Aesthetics vs. History

Canaletto

I found this article interesting because it describes how collectors are paying astronomical prices for certain works of art not because they are especially good, in and of themselves, but because of their connection to certain places or people.

Some of that makes sense to me, I suppose. I can understand why there might be value in a painting which accurately depicts what things looked like, from a an historical perspective, even if it's not especially well done (by artistic standards). But according to this article, the prices these paintings fetched went well beyond that.

This reminds me of the Princess Diana dress auction after her death and then the sales of Kennedy family items in recent years. People paid huge amounts of money for a dress Diana once danced in not because the dress itself was worth that but because it had belonged to Diana.

But then I didn't really understand the fuss about Barry Bonds' homerun ball either.

I guess it's what the market will bear.