The Ethicist - 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.

A neighbour asking you if she could paint a portrait of your child and charging you a dismaying amount is certainly horrifying. Not only is that surprising but so is actually paying the amount just to maintain the friendship. The column discusses whether the act of paying the amount charged by the inexperienced painter was the right thing to have done or not. The Ethicist, Chuck Klosterman, had advised that paying the exact amount was not what Nadia should have done.

I personally agree with The Ethicist’s conclusion. To begin with the argument, the neighbour, who is the painter, initially said she would charge the “cost of supplies”. Supplies would mean the materials she had used, which, for a painting would generally be paintbrush(es), paint(s), and a canvas. These altogether would probably not cost “several hundreds of dollars”. If Nadia had remembered the words the neighbour said correctly, then I think it would be the painter’s fault to charge an outrageous amount. However, memory is not always reliable; memory can always be reconstructed. Nadia may have recalled this conversation this way due to her being upset.

Additionally, the part that is very hazy to me is the fact that she said “since it was for practice”. If it was for practice, it means that the painter is experimenting and trying to develop her skills for her own benefit. I personally think that nobody would be willing to pay for somebody’s “practice” work, especially if it was the painter who had initiated the “transaction”. Also, the painter is just a starter, and is not yet a professional painter. It is not her job, so she should not expect to profit from her work.

There are many problems when it comes to payment. First, since the neighbour painted only to practise, it means that she did not intend to put price on the painting itself. I think that it is wrong to charge someone for an artwork that was not made for selling because nobody should try to profit from a practice work. Second, as the Ethicist have stated that “a piece of art is worth only what someone is willing to pay for,” it should not be wrong to refuse paying if the “customer” is dissatisfied. Third, because the deal was to pay for the supplies and did not mention anything about charging for the art piece itself, it is nonsense for the painter to change her mind and charge for the piece.

It is morally and ethically unacceptable for the painter to put a price on her artwork, based on her own thought about the value of the piece. However, when it comes to the morals, it becomes debatable. Since people grow up with different morals, -- whether it is from the morals descended from the family or morals of the individual -- perhaps the painter thought it was fine to change her mind. In terms of ethics, when money is involved, it is always the payer’s decision whether to pay or not. Given that the deal was to pay for the supplies, it was Nadia’s responsibility to pay for the supplies, but it was not expected for her to pay for the painting itself.

By looking at Nadia’s perspective, it is hard to ignore the fact that she wanted to maintain a healthy relationship with her next-door neighbour. It is understandable that it would result in awkwardness and possibly some damage to the relationship. However, as soon as money is involved, it is likely that the relationship would be affected instantly. She had said that she payed just to avoid any problems in the relationship but maybe Nadia has already created a problem.

From the painter’s perspective however, she may have been satisfied with her work. We do not know if she put a lot of effort into the art piece, so perhaps she thought that charging for the supplies was not enough for her effort. Nevertheless, the deal was not that she would charge for anything else other than the supplies used, so it was wrong for her to set a price for the artwork and to have her neighbour pay for it.

It is difficult to ignore the emotions that were involved because these two knew each other. Since they are next-door neighbours, it is very tempting to avoid creating a problem to prevent possible conflicts. However, as the Ethicist said, it would probably have not hurt to explain to the painter what the deal was and how the pricing would work, even if it means getting a disagreement.