Isn't there a psychological phenomenon (I can't remember the name) where despite that you can find some news article that are complete BS, and you know it because it's an area in which you are knowledgeable, but you still believe the other articles in which you have no knowledge?
While such comments appear to be troll-ish I think it's always good to have a reminder.
I don't really understand why any drawing of the virgin mary could be worth millions regardless of whom it's by. There's so many renditions. At this point it feels like biblical fan art and the Louvre is filled with it.
I'd rather see art that hasn't been repeated ad infinitum like stuff by osman bey or charles curran or something else. I guess it's just taste? I probably don't know anything, just talking.
I understand you may not like the theme, but really, the possibility of uncovering a 600 years-old drawing of a major artist is certainly worth mentioning in an article.
No, it’s not really fan art. It just happened one of the largest art patrons was the church. They wanted art to “educate” (i.e. evangelize) a largely illiterate population. And there was no internet back then, so every religious site would need art illustrating the same themes.
Things are worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay. There are no other reasons involved. Taste doesn't matter, history doesn't matter, material doesn't matter, the creator doesn't matter.
The highest bidder does have his reasons, but they can be very different from person to person.
Things are worth at least as much as the second-highest bidder is willing to pay. If everyone has a completely unique reasons then there would be noone to bid against.
And a very important aspect for most buyers is the perceived market value. And that ties in with whatever the market values, and if the market supposedly doesn't care for taste/history/material/creator - then what does it care for?
Wel most of the time it's an investment.
So for those bidders the perceived market value is very important.
But you can also imagine this scenario: someone has a ring from a great great grantparent. The market value of the ring is $10. But the owner would only sell it for $100000. Then their would noone to bid against.
The ring example is interesting: if nobody actually buys it for $100000 (the best anyone else would pay is $10), then what is the 'real' value of the ring?
The only logically consistent answer is that value is always relative and subjective; 'objective' economic value is only an abstraction.
the art market has nothing to do with taste. Albrecht Dürer was an important 15th/16th century artist, and everything of his that we know exists is part of a permanent collection private or public by now. That makes the appearance of an unknown work a rare event and it makes this a rare and valuable thing.
99.9% probability it's a forgery. But many people stand to make a lot of money if it's sold so they'll try to find enough experts to say it's legit and everyone wins.
There's an interesting application of the "greater fool" theory too. Even if the original buyer finds out it was forged, they potentially stand more to gain by continuing the charade and selling it to the next person. It becomes "real" by sheer collective distortion of reality.
I don't keep track of that, but I'll take your word for it. It doesn't invalidate what I said though. NFTs have more purposes than selling "stolen" art.
But they aren't they related? There's clearly some dilution of value between an original and a forgery. I'm positing that NFTs are even more divorced from "originality" than forgeries – by a factor terrible enough to make them worthless.
But I'm not good enough to disentangle the mystery of originality and put the problem in concrete terms.
> 99.9% probability it's a forgery. But many people stand to make a lot of money if it's sold so they'll try to find enough experts to say it's legit and everyone wins.
> Mr. Schorer has traveled the world to learn about art, but he remains astonished that the greatest piece he helped discover was found, as he put it, “in my backyard.”
> “Life is downhill from that moment forward,” he said. “I’ll never have an experience like that again.”
Statistically, he's probably right... but what a depressing outlook on life. And a strange way to end this piece.
41 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 97.4 ms ] threadThough, in this case it’s not really a political news article so I don’t think the comment is relevant for this particular submission.
While such comments appear to be troll-ish I think it's always good to have a reminder.
I'd rather see art that hasn't been repeated ad infinitum like stuff by osman bey or charles curran or something else. I guess it's just taste? I probably don't know anything, just talking.
Snorted.
Thanks for that.
The highest bidder does have his reasons, but they can be very different from person to person.
And a very important aspect for most buyers is the perceived market value. And that ties in with whatever the market values, and if the market supposedly doesn't care for taste/history/material/creator - then what does it care for?
Wel most of the time it's an investment. So for those bidders the perceived market value is very important.
But you can also imagine this scenario: someone has a ring from a great great grantparent. The market value of the ring is $10. But the owner would only sell it for $100000. Then their would noone to bid against.
The only logically consistent answer is that value is always relative and subjective; 'objective' economic value is only an abstraction.
But I'm not good enough to disentangle the mystery of originality and put the problem in concrete terms.
But what does “worthless” actually mean? Does it mean something you happen to personally dislike? Does it mean something else?
If only there was a NFT assuring it's provenance.
> “Life is downhill from that moment forward,” he said. “I’ll never have an experience like that again.”
Statistically, he's probably right... but what a depressing outlook on life. And a strange way to end this piece.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/25/arts/durer-se...