Is the current crisis different in quantity or quality to the crises of
other periods of art history?
If there is no one to blame, perhaps it's at least legitimate to lament that
the speculators will seize on anything that looks like a path to more money
and that the art historians have apparently lacked the judgment to
discriminate between works seen as good investment vehicles and (more)
enduring works of legitimate value.
It seems to me that the art historians are plagued with the problem that the
standards by which "art works" are to be judged have evolved.
Geoff Crealock
From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: It's Hirst and Dickinson
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:16:11 GMT
O.K., the artworld is in crisis -- but should we really blame either money
changers or art historians ?
Money changers build wealth by dealing with commodities like they have
done
in every civilization. That's their job -- and it's a necessary one.
And aren't art historians just people who love art, like to read and write
history, and want to have nice little jobs in universities or museums ?
They didn't really sign up to be gate-keepers -- and that's why, in all
modesty, "their unquestioned assumption is that whatever falls
within the artworld context is art."
They may be surrounded by art objects, but they live in a world of ideas,
like Dr. Desmond who is "an art historian and an aesthetician only as
supports thinking about art and its vague meanings."
I don't think there's anyone else to blame except aesthetes -- i.e.
people
who live for differences in quality.
We have failed to make a difference in art and educational institutions.
For one reason or another.
____________________________________________________________
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmOSaac74IdooI8C3fuyWUe2
R77kNzdJrkxAdlInJOTfyuLC/
