i was talking about buyers who are duped out of money, and
left in their unawares, not just viewing art work for pleasure.
mando
On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Chris Miller wrote:
The original comparison that i know is not Rabbit for chicken, but
" Gato for
Lievre" (Cat for Hare), which is more devious and harder to
distinguish their
taste. So the experts tell me.
mando
I'd feel like Titus Andronicus about eating certain things unawares
(regardless of how they tasted), but I don't worry about getting
cheated by
phony paintings or sculpture.
I was taught to assume that any historical piece could be mis-
represented
(especially if its ended up in a Midwestern museum) so just enjoy
it for
whatever it offers.
And I still see no reason to think different.
Perhaps Dutton would say that I am suppessing my natural instinct
to care
about authenticity -- but I'm aware of suppressing myself a lot
throughout
the day -- for a variety of very good reasons.
And there are good reasons not to care about who actually made that
"Rembrandt" painting at the museum, since i's only an issue if
you're trying
to resolve some historical question.
I just want that "profound communion with another soul" of which
Dutton spoke
-- and it makes no difference what his name was.
Though, so far, most of the un-cloaked forgeries that I've seen
look pretty
bad.
So it's clear that whatever "experts" were fooled were expert only
concerning other people's opinions.
BTW -- Dutton says Eric Hebborn was quite skilled, so I've ordered
one of his
books to see whether I would agree.
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?
cp=URVeYEAv2xDFXiMtCQMHQgAAJz6c
l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAA
A=
