3 ms·
except anyone with the slightest background in art history can tell you that those metadata mattered immensely for "classical art" pieces at the time that those
by tessierashpool 5y ago
except anyone with the slightest background in art history can tell you that those metadata mattered immensely for "classical art" pieces at the time that those pieces were made. and indeed even today two pieces of equivalent beauty and craftsmanship will not sell for the same price if one is a Michaelangelo and the other comes from a less famous artist.
I'm sorry, because I'm sure you didn't realize this, but your taxonomy breaks down to "pieces I like, for which the metadata is old," and "pieces I dislike, for which the metadata is recent."
edit — or, at best, "pieces I like, with a continuous aesthetic tradition, which made quality easy to evaluate, for which the metadata is old," vs "pieces I dislike, created after that continuity disintegrated, which made quality very subjective, for which the metadata is recent." because there was a massive break in that continuity, and there is a real distinction between modern and "classical" art (at least in the European/Western tradition), but it just doesn't have anything to do with the metadata.
- nine_k 5y agoI do not say that the metadata for old pieces does not play a role! It very much does, beginning from the very age of an old piece. A lot of primitive ancient art coveted by museums or collectors is not aesthetically notable. The auction price of an old painting changes drastically depending on whether it's considered "genuine <insert a famous name>" or not. The difference I'm trying to make is that in "modern art" (not all art produced in modern times, but the kind that inherits from what Duchamp invented) the metadata is basically all that's interesting, and the art is produced with this assumption in mind. A "classical" piece of art usually had to also work without the metadata being known.