I’m a sucker for a good piece on either the philosophy or economics or art. This article is the latter.

But the article also pissed me off.

The author is very tough on Klimt. Namely on the Klimt bought by the Neue Galerie in New York City for $135 million. Now I’m not commenting on the price of that piece, but I love Klimt. I even took a pilgrimage to the Neue Galerie to see their collection of Klimts and Seccessionist Art.

This is what the author has to say:

The crowds lining up to see Lauder’s Klimt in 2006 must have figured that looking at the most expensive work in the world would also expose them to one of the greatest. They were wrong. Almost no one would say that Klimt is crucial to the history of art.

Darn it, I like Klimt. A lot. He’s one of my favorites. I was introduced to him by an ex whose tendency (desire) to create chaos and destruction around her, while maintaining the adamant position that it’s constant presence in her vicinity was purely coincidental (if you are a man over the age of twenty-five, you have dated some version of this girl), could be seen as being mirrored in Klimt’s later portraits, with the serene subject surrounded by a glittering and chaotic abstract background.

Getting back to the art – what is the working definition of ‘crucial’ operating here? He’s not important?

Ugh.