We know that the aesthetic value of art can’t be expressed in money. And we know that art objects have a monetary value in the art market. Nothing wrong with that. The problem arrises when the value of the experienced sculpture is framed by an attempt to equate these values with those of a credit card. And then to advertise it with an advert that is too clever for its own good… “Samson Slaying a Philistine” meaning uh… which interpretation shall we choose? To be clear I’m not advancing aesthetic vs. commercial, on the contrary artists should work on both aspects, in both worlds….
Samson Slays a Philistine = Aesthetic vs. Commercial aspect of art ?