Rembrandt's Storm on the Sea of Galilee (1633) is a genuine masterpiece, and a thrilling use of light and shade and the drama of the storm. This is, or should be, the sort of standard against which tremendous art is judged. It's interesting to compare it to Delacroix's painting of the same subject some 220 years later, and to speculate on the reasons for the differences.
Interesting too to see at least one New York art dealer who knows the difference between art like this and the con-art of the likes of Warhol and Koons. “Our society now values a Warhol for three times as much money as a great Rembrandt,” thunders self-made art dealer Larry Salander [hat tip Stephen Hicks], referring to the latest auction reports. “That tells me that we’re f***ed... That’s the difference between the Warhol and the Rembrandt,” Salander continues. “Being with Rembrandt is like making love. And being with Warhol is like f***ing.”
Read all of Salander's contemplation on how he planned to "rescue the art world from bad taste, and how it ultimately destroyed him" -- and on which art is good for the soul, and which is good just for investment.