My brother was an artist, and quite a good one in the opinion of many. His wife, whilst drawing some credit from her association, considered herself something of an authority, in the recognition of good art. She thought me a Philistine.
I've seen many examples demonstrating room for skepticism when presented with an "art critics" assessment of the quality of a piece of art.* One such example was on the news here recently.
Somebody bought a painting sold as an original by a recognised Australian artist. Examination by experts revealed that the work was not genuine, and therefore virtually worthless. The painting, and others by the recognised artist, were shown side by side in the news article. I thought both were quite similar and didn't like either - but then I am a Philistine.
What I thought was interesting, was the art experts did not question the quality of the suspect piece of art, they only questioned the authenticity. Could not the quality be just as good or better and thus the value high?
* I am just talking about painting on canvass type art here. Not Music etc.
I've seen many examples demonstrating room for skepticism when presented with an "art critics" assessment of the quality of a piece of art.* One such example was on the news here recently.
Somebody bought a painting sold as an original by a recognised Australian artist. Examination by experts revealed that the work was not genuine, and therefore virtually worthless. The painting, and others by the recognised artist, were shown side by side in the news article. I thought both were quite similar and didn't like either - but then I am a Philistine.
What I thought was interesting, was the art experts did not question the quality of the suspect piece of art, they only questioned the authenticity. Could not the quality be just as good or better and thus the value high?
* I am just talking about painting on canvass type art here. Not Music etc.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2YDAbNw
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire