3 ms·
why is a Van Gough worth as much though? It's basically a little pigment on some linen, it's not inherently worth any more than the next piece of art that is "o
by krsdcbl 6y ago
why is a Van Gough worth as much though? It's basically a little pigment on some linen, it's not inherently worth any more than the next piece of art that is "ownable".
- waheoo 6y agoInherent worth only provides a price floor in a market. It only plays a partial role in determining the ceiling. For that you need to incorporate a whole manner of values. Cost, direct, indirect, amortised nor not. Value proposition, both yang ble and intangible. Scarcity, uniqueness and availability, time to produce, time to reproduce. This is why it was so abhorrent when bankers and media brought up inherent value of GameStop, it's one small part of the equation and has very little to do with the situation.
- cam0 6y agoI get your point, but I think it's worth considering the sheer beauty of a Van Gogh painting. Have you been to MoMA and spent 30+ minutes looking at The Starry Night. Compared to Beeple https://www.beeple-crap.com/archive https://www.beeple-crap.com/archive who straight up says: "Most of my work is complete fucking garbage, but this old shit is reallllllly fucking bad. Seriously. I mean, you can look at this shit if you want to but just know that it is most likely making you dumber and a shittier human being. It’s that bad."
- beaconstudios 6y agoVan Gogh's work may be beautiful (I'm more of a Vermeer guy myself) but it's not 100,000x more beautiful than the work of a skilled artist who hasn't been pumped up by a tragic story and centuries of art snob hype. The value of high art is purely socially constructed and is an aristocratic class signal.
- doggodaddo78 6y agoYup. It's pretty strong though compared to random nobody doodles. Picasso, Rembrandt, van Gogh aren't going to lose value anytime soon.