dragon,Chinese consider ourselves is the son of dragon can unlimited change .100x100cm. canvas.From an economic perspective, art is valued by the marketplace, just as stocks are. An artist’s work is valuable because important critics at some point decided it was good. Because of that, it went to the big museums. It got into books. It is taught in art courses. And when it goes to auction, people bid it up.

Once there’s a 10- or 20-year market for a particular artist, the value of his art is unlikely to collapse. By that time, so many people—museums, brokers, and wealthy collectors—are invested in it. None of them, if they can help it, will allow it to collapse.

Who is ever going to say that Rembrandt wasn’t a great artist? Or that his paintings aren’t worth millions of dollars? Nobody. That doesn’t mean he was the best Dutch painter of his time. If you look at paintings by his contemporaries, you might think that some of the other Dutch masters (or even a few of the minors) were just as good.

But Rembrandt’s values will hold. Why are his paintings worth 100 times more than another one that is technically just as good? Because history has decided it should be so. Art critics—experts, people who dedicated their lives to studying art, have decided. The marketplace has put a value on it, and that’s what makes it more valuable.

When you’re collecting art, you’re collecting the history of what art critics have decided. You might disagree with them on an aesthetic basis, but you’d be foolish to disagree with them with your money.

My point is that the value of art, from an investment point of view, is not subjective at all. It is objective. More objective and easier to predict, in fact, than stocks.

Regards,
Jack Huang