4 ms·

I'm always bemused that art aficionados seems to care much more about provenance and prestige than about the art itself. Whether this piece was made by a revere

I'm always bemused that art aficionados seems to care much more about provenance and prestige than about the art itself. Whether this piece was made by a revered master or a no-name should have no bearing on whether it's "clunky" or "exquisite." If it's a copy rather than a wholly original work, I can see that affecting the perception of its uniqueness, at least. But I've seen discussion of "rediscovered" paintings from masters that are worthless if they turn out to have been original work from a different artist, even though the quality was good enough to fool professional appraisers.

dec0dedab0de 7y ago
I think that is the Terrezano's effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCQDbzBerI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCQDbzBerI
jonahrd 7y ago
Think of it this way. Say you were trying to piece together the life story of Stephen Hawking. You'd be happy to come across an unknown/unpublished paper of his, which would be a new plot-point to demonstrate his intelligence and talent in a specific way that was previously unknown. Sure, it may not be his best work. It may not even be that different from other work going on at the same time. But because we are interested in Stephen Hawking's story specifically, it would still be a very valuable piece to keep track of. If you later found out it was an imposter's paper, it would be worthless.
- lisper 7y ago
  That's not at all comparable. The value of art is purely subjective. The only reason we're interested in (say) Giambologna at all is because his art has some ineffable subjective quality that the art of his competitors lacks --better "aesthetics" (or whatever you want to call it). So if you can't tell the difference between a Giambologna and an Arglebargle based on its aesthetics, what difference does it make whether it's a Giambologna or an Arglebargle? It's like arguing over whether Shakespeare's plays were really written by Shakespeare or by someone else with the same name. The reason we're interested in Hawking has nothing to do with aesthetics, it has to do with science. The original works of a scientist may be of historical interest, but they are of no scientific interest. The reason we're interested in Hawking in the first place has nothing to do with the details of his original works, whereas the reason we're interested in Giambologna has everything to do with it.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    People were interested in Hawking more because of his disability and public outreach efforts than his scientific papers. Most people who are interested in him can't understand his work, and the people who do understand his work have higher regard for scientists that the general public shows no interest in.
    - lisper 7y ago
      Yeah, whatever. The point is that no one is interested in Hawking because of the physical details of any artifact that he produced.
  - pierrebai 7y ago
    That's how it works and is why people buy reproductions. There is a huge market of reproduction. Every museum sells them in their shop. For the original art, the main drive is its monetary value. Many piece of arts by famous artists are locked up in vaults. Not even locked up in expensive houses of the ultra rich for them to admire. In locked obscure vaults, gaining value until resold.
  - goto11 7y ago
    I guess the value of everything is purely subjective. But if you suggest the only legitimate value of art is the immediate aesthetic impression, then I disagree. The historical context is definitely part of what makes art interesting.
    - lisper 7y ago
      > I guess the value of everything is purely subjective. No, that's not true. The value of scientific knowledge, for example, is in its power to allow us to make reliable predictions about our environment and the consequences of our actions. That's not subjective. > The historical context is definitely part of what makes art interesting. Sure, but the historical interest in a work of art should follow as a consequence of the (subjective) quality of the art, not the other way around. If I were to make a painting, no one would (or should) care, but not because my painting would not have an interesting historical context. It's because I have no artistic talent and any painting I would make would be a bad painting. And 500 years from now it would still be a bad painting. To use a more realistic example: Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill were both painters, but no one remembers them for their art because it wasn't very good despite having an interesting historical context. Quality art creates an interesting historical context, no the other way around. Or at least that's how it ought to work IMHO.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  I would have hoped that art was more than just a puzzle-piece of historical narrative.
- practical_lem 7y ago
  I think a better comparision would be a manuscript about calculus. If it was produced before Newton/Leibniz it's remarkable, otherwise well... who cares?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
CoolGuySteve 7y ago
I agree, I've seen this statue before in the Uffizi gallery and I totally don't remember it. Not even one bit. It's made me wonder why I even go to art galleries where I'll see hundreds of works of art but only remember maybe a handful.
rob74 7y ago
Well, the provenance and the prestige greatly affects the price of a work, that's why people care about it. It's even less understandable with contemporary artists: some are the critics' darlings and their works sell for mind-blowing amounts, while others who are arguably equally talented can't make a living from their art. And it doesn't have to be paintings or sculpture, it's the same for e.g. musicians...
- jorams 7y ago
  > Well, the provenance and the prestige greatly affects the price of a work, that's why people care about it. That sounds like a chicken/egg problem. Do people care because it affects the price, or does it affect the price because people care?
jfengel 7y ago
I deal with much the same thing as a Shakespeare scholar. You'd like the works to stand on their own, but there is something to be gained from studying the corpus as it evolved. When I go to perform a play I treat it as if the audience is seeing a brand new work for the first time, but my process is informed by what I know of the other works and the context in which it was written -- including what I know of the author. It's unfortunate that conspiracy cranks take that up as a power trip rather than a serious way to study the plays themselves. And that there's a countervailing effort (dating back to the author's lifetime) to attribute lots of things to him -- it would be great if Edward III really were by Shakespeare, but the evidence is circumstantial at best. We can study it to see if it informs us in any useful way, but the combination of weak attribution and weak play means we don't get much of anywhere.

dec0dedab0de 7y ago

I think that is the Terrezano's effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCQDbzBerI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCQDbzBerI

jonahrd 7y ago

Think of it this way. Say you were trying to piece together the life story of Stephen Hawking. You'd be happy to come across an unknown/unpublished paper of his, which would be a new plot-point to demonstrate his intelligence and talent in a specific way that was previously unknown. Sure, it may not be his best work. It may not even be that different from other work going on at the same time. But because we are interested in Stephen Hawking's story specifically, it would still be a very valuable piece to keep track of. If you later found out it was an imposter's paper, it would be worthless.

lisper 7y ago
That's not at all comparable. The value of art is purely subjective. The only reason we're interested in (say) Giambologna at all is because his art has some ineffable subjective quality that the art of his competitors lacks --better "aesthetics" (or whatever you want to call it). So if you can't tell the difference between a Giambologna and an Arglebargle based on its aesthetics, what difference does it make whether it's a Giambologna or an Arglebargle? It's like arguing over whether Shakespeare's plays were really written by Shakespeare or by someone else with the same name. The reason we're interested in Hawking has nothing to do with aesthetics, it has to do with science. The original works of a scientist may be of historical interest, but they are of no scientific interest. The reason we're interested in Hawking in the first place has nothing to do with the details of his original works, whereas the reason we're interested in Giambologna has everything to do with it.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  People were interested in Hawking more because of his disability and public outreach efforts than his scientific papers. Most people who are interested in him can't understand his work, and the people who do understand his work have higher regard for scientists that the general public shows no interest in.
  - lisper 7y ago
    Yeah, whatever. The point is that no one is interested in Hawking because of the physical details of any artifact that he produced.
- pierrebai 7y ago
  That's how it works and is why people buy reproductions. There is a huge market of reproduction. Every museum sells them in their shop. For the original art, the main drive is its monetary value. Many piece of arts by famous artists are locked up in vaults. Not even locked up in expensive houses of the ultra rich for them to admire. In locked obscure vaults, gaining value until resold.
- goto11 7y ago
  I guess the value of everything is purely subjective. But if you suggest the only legitimate value of art is the immediate aesthetic impression, then I disagree. The historical context is definitely part of what makes art interesting.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > I guess the value of everything is purely subjective. No, that's not true. The value of scientific knowledge, for example, is in its power to allow us to make reliable predictions about our environment and the consequences of our actions. That's not subjective. > The historical context is definitely part of what makes art interesting. Sure, but the historical interest in a work of art should follow as a consequence of the (subjective) quality of the art, not the other way around. If I were to make a painting, no one would (or should) care, but not because my painting would not have an interesting historical context. It's because I have no artistic talent and any painting I would make would be a bad painting. And 500 years from now it would still be a bad painting. To use a more realistic example: Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill were both painters, but no one remembers them for their art because it wasn't very good despite having an interesting historical context. Quality art creates an interesting historical context, no the other way around. Or at least that's how it ought to work IMHO.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
I would have hoped that art was more than just a puzzle-piece of historical narrative.
practical_lem 7y ago
I think a better comparision would be a manuscript about calculus. If it was produced before Newton/Leibniz it's remarkable, otherwise well... who cares?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

CoolGuySteve 7y ago

I agree, I've seen this statue before in the Uffizi gallery and I totally don't remember it. Not even one bit. It's made me wonder why I even go to art galleries where I'll see hundreds of works of art but only remember maybe a handful.

rob74 7y ago

Well, the provenance and the prestige greatly affects the price of a work, that's why people care about it. It's even less understandable with contemporary artists: some are the critics' darlings and their works sell for mind-blowing amounts, while others who are arguably equally talented can't make a living from their art. And it doesn't have to be paintings or sculpture, it's the same for e.g. musicians...

jorams 7y ago
> Well, the provenance and the prestige greatly affects the price of a work, that's why people care about it. That sounds like a chicken/egg problem. Do people care because it affects the price, or does it affect the price because people care?

jfengel 7y ago

I deal with much the same thing as a Shakespeare scholar. You'd like the works to stand on their own, but there is something to be gained from studying the corpus as it evolved. When I go to perform a play I treat it as if the audience is seeing a brand new work for the first time, but my process is informed by what I know of the other works and the context in which it was written -- including what I know of the author. It's unfortunate that conspiracy cranks take that up as a power trip rather than a serious way to study the plays themselves. And that there's a countervailing effort (dating back to the author's lifetime) to attribute lots of things to him -- it would be great if Edward III really were by Shakespeare, but the evidence is circumstantial at best. We can study it to see if it informs us in any useful way, but the combination of weak attribution and weak play means we don't get much of anywhere.