michael_nielsen

Yes. Like saying that a paper which uses Special Relativity is greater than Einstein's original papers (i.e., it's wrong).

What makes great painters great is (in part) that they introduce - discover isn't too strong a word - new techniques.

Yes, I understand that history is very important to many art appreciators. That's why many think modern art is "great".

It's direct appreciation that Smith produced far more lasting insight than did his modern, superficially better counterparts

I support ignoring the sources of economic ideas and focusing on the ideas themselves. Who cares how great Smith was?

's point seems totally compatible w/@Noahpinion's (that non-indoctrinated ppl's art taste would ignore historical factors)

who love Rembrandt because they understand what he did, not because they're told he's capital-G Great!

What he did for technique, or what he did for culture? People love Malevich because they understand what he did for culture.