A lot of collectibles' value comes not from the objects themselves but from the exceptional contexts which spawned the objects

Wouldn't you pay more for a prop that was actually used on the set of your favorite movie instead of an identical reproduction?

Wouldn't you pay more for an object that was a key during an important historical event even though there are many objects like it used by unknown people in unknown contexts?

Wouldn't you pay more to collect an original tool invented by your favorite pioneer scientist even though there are much better versions of this tool in use today?

Wouldn't you pay more for works by an artist that invented new innovative techniques than artists who just reuse others' techniques even if the later artists arguably get better results because they are using the techniques after they have matured and have been perfected?

No on all counts. Maybe I just lack some sort of collectors spirit.

Historicity is the key. That and provenance.

Art is a racket. Not art as the human endeavor of expression, or art as the appreciation of beauty. Art as a business is ABSOLUTELY a racket in the same way that dutch tulips were a racket once upon a time. Nothing wrong with that at all in my book.

for the most part, art is a system that society affords itself to observe itself.

Please explain what that statement means, serious not snarky.

How so?

Relatively famous artist (in his circle), and dead almost 20 years. With a work like that it's at least as much of an investment.

> I wonder if people would appraise it quite as highly without context

That's a really silly idea. Context is as much a part of art as the actual piece itself.

I'm sure a lot of the price is supply and demand. There is only one of an original work available.

And he's dead, so he's not making any more.