the one thing that pretty much all ultra-expensive art has in common is that it’s instantly recognizable as the work of a given artistUnfortunately, that bit of the argument is just wrong. Well, it's wrong that this is something new. The whole point of prestige art has always been that it is "instantly recognizable as the work of a given artist." If the work looks like just about anyone could have painted it why would it be a prestige item? That's why even back in the Renaissance art buyers specified in their contracts that a certain percentage of the work had to actually be the work of the master and not of the studio, for example. Nobody buying a Leonardo wanted it to look like it might just as well have been a Francia.
« Older Why William Gibson Distrusts Aging Futurists’ Nost... | The dream of the 90's 1890's i... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:57 PM on February 8