As Aristotle was saying, If there exists a pleasure for the eyes which is truly human then to whom does it belong ? Could it even be a object for ownership? Or is it by nature shared and free ? and not subjected to ownership as a human is? In fact is the trade of a work of art more lawful than the trade of a human? Can we have an art market without a double falsification as obscene and dangerous for art and likewise for humanity? As soon as art is a merchandise, it becomes a privilege for the wealthy. It becomes their adornment and very quickly the more apparent justification for their domination. Pomp, lustre, glamour, insane spending, magnanimity without moderation — all the men of power have wanted to make art evidence of ther power. All the great leaders have taken from art the elegance of its appearance; the memory of its exploits, the height of its ambitions? Where is the overwhelmingly wealthy who has known how to be content wth their possessions without asking for the image, the melody, the spectacle of its riches? If art is private then everybody is deprived.
Translated by chiendentbel
existences! 
Je dois dire que Denis a relu et corrigé quelque peu la traduction !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comme je l’ai aimé cet article. Merci! Como gostei desse artigo. Obrigada!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“all the men of power have wanted to make art evidence of their power.”
This is the same under all political and economic systems. But please note that the world’s greatest art and music were produced under the patronage system when there was no public art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If there exists a pleasure for the eyes which is truly human then to whom does it belong ?If there exists a pleasure for the eyes which is truly human then to whom does it belong ?
LikeLiked by 1 person