As I noted, those generalizations came from Eric Hebborn - specifically his book, 'Drawn to Trouble", which was drawn from his experience making acceptable fakes of old master drawings from 1965-1994.
And you have a bad habit of automatically defending academic territory - like the dog that barks at every postman whether he's delivering mail or not. ............................................................................. ......................................................................... >Authenticity is not important in Chinese art because the culture doesn't and never valued individuality as much as in the West. Some exceptions, of course. Further, there are people who have been experts across the board. We could start with Rubens. Some contemporary artists have PhDs in art history. Now, there's a big push to offer PhDs in art practice in the US (some few programs exist here and quite a few in Europe). See James Elkin's new book, Artists with Phds. You have a bad habit of making summative generalizations about what is and isn't, what is and should be, what counts and what doesn't. When you stray into academic territory, as you often do, it's best to avoid big, declarative summations because you will almost always be wrong in some crucial way, as you are in your statement here. WC ____________________________________________________________ Hotel Save on hotels. Click here to find and compare hotel deals. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=cJQFyjTIlqLZZmRhqMie7wAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATRAAAAAA=
