[lbo-talk] Shakespeare [was: more on the econ Nobel

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

> > Whichever author you choose  there is some aspect of faith to the
> selection.
> > 
> > John Thornton
> 
> But why does the concept of sole authorship matter?  It is an essentially
> 19th century concept grown out of the bourgeois notion of property and it is
> alien to the times when the said works were actually created.  None of the
> "great masters" was the sole authors of the works attributed to them - these
> were the collective products of the workshops owned by these masters.  
> 
> This whole debate reminds me of the efforts of xtian and bourgeois moralists
> to support their bullshit moral tales by "finding" embodiments of them the
> nature.  Likewise, the bourgeois ideology depends on the notion of
> individual ownership and is trying to project that notion on everything it
> manages to put its greedy paws, especially works of art.
> 
> Wojtek

Matter to whom? 
It doesn't matter to me.
However some people are making money on and staking their reputation on their speculations. It matters to 
them since it is the source of their income stream. The connection to the bourgeoise ideology of individual 
ownership probably does not occur to the people who speculate on such things. That idea is just part of the 
ether of today.
I am more curious as to how someone becomes convinced of one author over another. The comparison to 
religious faith is pretty much on the mark but I don't fully understand that either.

John Thornton