I read in Art Market Monitor that Europe is saddled with an excess of low-value artwork created during the Victorian years.
While AMM is interested in that glut for its predictive capacity in trending the value of modern art collections, I see it as another unwelcome example of our giving the 1800s an early shove into the "who-gives-a-fig" category, alongside the 1600s and 1700s.
I don't know what the official shelf life is for a century, but courtesy says it should not be retired as long as there are people living with recollections of persons and events begun/occurring therein. Using that test of relevancy, the expiration date on the late 1800s isn't until about 2050.History is filled with questions that could be at least partly answered if more artwork had survived. So little artwork was preserved from the 1500s, for example, that we have to guess which portraits definitely and accurately depict Shakespeare, and folks have spirited discussions over whether Anne Boleyn did or did not have an unsightly wen on her neck. If those examples seem frivolous, go back further and imagine how the discourse about Christianity might differ if we had an ample supply of real time artwork illustrating Christ's activities. In that context, the worth of a picture shouldn't be determined by the skill of the brushwork.











