Significance of Provenance
The painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, known as "Salvator Mundi" is valued at $450 Million US. It, the painting aka "Salvator Munid", was earlier valued at less than $10,000 US because it was believed to have been the product of "a lesser-known artist", and that this painting was a copy of an original painted by Leonardo.
I suppose that just on the basis of age, a fragile object's ability to remain in existence for over 500-years, that object -- like a painting -- has some value, just because it was able to survive, like less than $10,000.
Why would its monetary value increase by 45,000,000% just because people decided that somebody else painted it?
Provenance matters that much?
At this point, the picture is no longer just a picture, but rather a stand-in, more than a stand-in, a communion wafer of the artist themself.
A provenance infuses that wafer, painting, with the sprit of the person who painted it. But this spirit only resides in the original, apparently infused into the oak backing and linseed oil and powdered ochre, etc., that even the highest quality digital 3-D copy using identical materials, lacks the material or spiritual or metaphysical spirit that infuses the original, conveyed through the artist's participation into the creation.
Maybe part of the value of art has something to do with love and worship.
The doodles of John Lennon and Kurt Vonnegut would fetch a price on the art market considerably more than that of some random child, no matter how amusing and spontaneous, because the child is not John Lennon or Kurt Vonnegut. But that it was done by a young child, that it is as good, and it is unique, why shouldn't it be worth even more?
Proclaiming your membership in a dominance hierarchy?
Does this mean that you're a worshiper, or could it mean that you are at the top of the hierarchy because you can afford it, or both, even?
I suppose that just on the basis of age, a fragile object's ability to remain in existence for over 500-years, that object -- like a painting -- has some value, just because it was able to survive, like less than $10,000.
Why would its monetary value increase by 45,000,000% just because people decided that somebody else painted it?
Provenance matters that much?
At this point, the picture is no longer just a picture, but rather a stand-in, more than a stand-in, a communion wafer of the artist themself.
A provenance infuses that wafer, painting, with the sprit of the person who painted it. But this spirit only resides in the original, apparently infused into the oak backing and linseed oil and powdered ochre, etc., that even the highest quality digital 3-D copy using identical materials, lacks the material or spiritual or metaphysical spirit that infuses the original, conveyed through the artist's participation into the creation.
Maybe part of the value of art has something to do with love and worship.
The doodles of John Lennon and Kurt Vonnegut would fetch a price on the art market considerably more than that of some random child, no matter how amusing and spontaneous, because the child is not John Lennon or Kurt Vonnegut. But that it was done by a young child, that it is as good, and it is unique, why shouldn't it be worth even more?
Proclaiming your membership in a dominance hierarchy?
Does this mean that you're a worshiper, or could it mean that you are at the top of the hierarchy because you can afford it, or both, even?
posted by Godel at 7:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home