We care about the origins of art. Comparing two physically identical artworks, we pay more for an original than a duplicate, and not because we think originals have better quality, rarity, resources, or effort. Instead it seems we pay for a more direct physical connection to the artist:
Or...we have a sense of value for the time and energy put into a piece of art. Not just the physical labor, but the time and energy it takes to create it in the mind, or the time it takes to acquire the life experience that makes the art piece more valuable.
An original masterpiece doesn't just represent the time and energy it took the artist to physically create it, but includes any of the time and energy it took to gain the experiences that the piece reflects. A duplicate only reflects the time and energy needed to copy the physical final product.
This would explain why if an artist stares at a canvas for weeks, months or even years, ultimately putting nothing more than a few brush strokes on it, the painting can become worth a fortune (so long as the back story of its creation was well-known). If someone duplicated such a painting, it would be practically worthless, because it would reflect no more than a few minutes of work.
Art acquisition is probably one of the more blatant forms of signaling, and much of it has to do with showing off a particular type of education as well as (obviously) excessive wealth. But maybe it is more fundamentally a signal of your ability to gain other people's time, skills and energy. In that case, we should be naturally drawn to originals, which inherently represent much more time, skill and energy than any duplicate.
This is a very solid point IMHO.
It's just you! Comparing two pieces of artwork ordinary people don't give a shit and buy an iPhone ;P What a bias
Originals don't have more rarity than duplicates?
The claim "duplicate artworks are judged less valuable than duplicate artifacts" suggests to me that artifacts are perceived as harder to duplicate than artwork, and thus rarer. (Rarity isn't just how many exist, but also the cost of making more.) I would look long and hard at experiments 2 and 3 (I don't have access to the paper at present) before taking this as strong evidence that rarity isn't a significant factor in the value of originals over duplicates.
I think a test that would be relevant for the conclusions you're interested in is whether it makes a difference whether or not the artist (i.e. original designer) did the duplicating. (This is related to experiment 5, but subtly different.) If knowing that the artist was the one running some hands-off process that produced the duplicate makes the duplicate more valuable than an identical duplicate made by a faced person who isn't the artist, then that looks like about as pure an affiliation effect as you can get.
Philip K. Dick explores this topic quite a bit in Man in the High Castle. He calls it "historicity".
on the other hand - experts discussing the recent record-busting sale of a photogragh for £4.3m on the BBC opined that photographs that exist in very small limited editions (Gursky does just six prints) actually sell BETTER than photographs printed just once.why is that? it seems to be because the owners of the other copies reinforce each other's judgement. VIX inthe case of this print, identical ones hang in the MOMA in NY and the Tate Modern in London -- so it MUST be good, right?
If there was just one of them, you'd be relying more on your own judgement..