The New York Times printed an article today about David Galenson, and I have nothing really to add. Oh, wait, other than to say that:
1) Economists prey on disciplines with low self-esteem, and the fact that anyone in the art world would even bother with Galenson is evidence that art history, and the arts editors at the NYT, should stop thinking that their own work is shit.
2) Edward Tufte’s Beautiful Evidence has the best 2-page take-down of Galenson that I’ve seen.
For the rest of you who believe, per the article, that “…[In] the 20th century did art enter the marketplace and become a commodity, like a stick of butter or an Hermès bag,” I can only say, yawn. Pseudo-provocative economist spouting pseudo-insightful nonsense. Nothing interesting to see here, folks, move right along.
Comments are disabled for this post