In Wednesday's NY Times, there is an article discussing whether there is a pattern to how works of art are priced. The article discusses the work of economist David Galenson who has found that great artists usually fall into one of two categories:
1. "Young Geniuses:" like Picasso, Van Gogh, or Gauguin, who create their most valuable works early in their career and are innovators who spend little time on their artwork.
2. "Old Masters:" like Jackson Pollock or Paul Cezanne, who create their most valuable works of art late in their career and spend a lot of time perfecting and experimenting with their artwork.
Galenson then uses these two categories to explain patterns in the creation of artwork and to predict the prices that the works of art will sell for.
One of the main topics of the article is how there is a lot of resistance to applying these economic and statistical techniques to the field of art. So my question would be, what do you think of Galenson's ideas? Is it an example of trying to bring everything under the economics/statistics umbrella without regard to whether it fits? Why do you think there is so much resistance to Galenson's work?