Sotheby's in New York has started a two-week auction of Impressionist art, and judging by the results, the art world is suffering about as much as high-tech companies. Where a Renoir sold for $78 million in 1990, his "Dans les Roses" mustered a mere $23.5 after commissions. This was at the low end of the estmiated range, and there is no sign of radical improvement anytime soon.
Art as an investment makes about as much sense as any other non-utilitarian use of millions of dollars, but like stocks, prices went crazy due to too much money chasing too little art (and even less excellent art). Then, the money dried up as events overtook even the richest. It helps illustrate how little money really ought to mean.
Is Degas' "Danseuse" any worse as a painting since it would certainly have sold for far more than last week's $10.6 million had it been sold 13 years ago? Of course not. For better or for worse, it is the same painting. It carries with it the same artistic merit. For that matter, was Van Gogh a better artist that Canelleto because his paintings fetch more? Certainly not, but the superiority of the Venetian School to Impressionism is too long an argument to be made here.
Not everything is about money. Seeing great art while not owning it is preferable to owning it and not seeing it. The great crime is in owning it and hiding it away.