Furthermore, I'd argue that it's _better_ to be without scarcity in art, because a larger pool of differences in available art makes it far more likely for any

Furthermore, I'd argue that it's _better_ to be without scarcity in art, because a larger pool of differences in available art makes it far more likely for any random individual to find a piece that resonates specifically with themselves. It's the same logic with e.g. books: if there are 100 great books, people are going to love those books and some subset of people are going to find a book and say, "wow, this book was really meant for me". If there are 1,000,000 great books, then 1) there's going to be a wider selection for people who enjoy more niche aspects in books who wouldn't otherwise find those, and 2) there's a much higher chance of one of those million books really resonating with any random individual. The real struggle is in curation and recommendation: which of these million books would John Smith _most_ like (ideally more than, say, the original 100 books), instead of requiring him to peruse through them all on his own.