The value of substance or the value of the material, in sculpture…traditionally has had its quality and value measured by the material the thing is made from. For instance silver trophies are less valuable than gold ones…value of the material is assigned by the archival quality of its material. For instance bronze last longer than wood for use in an outdoor producing a public monument–(representing a historical figure, for instance, is preferred to seem timeless like the robber baren legends that the monument defends).(You may remember Thomas Hirschhorn does the opposite with his instant street monuments to great philosophers such as Spinoza) The monetary value of the archival material has historically been a result of market forces that scarcity dictates…on top of market value is the perceived value. For instance bronzes patina has a essence or a feel different than wood. There are other issues going on with certain materials that are best seen as an unconscious attraction. Such a perception might be understood from the meaning of an old theory quoted below:

Phlogiston theory: that posited the existence of, in addition to the classical four elements of the Greeks, an additional fire-like element called “phlogiston” that was contained within combustible bodies, and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain oxidation processes such as combustion and the rusting of metals.

This outdated way of thinking can still be seen in the appreciation of the way metal rust or patinas change. Anyway. all this means is that our abilities to perceive essence quality is another way to hierarchically arrange substance value. And of course with the invention of so many high tech materials, the archival necessity can be rendered in more than just tradition…As resins and other urethane related products last just as long indoors. Another reference is “Essentialism” by way of the entity…

Of course there other substance issues that effect quality as when you alluded to Marx’s bit about labor value…the value of wood for instance is less than marble because wood has traditionally been used as something you make the macquet or model out of…the value of wood is thought to be temporary, therefor cheeper than marble.

A humorous thing about Hirst’s diamond scull or Mark Quinns Golden “Kate Moss” sculpture is that if the market value burst the over inflated hype bubble their will still be a enormous value for the Gold or diamonds. So not really the worst investment in these turbulent times, huh. Gold is always going to have commercial value for the electronics industry and….well? Diamonds are a girls best friend…yesterday.

2. Another way to look at value is Saussure’s Value…or from a semiotic perspective. Value is the sign as it is qualified by the other signs of a semiotic system., for example, the content of a sign is measured not by its internal content but by what swims around it…these signs or art objects have their assigned values because they exist in contrast to one another. If any number of the things disappeared, then the remaining sign/art object would take on their roles, become less defined, less articulated, and lose that extra uniqueness because it would have nothing to compare itself to…hence what the commercialization of art in North America is showing us. Art that is made to compete in an art market based on luxury appeal and price value over all else contributes to the dissolution of its own base…the art becomes the solvent of critical value.