This morning I read a post on Edward Winkleman's blog titled Art and Value which got me thinking about what the value of anything could be, particularly in social networks; I know that what Winkleman it focusing on is the value of Art -perhaps it's also applicable to Social Networking as well.

Here's what caught my eye:

 "…..Vermont State Police said three people arrested Monday in the thefts of large sculptures from inside and outside of artist Joel Fisher's studio last month were after the raw materials, not the works themselves, reports the Associated Press. The 30 works stolen are valued at a total of about $1 million; authorities recovered 23 of them from a scrap metal yard in Hinesburg, Vt., which paid more than $4,000 for the 3,000 pounds of metal. Bronze contains copper, which has skyrocketed in value from about 75 cents a pound in 2004 to upwards of $3 today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question of course is how do we determine the value of a work of art. It's a question we deal with constantly in the gallery (and I've blogged about it here), but stepping back and considering more than the issues of supply and demand, stories like the Fisher theft suggest it partly depends on who you know. The thieves were not, I'm guessing, connected enough to hawk the work as "art," which could have brought them a much greater return for their efforts. Indeed, three suspected thieves were arrested Christmas Eve and have been identified as "Joshua Staples, 18; Anni Wells, 26; and Roger Chaffee, 29." Strong they must have been ("some of the sculptures weighed up to 800 pounds"), but underworld masterminds, not so much. Had they known either Fisher (or his reputation) or someone within the segments of organized crime who can unload a stolen artwork, they might have managed better than 0.4% of the market value. (OK, OK, so this assumes there's demand on the black market for Fisher's work, but you know what I mean.)"

So the value of anything, more or less, is based on the value of communities who affixing value (who want's and needs the items or services).  

In this case, the kids that stold the metel scultures did not value, or know the the artist was well known in the art community, and went after the value of the metel, and not the artist's reputation.   That's simplistic but it gives me enough to postulate some ideas about value of information in a social network might be, probably should be, based on the relative authority of where the information comes (which might be partially determined by the number of backlinks and interconnectedness with others  in the the social network, or even outside it). 

Some of this information is fueled by a recent Social Networking study I wrote about in Interesting paper on the Measurement and Analysis of Online Social Networks gives a definition of "friendship in a Social Network" and how it would be measured (which I read in November):

 "..One of the reasons to understand the structure of Social Networks is to "…lead to algorithms that can detect trusted or influential users."

One of the findings is for the need of "influentials" at the center of the social network…

"….high-degree nodes in the core are critical for the connectivity and the flow of information in these networks."

What I'm going to suggest - that influentials not only be detected, but a value placed on a linking from those influentials.

Here's how it works in the first case with the stolden art works - which were sold for scrap metel (I'm not avocating the theft, but the way - it was terrible) instead of their value in the Art Market - it was  a function, according to Winkleman, of who you know.   In Social Network typology it would be something like this:

"….The correlation in link degrees implies that users in the fringe will not be highly trusted unless they form direct links to other users. The “social” aspect of these networks is self reinforcing: in order to be trusted, one must make many “friends”, and create many links that will slowly pull the user into the core." 

And Winkleman puts it this way:

"….. Had they known either Fisher (or his reputation) or someone within the segments of organized crime who can unload a stolen artwork, they might have managed better than 0.4% of the market value. (OK, OK, so this assumes there's demand on the black market for Fisher's work, but you know what I mean.)

All of which reveals that the rarefied environment in which hundreds of thousands of dollars would exchange hands for bronze crafted just so (versus what it yields once melted down again) is quite contrived. (No sh*t Sherlock, I know, but stay with me here…I'm verging on having a point.) Indeed, it seems to requires the complicity of more than a few people. 

"….Above I noted it partly depends on who you know. I think it also depends on what you expect or hope for."

I'm also thinking of the value of the Dollar - since it's not really tied to gold anymore, and hasn't for some time, it often fluxates depending on what others in the world community - think the dollar is worth, against, say…the Euro, or Yen, or anything else used to dominate value.&nbsp
;