A "mediocre" thinker is able to conjure up "powerful truths" if he pretends they were said by somebody else. A "mediocre" artist is able to make "masterpieces"

A "mediocre" thinker is able to conjure up "powerful truths" if he pretends they were said by somebody else. A "mediocre" artist is able to make "masterpieces" if he pretends they were done by somebody else. Somehow, one is acceptable, while the other is quite obviously nonsense, absurd fetishization due to bias. What makes art so special? Especially when it is generally said that what makes a master is not simply technique, but their unique 'eye', perception of the world, way to express things in a certain harmony with technique and the zeitgeist. The profound feelings that people have in connection with art depend on what the opinion of others actually is, despite the apparent universality of the art language. The crime of forgery, within the art world, is similar to forbid anyone to express wrong theorems or false mathematical statements because of course, you wouldn't be able to distinguish that from the real mathematics of Gauss.