|
|
|
|
|
by irrational
978 days ago
|
|
> I loved the painting before I ever knew it was stolen. But is that because the painting was already famous and well known because of the theft (despite your not knowing about the theft)? That is, if you were a few hundreds years old and showed in your journals how you loved the painting in the decades before it was stolen, that would be significant. But saying you loved the painting before you know it had ever been stolen, but falling in love with it in the decades after it became famous because of the theft doesn't mean as much, does it? |
|
The argument seems to be that I fell in love with the Mona Lisa as a result of it being famous, versus some other quality it has which I find appealing.
But for example, Van Gogh’s Sunflowers is also incredibly famous but I don’t find that painting appealing at all. For me, it’s boring. Ditto for many other famous paintings. What I’m saying is that I’m not sure so sure that’s it’s logical to say: “oh this thing is just popular/well loved because it’s famous, there’s no other reason”