test 2/6

Scarcity can be a pleasant word—in the purview/domain/aesthetics of ownership for instance. To have something at the tips of your fingertips, and only yours—there's something poetic to this, a hint of the divine. But once in hand, what then?

Scarcity might then suggest substantial inaccessibility. And so, how possible is it the work of art is the same before and after the transfer of ownership? What might this transfer have transformed the owned into?

Imagine a painting traded from one publicly accessible museum to another. Would the latter's gallery(s) augment/diminish the art experience? Difficult to surmise. Now imagine the painting entering private hands (out of public view), and imagine the inverse—private hands sell/gift painting to publicly accessible museum. How different are art and ownership in these instances? What difference would loaning suggest? What does "in storage" connote?

How many eyes are needed to affirm quality/value? Is a pricetag sufficient?

9600px jpg