Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
Space man Vs Box Men
Hi Krishna !
I agree with you.
When you pay a price for an artefact, it means that it is worth this price for you, and only for you. But if it is too expensive you do not buy it. Nobody else than you can explain why you bought it at such a price. Integrating this comment at world level, it leads to my axiom that the price of art at auction is a relevant metrics of its current place in the civilization. But only the buyer knows exactly why he paid the price.
Collecting and knowing are two different things, and it is happy that some people mix both.
Many collectors do not understand art. I agree. Research on art creation is uneasy for many reasons including reliability of information, influence of emotion, personal goals or targets of the researcher. No algorithm can apply to art researching.
All the best
I just want to point out that this started out as discussion of what is and what is not in the box, and it has become a discussion of art and capitalism, or as Walther Benjamin called it, " the art of the fetishized object" (see Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction 1938 available online). What we buy is constrained by what we can afford ( thorsetein Veblen- Theory of the Leisure Class). Some artworks cost the price of a house. Would you Pierre or Dr. Krishna sell your house to buy the art you so desperately wanted? I am not being facetious. What we want or think we want is constrained by many rules. In Colonial America the Europeans came to the American native Indians to buy land for trinkets. The Indians had no conception that land could be sold. They could only sell "rights" to use something
like fishing or hunting rights. The women owned the communities. Art was a spiritual tool that was owned by the community and could be used by anyone. I have two studios filled with art, what am I going to do with it? Frank