No snob appeal, nor bragging rights with your rich friends (or well-to-do supporters of your museum).
No perceived scarcity, to (hopefully) appreciate in value as the uber-rich keep bidding up the values of very scarce goods.
back
2 comments
This not a helpful approach. Art maintains it's value as it expresses the depth of human creativity. If someone imitates it, it's an entirely different (and vastly more common) skillset and thus considerably less valuable. Further devalued by the communal irritation at fakes in the art community. Creatives take humanity forwards, it is the cusp of that creative point that is being celebrated.
This is largely a Romantic conception of art (circa early 19th century) and not one that would necessarily be true when art meant something like craft, which was what it meant for a long, long time (see the Latin ars or Greek techne.)
Medieval European artists, for example, likely would have no issue with any sort of copying or “fakes”, as the primary goal wasn’t self-expression.
While that may be true, it doesnt change how art is valued today, and its cultural position today. It's no secret also that the rough pareto distribution of art is as alive as it is elsewhere. Most art or music isnt even consumed by anyone outside of the author, conversely about 5% gets 95% of the attention, with individual pieces generating millions (and getting millions of views), same applying to music
It's hard to make a forgery. I'd guess it doesn't change the scarcity equation much?
This. From a quick web search, a matched pair of portrait paintings by Rembrandt sold for $180 million in 2016.
I'll venture that the most-skilled art forgers currently living would jump at the chance to earn even 1/100 that much, for producing a pair of faux-Rembrandt paintings.
[Edit - add the obvious missing "the".]