gogh

The argument is drawing the argument of you-need-to-be-alone from Van Gogh ends up with it not being valid.

And while the Van Gogh archetype is a familiar one, it's important to understand that Van Gogh is the exception not the rule.

A van gogh isn't more expensive than my drawing because they're rarer or built with rarer materials.

Most of what is known about Van Gogh (that can't be known from his works themselves) is known from his letters.

So someone like Van Gogh is a perfect example of where it all breaks down.

That link is a van Gogh reduced to a gif (two actually, as part of their obfuscation attempt) that's only 0.3MP.

From van Gogh to Huxley, and lots of subjective questions but it's lacking data.

People would still pay more for the one Van Gogh laid his hand upon.

Van Gogh is amazing (see his stuff in person if you can sometime, it doesn't photograph well), but these are seperate orthogonal things.

Van Gogh took up painting at 27, and people live longer now.

No one ask Van Gogh to paint another Starry Night, man.

I honestly love Van Gogh paintings, not because it signals good taste within my social circle, but because they're intrinsically beautiful.

In other words, a Van Gogh, just like everything else, has no "intrinsic value" that everyone would recognize.

I'm pretty sure if it were possible to create atom for atom identical copies of every van gogh the value of the "original" would plummet.

She was incredibly knowledgeable and passionate about Van Gogh, which made the whole experience even better.

Could be vested 10% options in an apparently great startup or Van Gogh's Starry Night.

For Van Gogh's work, the image itself is not really what's amazing about it.