>>... (Unless such labeling is merely to increase the asking price for such
>>stuff.)
>which begs the question, why would we want to label them anything
>at all? people value some objects/designs and not others ... ideally
>because of some quality of these objects/designs and not because they are
>placed into some category. to emphasize such a category is to say that it
>matters in some way. but really, if someone actually purchases some
>object/design solely because they think it's "art," then they have too
>much money anyway and i can't pretend to sympathize.
- -x,
Thanks for you insight! I enjoy a slice of pretense pie.
Pretentious idiots with no taste and too much money: A snooty gallery
owner's dream clients. Which once again proves that there's no accounting
for taste, but those having no taste at all, are buyers you can bank on.
I wonder if computer-generated 'art' is influening the market trend that's
begun to focus more on three-dimension objects, like one-of-a-kind
furniture and fiber pieces, rather than pictures. Magazines like 'Amercian
Style' (very craft oriented) and 'Art and Antiques' (the serious
collector's bible), once art worlds apart, now have obvious similarities.
Having said that, I'll have to check out the stuff/art.
~ ankara
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:45 MDT