If you throw enough money at a lie it will become true.

Is art history dead or I'm I giving too much importance to the "art market". Does the most expensive art necessarily mean that it is the most important? (example: Van Gogh). Or is the unregulated art market being manipulated. That is what seems to be the case with the work of Gustav Klimt (see "The Mona Lisa Curse" excerpt below). And this may be the case throughout history.  If you throw enough money at a lie it will become true. (gerbils variant)

What started with Andy Warhol pointing out the shallowness of fame was fuel injected by Jeff Koons and has been grotesquely distorted into Damien "Money is my Medium"  Hirst.

Possibly like Van Gogh more meaningful artist will be uncovered and revered by art historians. un-fortune-ately long after they are dead.