Thread by @jposhaughnessy

1/ Mimetic desire and the Art Market
In the movie “Titanic,” Kate Winslet plays the rebellious Rose DeWitt Bukater, a beautiful, vivacious, open-minded and forward-looking young woman from a “good” family that is faced with dwindling financial prospects. Her mother’s

2/ solution is to marry her off to the wicked and banal Cal Hockley, a mendacious but very rich young man. In the movie, Rose chooses to not marry Cal, but rather pursue a life of adventurous discovery, inspired by her brief love affair with penniless and doomed artist

3/ Jack Dawson. But this isn’t about what happened in the movie, other than to look at the intersection between Rose and the art she bought while abroad. She loaded up on Picasso, Monet and Degas, whom her philistine fiancé Cal said “wouldn’t amount to anything” in the world.

4/ Hindsight allows us to be in on the joke, as all three artists are now considered among the greatest masters to ever paint. But what would have happened if the boat didn’t sink and Rose went through with her marriage to the despicable Cal?

5/ Likely, Rose would have established a beautiful home and Salon in New York City in which to display her, for the time, unconventional art collection. She no doubt would have many parties where older and younger couples would attend. The older set might look on young Rose’s

6/ collection with some condensation, as they “knew” what good art was, and her modern scribblings didn’t qualify. But the younger set—especially other young women-- would be intrigued not only with Rose’s taste in art but in Rose herself, would have taken very careful notice.

7/ They would perhaps be envious of Rose’s beauty and talent and they would unconsciously desire those things for themselves. And their husbands wouldn’t stand in the way, for they too would like to emulate the “sparkling” life of Mr. and Mrs. Hockley.

8/ They would begin inquiries at New York-based dealers, who would then have to investigate these young, brash painters if they wanted to remain at the top of the dealer world. Trips to Europe would ensue,

9/ and the most forward-looking of the dealer would make deals to represent the new artists in the new world. Perhaps slowly at first, other young, forward-looking couples would start displaying their new purchases at their parties, increasing both the exposure

10/ to and desire for similar work from other socially ambitious families. All this new art in New York’s finest homes would spark critics to start writing about the artists and the collectors—some mocking, but many lauding, both the intelligence of the collectors and the

11/ artists. The art dealers would do their very best to ensure positive reviews as the money they were earning from the sales would become increasingly large. A mimetic “tipping point” would be reached were the sheer number of fancy people displaying the new art would cause

12/ something of an arms race among the socially ambitious people of the day. Critics would tip and begin providing very sound and seemingly well thought out “reasons” for why the artists were geniuses and the early collectors astute and refined people. Many people would say

13/ (with the deepest of hindsight bias) that it was “obvious” to anyone with any taste at all why these painters were the new Rembrandts and Titans and the cycle would become self-reinforcing. Museums would start buying and early collectors would add significant prestige

14/ to their family’s reputation by loaning and donating their works to the leading museums of not just New York City, but the entire world. Mimetic desire leading to mimetic behavior would have created a new paradigm without anyone—save perhaps the art dealers—doing anything

15/ in a conspiratorial manner. All some things take to change the world’s taste is often the unplanned enthusiasm of bright, forward-looking people. People who inspire others and cause them to want to emulate them.

16/ And this isn’t just reserved to fields like art—watch any trends that develop at first slowly but then suddenly become the object of everyone’s fascination. Mimetic behavior is responsible for a lot of what we imbue with value.

17/ And taken to an extreme, is also the constant background for bubbles and other events that seemingly appear out of nowhere. Understanding that we all, to a certain extent, are driven by mimetic behaviors will help you understand a lot more than the art market.

18/ And finally, understand that you yourself will almost *never* think you are being mimetically driven, as your brain will thoughtfully provide you—post hoc—with all sorts of reasonable and rational reasons for why you’re doing something.

19/ It’s one of the reasons I think that bubbles and crashes are features and not bugs of the human experience.

#BroadlyApplicable