Not a bad point but art at that time was not the pointy headed world it is now. Artists were fine craftsman until the 19th century more or less.

Completely irrelevant.

Paudung beauty is traditionally a matter of how elongated their necks are. The Chinese bound feet to make them smaller. European wealth was marked by corpulence and soft hands. Fundamentally, anthropologically, wealth is signaled by abundance; extreme wealth is signaled by waste and one's ability to squander resources.

The basic mechanism underpinning value is scarcity. During the Medicis, a realistic depiction of any scene was the domain of talented craftsmen. therefore, realistic depictions were of value. Now? Find a phone without a camera on it. We're awash in realism so abstraction becomes prominent.

Let's talk about Felix Gonzales-Torres.

I think you will likely agree when I state that his art is not to my taste. I would describe it as "rank bullshit." It is literally a giant pile of candy in the corner of a room (in the Guggenheim because fuck you). There's nothing rare about the candy. If I recall correctly Torrez didn't even pile it himself. It's a waste of candy. It's a waste of space. It's a waste of thought. It's a waste. It's four and a half million dollars. It is not the conspicuous consumption of wealth, it's the conspicuous destruction of wealth.

The Medicis had an eye for nourishing artists that suited their tastes. So does Charles Saatchi. That our tastes are more closely aligned with the Medicis only goes to demonstrate how highly refined Charles Saatchi's tastes truly are. I mean, any schlub can appreciate a Michelangelo. A Gonzales-Torres? That takes a hypersensitized palate.