Yes, Grant is right, it's true that art is equated with money. But the thrust of the argument is specious. Equating art quality with money does not prove that a consensus -- or lack thereof -- has anything to do with either art or money. Art has always been equated with money even when there was a general consensus about art quality. More important is the corollary: the absence of money depreciates any recognition of art quality. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, August 15, 2012 2:57:30 AM Subject: "Daniel Grant says that art and money are now so intertwined that price has come to substitute for quality. He goes on to say that the emphasis on sales coupled with a b lack of any consensus about aesthetics or standards of tasteb has resulted in a n "Daniel Grant says that art and money are now so intertwined that price has come to substitute for quality. He goes on to say that the emphasis on sales coupled with a lack of any consensus about aesthetics or standards of taste has resulted in a new definition of art: Art is whatever someone puts down money for and says This is art. The corollary of this is that quality is identifiable only in terms of the sums spent. Jed Perl goes further to say that culture is now in retreat before the brute force of money." http://unnaturallight.com/2011/12/19/its-all-about-the-money-or-is-it/
