In the May issue of NY Magazine, there is an article which asks “Are You Suffering from Perfection Anxiety?” , which quotes an article by AA Gill in a recent Vanity Fair (I’d provide a link, but it doesn’t come up easily – too much traffic?). Though I assume the article is more than a bit tongue-in-cheek, it got me thinking about “comparanomics”(definition: having what someone ELSE has be the foundation for what YOU spend your time – and money – pursuing). As one art expert in the article points out: the return on a $60M piece of art is likely to be…below $60M – but doesn’t that assume it’s measured strictly in terms of $? What if the return was measured in impact: say the purchasers decided that the coast of installing complex security systems (or hire a manager or dedicated security person to watch over the painting) in their new LA home was more than they needed to pay – especially since they only intended to spend a month or so here and there in LA. So they decided to leave it in the museum where it resides – on the condition that they could close down the museum a few times a year for a select gathering of their closest friends and family – to get together, socialize and celebrate their great taste in art. So now, they have a beautiful painting, they have one less thing to worry about protecting, they will gain extra benefit (or at least studies show they have the potential to) and happiness by DOING something with the art instead of just HAVING it, and the museum will still have people flocking to see the art (in fact, attendance may rise because of the publicity). So: return = $ cost of art + impact? As they say in the MasterCard ad: “priceless”. How would that affect the perfection complex, I wonder?