Re:Peter Doig sued for disavowing 40-year-old painting
by Retra on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:37PM
(#12052770)
He is only proving the invalidity of evaluating the price of a painting based on the name of the artist.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Peter Doig sued for disavowing 40-year-old painting
by visarga on Friday July 08, 2016 @01:19AM
(#12053666)
It's a painting. The value is in its esthetic, which has not degraded over the 40 years.
Anyway, I think all damages should be capped at the original price point, 100$, even in the absurd case the judge sides with the buyer.
Re:Peter Doig sued for disavowing 40-year-old painting
by icebraining on Friday July 08, 2016 @04:18AM
(#12054197)
The value is in its esthetic
The "intrinsic" value may be so, but the market value is whatever people are willing to pay for it, and that counts too.
Re:Peter Doig sued for disavowing 40-year-old painting
by Retra on Friday July 08, 2016 @07:37PM
(#12059334)
If the market value is what people are willing to pay, then you've just ignored any responsibility for answering the question "what are people willing to pay for", which is exactly what the question "where is the value" is supposed to be answered by.
In other words, you've just swept a messy question under a rug and acted like we'd all be smarter if we just called the mess "a rug" and ignored the details. Economists talk like that because they don't care about the art (they care about economic abstractions.) But you can't think like that if you want to answer questions about art, because those abstractions break down if you do.