3 ms·

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

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
I think the parent actually agrees with you and so do I. Art has value in and of itself in that it conveys an emotion, idea, or context. It can also have value through artistry; how difficult it was to create or how novel it is. That value exists whether the work is one of one or whether it is one of two hundred million. A collectible meanwhile does not have much inherent value (like the hat) and derives most of its value from being rare. If it wasn't rare, it would be substantially less valuable and potentially irrelevant. As you point out, those things are not mutually exclusive and you can certainly have art that is also a collectible.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  A Fyre Festival hat can absolutely convey “an emotion, idea or context” and it likely does to many people. Compare this to, say, Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ which is literally just a mass-produced urinal. () () Comically, the one on display on the Tate Modern is a copy of the original work. Someone is truly taking the piss...

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

I think the parent actually agrees with you and so do I. Art has value in and of itself in that it conveys an emotion, idea, or context. It can also have value through artistry; how difficult it was to create or how novel it is. That value exists whether the work is one of one or whether it is one of two hundred million. A collectible meanwhile does not have much inherent value (like the hat) and derives most of its value from being rare. If it wasn't rare, it would be substantially less valuable and potentially irrelevant. As you point out, those things are not mutually exclusive and you can certainly have art that is also a collectible.

alasdair_ 6y ago
A Fyre Festival hat can absolutely convey “an emotion, idea or context” and it likely does to many people. Compare this to, say, Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ which is literally just a mass-produced urinal. () () Comically, the one on display on the Tate Modern is a copy of the original work. Someone is truly taking the piss...