[ExI] THE MIGHTY ORIGINAL

[PJ Manney]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:07 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> I appreciate the *present* importance of provenance in the art and
> antiques world. People pay a million dollars for a painting with
> provenance because they expect to be able to sell it on to someone
> else for two million dollars. It's an investment. That's really the
> only reason to pay extra for provenance.

No, it's not.  You're missing the psychology behind the entire art,
antique and collectibles markets.  Lots of people buy provenanced
items because 1) they're crazy fans of the creator or previous owner;
2) they need to feel the item in THEIR hot little hands and its
proximity brings them that much closer to the fame/infamy/whatever
associated with the object; 3) the ego-investment of owning it
outstrips the financial investment (much more common than you think).
The investment value of a Babe Ruth baseball means squat to a rabid
Yankees fan.  And owning a famous Picasso (there aren't a lot of
famous ones) makes its [male] owner feel his [male] member swell with
pride...  ;-)

If you ever spent time at Sotheby's, Christies or any high powered
auction house and watched the insanity all around you, you'd get what
I mean.

Real collectors don't care squat about increasing their investment.
Once they own it, it's THEIRS.  [Daffy Duck: "Go, go, go!  Mine, mine,
mine!"]    Those who buy for investment -- and there are many these
days -- are simply acquisitive and usually only the
ego/genital-inflation applies.  [Paging Steve Wynn...]  But that
doesn't mean there isn't some bat-s#!t crazy collector waiting in the
wings to buy it if Wynn doesn't.

You need to separate the post-scarcity economics of everyday crap from
the really unusual items.  Almost all stuff will instantly lose value.
 We've seen the beginning of this already, as when eBay entered the
marketplace and suddenly, the "rarity" wasn't so rare anymore and
prices dropped like buckshot-filled ducks from the sky.  But the
insanely special item will retain value IF YOU CAN PROVE IT IS WHAT IT
CLAIMS.  That's not impossible.  Don't think identification based on
atomic structure.  Think identification based on proof of
location/ownership.  Then provenance is the only thing that's
important.

> When nanotech lets everyone have their own Van Gogh, provenance will
> become worthless, because there will be no way to tell if the
> certificate is attached to the original or a nanocopy identical down
> to the atomic level.
> (Even today expert forgers forge the provenance as well, of course).

Yes, forgers do forge provenance -- in fact, most dealers forge items
and provenance ALL THE TIME and MOST COLLECTORS KNOW THAT -- it's up
to the collector to make sure the dealer is not full of crap.
Big-time collecting is not for the faint of heart, ignorant or
gullible.  Which is why now, as in the future, the protection of
original objects is a business in itself.  As future technology makes
originals harder to forge, future technology (and sleuthing) will make
verification possible.  Think of what's at stake in the market.  The
guys who pay hundreds of millions are willing to protect their
investment.  Or their passion.  Or their privates.  Which is what is
really at stake.  ;-)

> I would distinguish between provenance and 'intrinsic value'.
> A Walmart sweater that was once worn by George Bush is still just a
> Walmart sweater.

And that's why provenance IS important.  Right now, GWB's sweat stains
are worth money to someone, not the sweater.  Picasso's real
fingerprints are worth money to many people.  Not the reproduction of
them.  These things may not have value to you, but based on collecting
psychology, I am willing to bet money something immensely cool, like
the originals of Van Gogh's Starry Night or Picasso's Guernica will
have value in a nanofabbed future.

Now, all this goes out the window in a post-apocalyptic future, when
we're using Shakespeare's First Folio to wipe our buttocks.

PJ