The monetary condition looks something like this:
1 canvas = $37 million
1 melody = $.99
Here and there individuals say that a melody can change the world, yet nobody at any point says that regarding artistic creations. So gain plays, if individuals need change $.99 is the value we should pay for it.
Presently here are a couple of articulations that should assist us with explaining what the financial or worth disparity among painting and music depends on.
(1) There are less painters than there are performers.
(2) Musicians are less capable than painters?
(3) It is simpler to make music than it is to paint.
(4) The public qualities works of art more than music.
(5) Paintings are more wonderful than music.
(6) Paintings are difficult to duplicate not at all like music.
(7) Painters work more diligently than artists and writers.
(8) Blah, blah, blah.
Barely anybody concurs with these assertions but all, or if nothing else some of them, would need to be valid all together at the cost of works of art to so significantly surpass the expense of music. Additionally, I question that workmanship authorities and incredible painters need to manage as much lawful formality as do performers while delivering their work into the public space, so for what reason aren’t the prizes equivalent, if not more prominent for artists who need to work nearly as much securing their work as in creating it. Performers and arrangers, in any case, really should accomplish more than validate their work and acquire exact examinations concerning what their work is worth, yet they get saved money. The hardware costs alone for artists is a lot higher than it is for painters.