[lucozade]

That's simply not true. Almost all the value will be because it's attributed to da Vinci. You simply won't get the same valuation if it's attributed to a lesser known contemporary.

And you don't need to go historical. I just picked da Vinci as an example. If you or I made a balloon dog sculpture, it won't be valued the same as a Jeff Koons one [0]. Even if it's essentially identical.

There's a whole subset of the art market that is valuing on provenance not the physical object.

[0] I'm assuming you're not Jeff Koons. The problem with HN is that, sometimes, you are actually chatting to a celebrity in the field without knowing.

[lou1306]

Well, the balloon dog example simply boils down to the fact that your work will only be seen as a rip-off.

> There's a whole subset of the art market that is valuing on provenance not the physical object.

Subset? I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning. Duchamp's urinal neatly exemplifies this.

[lucozade]

The vast majority of art sold is for decorative purposes and is valued as such. There is a subset though that's sold primarily based on provenance.

Or to put it another way, most art sold isn't in urinal form.

[magicalhippo]

> I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning.

I've never "understood art", but when you phrased it like that it makes perfect sense. To me, provenance just isn't interesting. So I judge the pieces as they stand in front of me.

[dagw]

There are essentially 3 ways to judge 'art'.

- Do I find this aesthetic

- Do I find this historically/culturally interesting or significant

- Do I find this a good investment

The problem is that people don't always make it clear which one they are judging by and end up talking past each other.