[Zikes]

Doig was a nobody at age 16, else the painting wouldn't have sold for $100. The buyer bought a nice-looking painting from some kid in a correctional facility, not a world-famous painter. There was no promise or expectation that it would significantly increase in value.

[jdmichal]

The value at purchase time is irrelevant to this case, the same way the purchase price of stock is irrelevant to its current value when sold. If it is by Doig, it would have a current value >>> its value otherwise. If Doig says he didn't paint it when he did, he is directly destroying that difference in value.

[CoryG89]

I agree with this, but can someone really be held liable for something like this? I assume the painting did not come with a contract that states the artist/seller must always claim the work, from now to forever?

[icebraining]

Not claiming his work is different from actively denying having made it. You don't need a contract to be sued for causing damages by knowingly making false claims.

Assuming he's actually the author, he's in a way "defaming the painting".

[bitJericho]

spreading damaging lies is most definitely something you can be sued for!

[Retra]

He is only proving the invalidity of evaluating the price of a painting based on the name of the artist.

[visarga]

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.

[icebraining]

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.

[Retra]

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.