TC <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote:
> > I doubt that the curators thought that the painting was "not so good 
> > anymore". It is just that, once established that the painting was not from 
> > Rembrandt, its historical and artistic significance became different and 
> > murkier. For instance, it could be a faithful or crappy copy of something

> Why? It is the painting that is important, not the painter. At least in my 
> point of view.

  Because history of art is not only about the art but also about the
artists. If you are writing a history book about a certain artist, you
only want to study artwork from that precise artist, not artwork that
might look somewhat similar but not made by him.

  You might not appreciate the persons themselves and their personal styles,
but others do.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message