[ethbr1]

Valuable as in culturally significant and monetarily expensive.

> The most culturally valuable artistic works are ubiquitous, the opposite of scarce.

Not so. Copies of those works are ubiquitous, but there is a singular, definitive work.

Name me a handful of world-famous works for which there are multiple, almost-indistinguishable but distinct copies.

The Mona Lisa has a few original alternates, and yet they pale in value to the famous one. Which itself, ironically, became popular famous mostly through being stolen (scarcity).

> Look at the top 100 most-paid artists of the last decade, and tell me how hard it is to find and appreciate their entire artistic catalogue for yourself.

> [Once Upon a Time in Shaolin] vs [Speak Now (Taylor's Version)]

Total artistic renumeration, especially in the modern period, is dominated by distribution volume.

But if we're talking about single work valuation, the Wu Tang album costs $2M.

Taylor's album costs $15.

That's the premium for scarcity.

[greatwave1]

> Copies of those works are ubiquitous, but there is a singular, definitive work.

When referring to recorded music, this isn't a distinction that has ever actually mattered in the real world, just a fiction made up to shill NFTs.

Are you going to pretend that anyone actually cares about a "singular, definitive FLAC file" that all of the streaming services' FLAC and MP3 playbacks are based on? This is pure fantasy, the copies are the same thing as the original piece.

The idea that Mona Lisa's (or any other artwork's) cultural influence comes from its scarcity is hilarious. Literally anyone can visit the Louvre and appreciate it for themself. Do you think it would have anywhere near as much influence if it was hidden behind closed doors and only 1 person was able to see it?

> But if we're talking about single work valuation, the Wu Tang album costs $2M. Taylor's album costs $15.

Last time I checked, the sum of revenue from their discography is how artists and labels get paid, not based on the maximum amount that 1 person is willing to pay.

Speak Now is a single work, and it generated like 100x as much monetary value as Shaolin (with like 10,000x as much cultural impact). And those estimates are extremely conservative, when you consider that you can tour and sell merch off an album that people can actually listen to lol.

[ethbr1]

>> Name me a handful of world-famous works for which there are multiple, almost-indistinguishable but distinct copies.

[greatwave1]

Literally every world-famous work has replicas and recreations, what's your point? Those copies are also part of the work's cultural influence, and in many cases (if the replicas are sold by the original artist) part of the monetary value as well.

This doesn't provide any more credence to the falsity that art's scarcity is the source of its value (when overwhelming evidence proves that the exact opposite is true)

[ethbr1]

That's not what I'm asking.

Those replicas and recreations are recreations of a... single, scarce work.

That's famous precisely because there is one original.

But if that's not true, it should be possible to point to, say, a series of similar paintings or musical compositions that are all famous.

Generally, that's not the case though.

Because people want one thing.

The one Mona Lisa. The one officially-blessed Taylor Swift album. The one version of Beethoven's Fifth.

Complexity and variety confuses simple people and the market.

[greatwave1]

> Because people want one thing.

> The one officially-blessed Taylor Swift album. The one version of Beethoven's Fifth.

Millions of people have bought vinyls/CDs/MP3 replicas of these albums. These are not scarce works. The demand is not for the scarce original (who even knows what that means when it comes to music), it's for a faithful recreation of the artist's work and creative output.

On top of that, nobody who listens to these albums really just wants one album... they want to listen to music that moves them. Taylor Swift fans will listen to other albums that she puts out, and music from other artists that they enjoy. When Beethoven released his 6th symphony, it didn't make his 5th any less valuable to those who enjoyed it.

Because for most people, the value of art comes from its intrinsic beauty, not its "scarcity". Unless if you're someone whose only attachment to art is as a vehicle for financial speculation, which is sad but unfortunately common in NFT circles, etc.

> But if that's not true, it should be possible to point to, say, a series of similar paintings or musical compositions that are all famous.

Have you heard the term genre before? It's literally a word for a group of similar musical compositions. Most genres contain plenty of similar compositions that are all famous.

If people enjoy a work of art, there is almost always other popular art made that's similar to it. Turns out, you get bored if you just listen to one album over and over again.

When it comes to art, most people enjoy variety, it doesn't "confuse them" lol. This is clearly reflected in the market, as there are hundreds of unique genres of music, each with thousands of unique artists.