Is it possible to scientifically quantify the value of art by a standard other than the financial value of the artwork?
>>16144559Quantification of art is a fool's errand. Its value comes from a lot of eclectic places, not unnotably 'how much you like it'.
>>16144559Are you a baby who needs all the art in the world to tell you about how indomitable le human spirit is?
>>16144559Art changes us, and we change the world. There's your quantification. Pic related
>>16144754how much is that statue worth?
>>16145993Today, maybe $10k. There are a ton of busts of Octavian that are better preserved. But to Octavian, it was priceless (JK he obviously had this commissioned) to put himself on display for all the plebs, so that they would recognize and revere him. If op is trying to find a formula to quantify the value of art monetarily, this is very difficult, since in all but the last 60 years or so, the main value of art has been it's use as propaganda, and only in rare, advanced societies did the wealthy value art that they didn't commission themselves. My advice to op: get some rich, "cultured" friends.
>>16146405you can actually get them with the nose intact for about $100
>>16147611R You havin a lil troll? I think you're looking at cheap replicas. The one I posted was an authentic museum piece that last sold for $30k
Yes, you can quantify the value by weight or by water displacement. For paintings you can also use surface area.
>>16144559Currently no,In order to find such a baseline we’d have to first quantify the human experience and since there is no mathematical equation to even calculate consciousness yet, I think the “for time being” answer is no.But in the long run, with AGI/ASI, we will be able to do so but by then it will be pointless to focus such effort towards because we’ll be focusing on so much other massively important things that art will not be the focus of equations
>>16148165that was a counterfeit, if you're going to buy a counterfeit, why not buy one thats open and honest about what it is?i'd rather have 300 replicas than one counterfeit, plus the replicas look better
>>16144754>the bestnot hadrien?
>>16148392IDK. I think you just need a little class and taste to buy a successful art buyer>>16149242There's literally no reason to buy a counterfeit unless you got scammed. Maybe as an expensive prop for an indie film
>>16144559The boolean of my erection
>>16144616>>16144617>>16148392
No one will define art let alone scientific quantify the value of specific pieces because they have their own biases that they like being able to say arent art like modern slop. I would just describe it as something made with sovl that in some way is mean to be admired for its beauty/emotional aspects
No, you're dumb for even asking.
>>16144616>Its value comes from a lot of eclectic places,money laundering & insurance fraud aren't as exotic as you think
>>16144754>>16146405>>16149494>>16150882Looks like we found a few ways to quantify the value of art. Successful thread, op?>>16148392Retard
>>16144559probably
>>16144559>valueis all a social construct by definition, to the artist it will always be how long it took for them to make the painting or to learn / evolve a (new) skill during the painting process. To the masses it will always be whatever was paid for the drawing or whatever is written in the jewish article, to the rich old man buying the painting it will be what the jewish mediator told them and to the jewish mediator it will be what he thinks he can get away with telling to the rich old man and what the artist is willing to give the drawing up for (usually a non-factor as it will be much less than what the old man is going to offer)
>>16152769so are you saying that it is or isn't possible to scientifically quantify the value of art by a standard other than the financial value of the artwork?
>>16144559Science is too dumb to develop a means to do that
>>16144559If you're talking about paintings then quantifying them by area might work, bigger being better of course. With statues it would be by mass or maybe by volume. The bigger a work of art is, the more impressive it is. Thats why Mt Rushmore and Stonehenge are so popular.
>>16144559If you could do that then it would affect the financial value of the artwork
>>16156068>StonehengeIts fake, they built it in the late 1800s
>>16158105Mt Rushmore was made in the 1920s, is that fake too?
>>16158600its still a work in progress
>>16144559Modern artists often overly rely on the "idea" or "statement" of a peice and don't put any effort in tying their art to those concepts. You can say you want to open a dialogue with your art but it still has to believably be related to that topic.
>>16158105is that how the druids assembled it?
>>16144559Not without quantifying the qualitative. One can fashion at least a fascimile of quantifying the qualitative by virtue of applying their minds rationally (or irrationally?). But that's just thinking at that point. We've arrived back at the starting point of "I think" being a self-justified sentiment.
>>16149512Plethysmography isn't necessarily categorical.
