A Quick-Change Artist

My next-door neighbor, who recently quit her job to pursue painting, asked if she could practice by making a portrait of my child. She said she would charge me the cost of supplies since it was for practice, and I agreed. When she finished the painting, she notified me that she had decided to charge me several hundreds of dollars because she had learned in art class the importance of correctly pricing her work. Although I was upset by the change in price, I did not want to ruin the relationship, so I paid what she asked. What was the right thing to do? NADIA, CHICAGO
Your neighbor started this transaction by asking you for a favor. You did not commission the work; she requested the opportunity to practice her craft. Now she’s acting as if this were a business transaction, based on a philosophical argument about art that does not remotely apply to the situation at hand.

Here is what you should have done: You should have agreed that it is indeed important for an artist to properly price her work. But you should have also noted that the aesthetic value of art can never truly be quantified, unless the artist is willing to view her work as a commodity that’s subject to the harsh, anti-intellectual realities of capitalism. You should have explained that — tangibly — a piece of art is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it. This being the case, you should have offered to pay a price representing the painting’s actual value to you as a consumer, which (I’m guessing) would have roughly equated to whatever the art supplies originally cost. If she had balked at the offer, you should have said that you understand her position completely, and that you are subsequently granting her the freedom to sell this amateur portrait of your daughter to whoever is willing to pay the premium she requires.

Firstly, I would like to take notice to the way this was phrased. She said that he she asked him for an opportunity to practice. When someone says the word "practice" it often has the connotation being something that isn't the final version of something. In this case I think that is the word that tricked the person involved the most. Obviously she had a different vision of it in mind. 
Also I think that she didn't quite understand the things that she learned in art. I think that her art class was trying to teach her things that she might need in the future, when her painting actually start being sold. She took this opportunity to "practice" painting also as an opportunity to practice pricing her work. 
The way that she wasn't honest about how much she was going to charge her neighbour isn't correct. If she was going to charge him a greater sum that what she had initially say the honest thing to do is to notify the person involved.  We could consider this a "dishonest trick" on her part. And wasn't a very moral thing to do. Moral, from the latin moralitas most nearly means the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are "good" and those that are "bad". It follows a certain code of conduct that derives from a standard that a person believes or from a particular culture/religion. In this specific situation it seems that the two people have two different moralities. I perceive what the woman did as immoral because it is not something that I believe is right. The woman however might have been raised in a completely different environment have have a different moral code and thinks that it is fine. Also, the woman might be having a hard time working on her art and the result was so good in her eyes that it deserved to be paid that amount of money. She wanted to gain the profit she deserved for the amount of work she put into it. 

At the same time I understand how Nadia didn't want to ruin their relationship over the payment of the painting. Some people's ethics, customs and habits, tell them that they should go along with a person and not go against their will in fear to lose them. She states that he had a doubt and was upset about doing this but she valued the friendship more than the money. That is her moral code. However I disagree with the fact that she payed the totality because that is my moral code and I think she should have gotten some explanations or at least told her that at the begging she said it was only a "practice."Moreover, something that I think I would need to know before making a decision would be knowing how much she said she would charge him and by how much it changed. 

Lastly, I agree with the Ethicist in when he says "a piece of art is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it." This goes along saying that Nadia should have been the one to decide wether or not she was willing to put that much money into the painting. She should have offered her own price. The author closes by saying that if the artist wasn't willing to grant her the price she suggested then Nadia should have given the artist the right to sell the portrait to anyone who was willing to pay the price. In my opinion this is the best way to solve the solution. You don't lose the friendship but at the same time you don't pay for something you don't feel is worth the price given.