There will always be those who depreciate the sincerity of others in religion, art, politics. When people lack confidence in the lasting value of something they treat it as a commonplace utility. What is the benefit of treating things for their utility alone if some things are regarded as having a value beyond utility?
The thrust of Berg's postings always --ALWAYS-- assume that art is not worth the values it tries to embody. His selected quotations ALWAYS cast suspicion on sincerity, honesty, human goodness, and other various aesthetic values, moral values, ethical values, as if they are all empty simply because they are not sustained by a simple, obvious and trivial truth. I detest the usually dumb articles Berg brings to the list. They are ALWAYS unreflectivepandering to the most cynical outlooks and represent the basest level of society. It's the oldest trash-talk in human history to ridicule ideas on the basis of pure self-interest and materialist cynicism. When journalists talk philosophy they are approaching it as if they were dealing with a scandal involving blood-stained money and lover-betrayal. If Berg has a point of view, let him argue it. Do we need the journalistic pulp he brings to us? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, August 15, 2012 5:34:01 AM Subject: "Art is a confidence game, in a very real and very positive sense. Dealers, curators, fellow artists, and to a lesser degree art critics conspire to create buyer confidence in the lasting value of an artist's work." http://www.yankeemagazine.com/blogs/art/business
