There are forged works of art. If they may be so called.
- There may be a work worth x millions in case it real, - that is in case it is the work of some particular person, - and practically nothing in case it is not.
- And, - the ridiculous situation is, - that collectors of such pieces and adherents of these may be unable to tell which it is.
- I mean it is fine in itself that they are unable to identify the forged piece, as such, - but the value of a work of art explicitly depends on the artistic experience it might supply. - Everything relies on this. - A piece of art is not a drag, - not candy, - art is not entertainment, - not mere entertainment, - a thing being joyful does not make it into a piece of art, - but art begins with the artistic experience. It is the very foundation.
- Next may be the question of whether the experience is an actual artistic experience or whether it is not. Some may claim there is no such difference. Arguing with such [people] is of very little value.
However, - one reasonably engaged in the field ought to be able to tell the difference, - to a varying extent. - That is, I mean, - to be able to [fucking] identify an artistic experience, - that is, - (!) to identify a piece of art.
Back to where I began: - If one is unable to experience the experience the work of art has to offer, - if one is not able to enjoy it - What [tf] is the worth of it for him?!
- The point, the issue, - is not limited to that. People will pay enormous sums for paintings or drawings just because some particular person has painted or drawn them even if they carry no artistic value of themselves. This is idiotic. Practically idiotic. - Nothing less, - as it seems.
- Standards are set and humans follow. This is the way of the world. Couldn’t be otherwise, - these days. - Still, - such stupidity should not be viewed as a necessity. - But the example brought in the beginning here seems to make things more obvious. - The value of art, - is, - in the experience one can not miss. I mean one can miss but than he missed the art, - altogether. - Then one may be able to tell of the value of this experience. - Even if he is unable to analyse the experience does not lose its value. - But if he is unable to experience what is built in into the artistic thing, - what is inherent in it, - what has been worked into it, - he does not have to do with it, - but if he chooses to buy it, - it is like a blind man buying a book. Now do notice, - (!) in case it would be one person blind to the quality buying it for someone else or for the worth someone else may be willing to pay for it subsequently, it might have been able to make sense; - but it’s not what we are talking about: - There is the situation where no one is able to detect or see the actual value of a picture as a piece of art - and as it seems no one is even expected to - fucking idiots would just try to investigate who (!) made it, - and if it is a or b than they would find themselves satisfied and that’s it.
- Holy shit. Rather explicitly. So far.
- There may be a work worth x millions in case it real, - that is in case it is the work of some particular person, - and practically nothing in case it is not.
- And, - the ridiculous situation is, - that collectors of such pieces and adherents of these may be unable to tell which it is.
- I mean it is fine in itself that they are unable to identify the forged piece, as such, - but the value of a work of art explicitly depends on the artistic experience it might supply. - Everything relies on this. - A piece of art is not a drag, - not candy, - art is not entertainment, - not mere entertainment, - a thing being joyful does not make it into a piece of art, - but art begins with the artistic experience. It is the very foundation.
- Next may be the question of whether the experience is an actual artistic experience or whether it is not. Some may claim there is no such difference. Arguing with such [people] is of very little value.
However, - one reasonably engaged in the field ought to be able to tell the difference, - to a varying extent. - That is, I mean, - to be able to [fucking] identify an artistic experience, - that is, - (!) to identify a piece of art.
Back to where I began: - If one is unable to experience the experience the work of art has to offer, - if one is not able to enjoy it - What [tf] is the worth of it for him?!
- The point, the issue, - is not limited to that. People will pay enormous sums for paintings or drawings just because some particular person has painted or drawn them even if they carry no artistic value of themselves. This is idiotic. Practically idiotic. - Nothing less, - as it seems.
- Standards are set and humans follow. This is the way of the world. Couldn’t be otherwise, - these days. - Still, - such stupidity should not be viewed as a necessity. - But the example brought in the beginning here seems to make things more obvious. - The value of art, - is, - in the experience one can not miss. I mean one can miss but than he missed the art, - altogether. - Then one may be able to tell of the value of this experience. - Even if he is unable to analyse the experience does not lose its value. - But if he is unable to experience what is built in into the artistic thing, - what is inherent in it, - what has been worked into it, - he does not have to do with it, - but if he chooses to buy it, - it is like a blind man buying a book. Now do notice, - (!) in case it would be one person blind to the quality buying it for someone else or for the worth someone else may be willing to pay for it subsequently, it might have been able to make sense; - but it’s not what we are talking about: - There is the situation where no one is able to detect or see the actual value of a picture as a piece of art - and as it seems no one is even expected to - fucking idiots would just try to investigate who (!) made it, - and if it is a or b than they would find themselves satisfied and that’s it.
- Holy shit. Rather explicitly. So far.
