3 ms·

But all this missed the point. I like that there are artists making these things. If they go on to be copied X times so that it can provide a living wage to the

But all this missed the point. I like that there are artists making these things. If they go on to be copied X times so that it can provide a living wage to the original artists and designers, then in my opinion it's money well spent, even if some of it goes to the (also talented) machinists and assemblers. I also think it's good that it's accessible to 150 people who maybe appreciate the artistry that went into it, as opposed to 1 super rich guy who maybe doesn't. All I'm saying is charity is really important, arguably more so than art, but when they're created with skill and artistry; appreciated and not just consumed conspicuously as wealth/status objects, such things have value too.

Dylan16807 4y ago
So I generally agree with all this. But in my opinion there's a limit to how much money you can justify with "it's art". If you're making 150 of something, you shouldn't be justifying a particularly huge price with it being art. If it really cost that much, and the price of making just one would have been ridiculously huge, then there is a point where I'd say the whole project is not worth it, is not making the world a better place. (Note: I am not stating any opinion on where this watch is relative to that level.) Or to restate and elaborate on my original point: 99% of the time, it's fine to use art as a reason to buy something. You don't always have to be donating every dollar to charities. But for any level of justification you want to reach for the price of a piece of art, the dollar amount that fits under "justified" depends on how many copies are being made.