On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Michael Brady <[email protected]>wrote:
> On May 10, 2012, at 3:38 PM, joseph berg wrote: > > > > > http://www.theweek.co.uk/art/46828/mega-art-sales-munch-and-rothko-should-mak > e-us-scream > > This article and your posting of the link (what else do you ever post?) is > little more than envy masquerading as a morally afforded sense of public > honor. Please. Jesus said in one of the Gospels, "the poor you will always > have with you." Guess what? Same's true of the rich. In a continuum of > non-equal parts, there will always be two extremities. And there has always > been extravagances at the surplus end. That will never change. > > There is no change, no movement, no growth and newness without > disequilibrium > and non-parity. Get used to it. > > The writer of the article mentions the "fabulously rich" and, quotin a WSJ > blogger, "the rest of us [who] feel like we're merely treading water" (no > mention, btw, of the very poor). But she offers not even the most general > amelioration of that problem. She's just wants to get on record clucking > her > tongue and the super-wealthy. Ooooh. > > This is trivial crap. > But if once upon a time trophies were awarded to works of art based on merit, am I the only one who has become alarmed that works of art themselves are becoming trophies based on the size of their price tags?
