5 ms·

I'm not going to sit here an explain what makes collectibles and art desirable. I think you understand this and are just being difficult.

gjs278 6y ago
I think you don’t understand that if they want to wear the hat around, nobody is going to care if it came from this auction or a website. or maybe you do understand that and you are just being difficult.
ahelwer 6y ago
You can't just throw art in the mix there. One can absolutely see collectibles as ridiculous while placing great value on art. One can also understand why people value collectibles, and also think it ridiculous. They're empty.
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  So you're in charge of what is and isn't art, huh? That seems like quite the burden for you. Was it always just you, or was there some kind of committee that you staged a hostile takeover of?
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    I think you misread my post.
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      I think you misread mine.
- esrauch 6y ago
  I find this idea curious; what's different with collecting art than other collecting? As an outsider it appears to be "unique collection syndrome" no different than any other, where the artistic value is present in reproductions and is almost none of the price of buying an original.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Jog on, Socrates. Prices in the art world are presently distorted because of astonishing levels of wealth concentration. But basically yes, reproductions are perfectly fine - although an actual high-fidelity reproduction will set you back quite a bit. My comment really wasn't directed to the Renoirs or the Van Goghs, though. I was thinking more of the many artists you'd never even hear of whose paintings sell for multiple thousand $'s in any of your local art galleries (assuming you live in a large-ish city) and aren't well-known enough to even give rise to reproductions.
    - alasdair_ 6y ago
      > Prices in the art world are presently distorted because of astonishing levels of wealth concentration. I’ve heard two different art dealers on different continents (SF and London) both insist independently that the primary reason for high art prices is that art is a great way to bribe the owner, or to launder money, or both. (Similar to former politicians being paid millions for a “speech” in a foreign country).
    - esrauch 6y ago
      I think I'm still missing the gap: hats have value and art has value. Collectors collect certain hats and certain art in a way that is disconnected from their underlying value; it seems like grand-op was legitimate to mention art then, in reference to the common phenomenon of art collection?
      - ahelwer 6y ago
        Look I'm sure you mean well but this feigned-ignorance-leading-question schtick is literally thousands of years old and is basically just annoying. Try making an argument instead of baiting someone else into a bad one. Anyone past age 25 has long since made the realization that you can Socrates the distinction between any two categories all day. Wittgenstein & family resemblances happened, get with the last century of philosophical discourse please.
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  Andy Warhol would like a word...
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Imagine trying to explain to people how your cheap hat from a meme scam festival that nobody will remember in five years is a piece of art. They would - at most - nod tolerantly as you bring up Duchamp, their eyes presumably then drifting over to your extensive & expensive funko pop collection.
    - alasdair_ 6y ago
      I suspect I would care little about “people” who “nod tolerantly” about DuChamp. Hopefully I never meet them, but if I’m forced to, I’d feel compelled to point out they were condescending assholes without the money to fund a truly opulent Funco Pop collection :)
6510 6y ago
Ill sit here and explain that the whole process can be faked. (Just for laughs) Joe is in the business of selling large amounts of dubious goods and services. Jim makes a lot of money from his bar but on the side he does dubious business with Joe. One day Joe gives Jim a painting he made. It is one hell of a horrible work! Joe explains that Jim is no longer buying dubious goods, he gets those for free now! With the painting. More buddies join the network and paintings change hands frequently. Then one day Joe invites the buddy network to a public auction. Everyone bids on the paintings knowing exactly which dubious goods they represent. Slowly but steadily outsiders join in on the bidding. The price of the dubious goods goes though the roof! Jim goes to Joe and complaints about how expensive his services have become. Joe answers: But you have 100 paintings of mine? Why not just sell some of them for uhhh market value? I give you 2 million for the stack. Everyone lives happily ever after.
sbierwagen 6y ago
Counterfeiting a hat of a fake music festival and pretending that it's genuine has a certain pleasing symmetry.
- mcv 6y ago
  You can always tell people it's every bit as real as the festival itself.

gjs278 6y ago

I think you don’t understand that if they want to wear the hat around, nobody is going to care if it came from this auction or a website. or maybe you do understand that and you are just being difficult.

ahelwer 6y ago

You can't just throw art in the mix there. One can absolutely see collectibles as ridiculous while placing great value on art. One can also understand why people value collectibles, and also think it ridiculous. They're empty.

Godel_unicode 6y ago
So you're in charge of what is and isn't art, huh? That seems like quite the burden for you. Was it always just you, or was there some kind of committee that you staged a hostile takeover of?
- ahelwer 6y ago
  I think you misread my post.
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    I think you misread mine.
esrauch 6y ago
I find this idea curious; what's different with collecting art than other collecting? As an outsider it appears to be "unique collection syndrome" no different than any other, where the artistic value is present in reproductions and is almost none of the price of buying an original.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Jog on, Socrates. Prices in the art world are presently distorted because of astonishing levels of wealth concentration. But basically yes, reproductions are perfectly fine - although an actual high-fidelity reproduction will set you back quite a bit. My comment really wasn't directed to the Renoirs or the Van Goghs, though. I was thinking more of the many artists you'd never even hear of whose paintings sell for multiple thousand $'s in any of your local art galleries (assuming you live in a large-ish city) and aren't well-known enough to even give rise to reproductions.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    > Prices in the art world are presently distorted because of astonishing levels of wealth concentration. I’ve heard two different art dealers on different continents (SF and London) both insist independently that the primary reason for high art prices is that art is a great way to bribe the owner, or to launder money, or both. (Similar to former politicians being paid millions for a “speech” in a foreign country).
  - esrauch 6y ago
    I think I'm still missing the gap: hats have value and art has value. Collectors collect certain hats and certain art in a way that is disconnected from their underlying value; it seems like grand-op was legitimate to mention art then, in reference to the common phenomenon of art collection?
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      Look I'm sure you mean well but this feigned-ignorance-leading-question schtick is literally thousands of years old and is basically just annoying. Try making an argument instead of baiting someone else into a bad one. Anyone past age 25 has long since made the realization that you can Socrates the distinction between any two categories all day. Wittgenstein & family resemblances happened, get with the last century of philosophical discourse please.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
alasdair_ 6y ago
Andy Warhol would like a word...
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Imagine trying to explain to people how your cheap hat from a meme scam festival that nobody will remember in five years is a piece of art. They would - at most - nod tolerantly as you bring up Duchamp, their eyes presumably then drifting over to your extensive & expensive funko pop collection.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    I suspect I would care little about “people” who “nod tolerantly” about DuChamp. Hopefully I never meet them, but if I’m forced to, I’d feel compelled to point out they were condescending assholes without the money to fund a truly opulent Funco Pop collection :)

6510 6y ago

Ill sit here and explain that the whole process can be faked. (Just for laughs) Joe is in the business of selling large amounts of dubious goods and services. Jim makes a lot of money from his bar but on the side he does dubious business with Joe. One day Joe gives Jim a painting he made. It is one hell of a horrible work! Joe explains that Jim is no longer buying dubious goods, he gets those for free now! With the painting. More buddies join the network and paintings change hands frequently. Then one day Joe invites the buddy network to a public auction. Everyone bids on the paintings knowing exactly which dubious goods they represent. Slowly but steadily outsiders join in on the bidding. The price of the dubious goods goes though the roof! Jim goes to Joe and complaints about how expensive his services have become. Joe answers: But you have 100 paintings of mine? Why not just sell some of them for uhhh market value? I give you 2 million for the stack. Everyone lives happily ever after.

sbierwagen 6y ago

Counterfeiting a hat of a fake music festival and pretending that it's genuine has a certain pleasing symmetry.

mcv 6y ago
You can always tell people it's every bit as real as the festival itself.