Why work of art worth millions of dollars if the author is a name of "success" and almost nothing if it was created by an eminent stranger? After all the inherent characteristics of the object are the same. The question could be extended to the relationship between the artwork and its copy.
The definition of primary market is perfectly logical: a 'work worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. An amount often determined by the ratio between the "desirability", "shortage" and the expectation that there is someone willing to pay over the line "something more". But art is not always considered as an asset with its inherent value?
yet to draw an original Picasso and now a university professor of art contemporaea not be given the same value. This is because only the original announced that the revolutionary character, originality and challenge that academic work can not possess.
But if Van Gogh had died in the shadows, and his works retrieved a century after his death, we are sure that today would enjoy the fame of "masterpieces"?
It is unreasonable to lay too much confidence in the reputation of an artist to assess his work, to recognize the value of an artist and his work should invest time and attention. Should we
cultivate a more open-minded and allow us to appreciate a work for its intrinsic qualities rather than its allocation. Who knows, maybe even a copy would have something to say ...
- Eric Felten, The Wall Street Journal, August 13, 2010
Read the full article in original language
0 comments:
Post a Comment