is this worth 104 million $$$ ??

[prometheus]

Why would the original be worth more than a copy?

[pianolearner]

Why would the original be worth more than a copy?

I'll give you one possible reason: "The only reason to collect it would be to collect it because it is an item fanboy collecters want. Just like people want Jimi Hendrix his guitar, Elvis his suit, etc."

1 item, many "fanboy collectors"....what do you think the result will be?

[prometheus]

That has nothing to do with music, as I already explained.

The point was that this is not admitted, or at least not often, in the painting art world. That the paint on the painting itself is irrelevant.

[pianolearner]

That has nothing to do with music, as I already explained.

The point was that this is not admitted, or at least not often, in the painting art world. That the paint on the painting itself is irrelevant.

And as I explained earlier, it doesn't matter what we are talking about.  The original will always be worth more than a copy 

A CD that Angela Hewitt herself made on her laptop in her own private studio will sell for MUCH more than any CD you can buy from Amazon.com/co.uk/. etc

Cant you seriously not understand this concept?

[prometheus]

Maybe you should read my posts a little better.


Maybe I should point out that I don't use 'worth' referring to money but to artistic value. If you read the original link about the Picasso painting it says this: Picasso expert Pepe Karmel, reached in New York the morning after the sale, was waxing wroth about the whole affair. "I'm stunned," he said, "that a pleasant, minor painting could command a price appropriate to a real masterwork by Picasso. This just shows how much the marketplace is divorced from the true values of art."

Adding to this the whole "Bigger fool theory" then we can conclude that the worth of a painting is very distinct from its market price. I thought we were talking about those two things.

It is very plain to see that with items that are unique market price is not influenced by its actual value at all. Both the value in money and the value in art.

I mean, look back at the topic title. Of course this painting isn't worth 104 million because someone decided to pay that much for it.

Very strange since these are points you made...

[pianolearner]

Maybe you should read my posts a little better.


Maybe I should point out that I don't use 'worth' referring to money but to artistic value. If you read the original link about the Picasso painting it says this: Picasso expert Pepe Karmel, reached in New York the morning after the sale, was waxing wroth about the whole affair. "I'm stunned," he said, "that a pleasant, minor painting could command a price appropriate to a real masterwork by Picasso. This just shows how much the marketplace is divorced from the true values of art."

Adding to this the whole "Bigger fool theory" then we can conclude that the worth of a painting is very distinct from its market price. I thought we were talking about those two things.

It is very plain to see that with items that are unique market price is not influenced by its actual value at all. Both the value in money and the value in art.

I mean, look back at the topic title. Of course this painting isn't worth 104 million because someone decided to pay that much for it.

Very strange since these are points you made...

Maybe I should point out that "worth" (however you define it) is subjective. To highlight one VERY important point about the Bigger fool theory: When a commodity with a universal value is traded then, no matter how the situation is interpreted, either the seller or the buyer has made a mistake.

[prometheus]

So how do you explain the difference between the world of art music and the world of art painting?

[pianolearner]

So how do you explain the difference between the world of art music and the world of art painting?

What is there to explain?