I wanted to argue a point about great art being 'worthless', but that particular phrasing might have left me subject to vociferous recoil; instead, I'll state, that if a piece is so renowned the world over, with so much history and interpretation attached, it ceases being "worth" anything, as much as the name (read: artist) in which is attached to the platform is recognized.
I don't know if this makes a lick of good sense, but maybe I'm only applying this ponderance of mine on museum installations. The 'name' is what makes art any more valuable, or less so, rather than the particular technique, scenario or muse being portrayed (although these elements, too, are as indicative of the artist as his namesake).
__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi
|