The author of this article is correct in asserting that artists do care about the economics of their art but he is very wrong in assuming that art historians purposely ignore that fact. Unfortunately that makes the article worthless and simply magnifies the ignorance of the writer who apparently wishes to bolster the smug sense of superiority on the part of his audience: economists. The article should be seen as an embarrassing and ignorant effort to belittle serious art scholars . All it does is make economists look foolish , misinformed, and dumb.
It's very bad intellectual manners to use the most obvious of mass-culture popular opinions as a foil to lend extra strength to an argument based on scattered , justifiable but disconnected facts. We can count on Mr. Berg to bring us the most ludicrous journalism that lacks humor -- parody or lampooning -- and exaggerates drum-roll gravitas. Haha. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 6:44:16 PM Subject: "Arti$ts and the Market" http://www.american.com/archive/2010/september/artists-and-the-market
