Howdy!
I often talk about Costco selling fine art, so when this article showed up in today's New York Times I was intrigued. Now that I've read it, I gotta ask why it is taking up space.
In a nutshell, a guy buys something, a guy likes that thing. Someone else says that thing is bad. Guy says "so what?" Why is this news?
While it is all fine and dandy to write about authentic Picasso doodles, and the process of authenticating, I wanna know why someone at the New York Times decided this was news fit to print. Just so you don't think I'm crazy, the story:
Louis Knickerbocker spends $40,000 dollars at Costco to buy a drawing. At the end of the article Carol Kino (the author) writes "Mr. Knickerbocker ...has no plans to return the drawing."
Then if you toss in (as an aside) this article (I do read more than just art stuff) about a film that new immigrants to the Netherlands need to watch to pass an exam, where opponents of the film are quoted as saying "The new law has one goal: to stop the flow of immigrants..." in paragraph 10. Unfortunately in paragraphs one through nine there is no mention of any law, old, new, borrowed or blue, anywhere.
The New York Times is getting as sloppy as I am. And this is not good.
No comments:
Post a Comment