[anon1m0us]

> video game art is often beautiful, cool and interesting to look at.

Is a great reason to buy art. Period.

However....

> Which makes it an attractive proposition for value collectors.

Is not a good reason to buy art. It's not really a good reason to buy anything without intrinsic value, because art's value cannot be quantified. It is subjective. Art's value is subject to the price someone is willing to pay for it. There's no real scarcity. You could say, "Original art, from the artist is scarce." Okay, yes, but that is not the value in art. The value in art is the aesthetic feeling in art. It's the reason to buy art.

Buying art to make money, cheapens art. It jeopardizes the very institution of art, because the purpose of art is to evoke feelings, not make money and we should reward art that evokes feelings, specifically aesthetic feelings in order to promote the creation of that kind of art.

That's what art is about. Art is about emotions and thoughts and awareness. Not dollars. That's the opposite of what art is about. That's what ad creative is about. That's what marketing spreads are about -- not art for your wall.

[kevinali1]

I've heard both sides of the debate (art should not be treated as commerce vs art has investment value). I think it's a very confusing debate as I see the point of both sides. Art is made to evoke beauty in all sorts of ways that we can appreciate. in an ideal world, we should not attach a sense of bazaar to it. At the same time, we need a better idea of value in art (and the illusion that said value is at least roughly quantifiable) to create an industry where art can flourish. Artists should be paid. Dealers should be paid. Neither of those things can happen without people thinking the value of their art can go up.