<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Art Book &#8216;Crisis&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=873</link>
	<description>News for Art Historians</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:57:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Blunter</title>
		<link>http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=873&#038;cpage=1#comment-132224</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Blunter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=873#comment-132224</guid>
		<description>&quot;The growth in public interest in art during the past two decades has not been underpinned by an effective retail infrastructure&quot; -- Thames &amp; Hudson managing director Jamie Camplin 

Fascinating and honest quote.  The fundamental reason is that the &quot;fine art&quot; world should not exist.  It only exists through massive government grants that have created a false industry.  Americans have no problems in paying for art, i.e., top 40 music and movies.  

If the &quot;fine art&quot; world would only embrace themes and styles as found in movies and popular music, then museums would not need massive government subsidies, a retail infra-structure would blossom, and government regulators would line up to collect the taxes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The growth in public interest in art during the past two decades has not been underpinned by an effective retail infrastructure&#8221; &#8212; Thames &amp; Hudson managing director Jamie Camplin </p>
<p>Fascinating and honest quote.  The fundamental reason is that the &#8220;fine art&#8221; world should not exist.  It only exists through massive government grants that have created a false industry.  Americans have no problems in paying for art, i.e., top 40 music and movies.  </p>
<p>If the &#8220;fine art&#8221; world would only embrace themes and styles as found in movies and popular music, then museums would not need massive government subsidies, a retail infra-structure would blossom, and government regulators would line up to collect the taxes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=873&#038;cpage=1#comment-80779</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 20:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=873#comment-80779</guid>
		<description>One other factor is that art books, even if they are popular, have the additional burden of higher overhead costs. Even if they sell as well or better than,say,the latest Dan Brown farrago of nonsense, they may not be as protfitable because of the higher overhead</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One other factor is that art books, even if they are popular, have the additional burden of higher overhead costs. Even if they sell as well or better than,say,the latest Dan Brown farrago of nonsense, they may not be as protfitable because of the higher overhead</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
