced per "cut," and it's a long-standing tradition in collection history. But oil paintings and mixed media even sculpture using the same method? Whose rule is this?

The earliest mention of this concept in China's domestic news dates back to 2014, when Wang Ying, the gallery owner of Ying Gallery, proposed it, as reported by Artron News: "For example, an undergraduate or master's graduate who has never entered or has just entered the market has a market reference factor about 70 to 100 yuan. Then, if they maintain activity and participate in exhibitions every year, the factor usually increases by 10% to 15%. Of course, there are rare exceptions, like Damien Hirst or Zeng Fanzhi." This excerpt is from https://m-news.artron.net/20140715/n628226.html. She said she learned this concept from a gallery in Tokyo, Japan. Some online sources I found, like https://www.bazant-hegemark.com/handbook/is-there-a-formula-to-calculate-the-prices-of-artworks/, mention a similar concept stating, "When an artist's work market stabilizes and the price increases year by year based on past sales performance, a formula can be used to roughly calculate the steady rate of increase, giving an idea of future price hikes." However, the practice in the Chinese market is starkly different. I wonder if this square footage plus coefficient pricing method is exclusive to the Chinese market or widely used globally? Is it a common practice in the art circle? Is the opacity of art pricing due to industry barriers or something else?

Now about this “factor,” how is it determined? Are all newcomers automatically rated at 70-100? Who sets and defines this standard?

I think many factors need to be considered for pricing: aesthetic quality, rarity, popularity, preservation state, exhibition frequency, the thematic idea expressed by the artwork, its publication history, size, and even its social attributes. The artist's stability is also crucial. Sometimes the influence of certain themes varies over specific periods or events. Someone might argue, aren't these the factor you're talking about? Let me deduce it with simple mathematical theory: All the conditions I've listed affect the price of the artwork, and size is just one aspect. So in my view: Price = Sum of "Factors" (maybe social status is more important, don't hate, it's just how the world works). But your formula of size factor essentially means: Price = Size x All influencing directions, right? So, the person who proposed this concept, aren't you still using size as the base to define price? It reminds me of the labor grade * working hours. (I don't mean to denigrate the workers. I'm a worker too. But should artists be valued by the hour?)

I don't understand, who defined this one-size-fits-all approach? Every artist's experience and prerequisites are unique, so how can such a calculation method be used for pricing?

The value of an artwork should not be based solely on size, but also consider the artist's reputation, the artwork's artistic merit, historical status, scarcity, market demand, the story behind its creation, and the post-operation planning of the signing gallery, among other factors.

I believe this simple size-based pricing of artworks is overly crude and unsophisticated.

What do you think?