A lot of people price art by the square inch. I have a hard time with this concept. The rational behind this is that large paintings take longer than small paintings and are therefore more valuable (I have no argument there.)

However, by pricing by the square inch a body of art work could range in price from $200 to $18,000. It is certainly possible that the $200 price is way too low for a work of art and the $18,000 price is way too high.

It may take a very long time for an artist to do a small painting, and a $200 price could be inappropriate. By the same token, the artist may have never sold a painting over $4,000 and to price an art work at $18,000 could make an artwork more difficult to sell.

My own feeling is that if people are going to price a painting by the square inch, it might be a good idea to settle on a price for a medium size work of art work, have the square inch of the smaller paintings be a little more and the square inch of the larger paintings be a little less.

This creates a more uniform and realistic pricing range for the art buyer.

Mary Baker