3 ms·
Jog on, Socrates. Prices in the art world are presently distorted because of astonishing levels of wealth concentration. But basically yes, reproductions are pe
by 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 agoI 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 agoLook 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.