I just don't get it, 20k for pieces like this: http://www.amazon.com/Firecracker/dp/B00E70BZ3K/ref=sr_1_22?...
I wonder if people would appraise it quite as highly without context, and the painter's life story.
I wonder if people would appraise it quite as highly without context, and the painter's life story.
Wouldn't you pay more for a prop that was actually used on the set of your favorite movie instead of an identical reproduction?
Wouldn't you pay more for an object that was a key during an important historical event even though there are many objects like it used by unknown people in unknown contexts?
Wouldn't you pay more to collect an original tool invented by your favorite pioneer scientist even though there are much better versions of this tool in use today?
Wouldn't you pay more for works by an artist that invented new innovative techniques than artists who just reuse others' techniques even if the later artists arguably get better results because they are using the techniques after they have matured and have been perfected?
That's a really silly idea. Context is as much a part of art as the actual piece itself.