back
3 comments
Isn't it a bit sad that art is judged 1000:1 based on who painted it rather than its artistic merit?
Imagine you are an editor, and get two proofs (500 pages each) of an unproven hypothesis. One is written by someone who's on top of the field, published 200 papers, and all his papers are cited hundreds of times. Another from an undergrad from a dinkytown's DinkyU. You have limited time. Who would you rather check?

And that's for a purely objective field, where you can logic your way through a proof. With art, you don't even know if the proofs are right or wrong. Given two papers with very similar content, and one genius in the field and one unknown, and very little means to tell which one is strictly 'objectively' better, how would you judge them?

However, artistic merit is a totally different matter to its monetary value.