Art doesn't have "artificial" scarcity.

> The model employed by artists in the West, in collusion with collectors, was to create an artificial scarcity of their own products on the market. Thus they introduced editions that gained in importance with the appearance of video art, and the same model is being attempted in the realm of digital art. Having made an arrangement with agents and galleries, artists would limit the number of copies of their works (for example, by setting the limit at 10 original copies), and sometimes they would even establish a hierarchy among the limited number of copies. A certain number of copies would be signed by the artist, and they would command a higher price, usually being fewer in number than the unsigned ones. During the Golden Age of video art, that is, in the 1980s, there was almost a consensus in the mainstream art circles to the effect that the existence of an illegal copy was tantamount to a criminal offence, even though it was easier than ever to copy a video cassette. An artificial scarcity was sometimes created by limiting the number of screenings, so that a given video work was limited to, for example, 10 screenings in the whole world during a calendar year.

https://monoskop.org/images/c/cd/Lukic_Kristian_2013_Artific...

Thanks for finding the exception you need to prove your point, that must've taken a while. The argument that famous artists made a limited amount of art because there's only so much they could make in a lifetime is moot because of this one quintessential example of 1980's "video art" (those really go off the shelves at Sotheby's).

I mean it doesn't really take much time at all to find counter examples, does it? There's even a detailed page at Wikipedia with concrete examples, if you haven't ever heard of the concept of a limited or special edition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_edition

The very first paragraph of the page is helpful:

> The terms special edition, limited edition, and variants such as deluxe edition, or collector's edition, are used as a marketing incentive for various kinds of products, originally published products related to the arts, such as books, prints, recorded music and films, and videogames, but now including clothing, cars, fine wine, and whisky, among other products. A limited edition is restricted in the number of copies produced, although in fact the number may be very low or very high. Suzuki (2008) defines limited edition products as those “sold in a state that makes them difficult to obtain because of companies limiting their availability to a certain period, quantity, region, or channel"

The real value of (some) art is in being able to artificially inflate the book value through sham transactions, then donate it to a charity for an income tax deduction worth more than the original acquisition price.

> Art is just old school NFTs.

I am an art collector. None of it is rare or wildly expensive. Nor do I expect to resell any of it.

It might shock you to discover that I collect that art simply because I enjoyed looking at it and having it. I go to art galleries to see art that I do not own, not because of its financial value, but because I enjoyed looking at it.

The idea that art is exactly an precisely an investment vehicle is simply false to the fact. And honestly, I find it horrifying and empty.

Your smug statement presumes no one trades NFTs for the same reasons you do. You managed to make an economic observation into some personal emotional feely victim statement.

Personally I love looking at a nice shiny piece of gold and artfully stacked pile of $20s.