Megan McArdle asks whether Chinese art sweatshops resemble Renaissance art apprenticeships. I say nope. Apprenticeships are one stage along a professional track, whereas sweatshop labor is not. Sure, as far as income goes, apprentices don't make anything—that's a full two or three cents less than what these Chinese copycats are paid. But of course the opportunity cost that an intern pays is an investment in big bucks down the road.
Now, I get the sense that McArdle is baiting her readers (and this writer) to deliver forth an encomium to Art and Apollo and to denounce the Chinese for this cheapest debasement of the canon. And, because I know McMegan socially, I know that she wants to stake out the counterintuitive ground here and defend these reproductions as desirable against real and perceived critics who abhor them. But the art reproductions aren't the real issue (and not just because they aren't the real deal, though I am tempted to launch into a tangent on the problem of authenticity). The fact is, insofar as the global art market is concerned, a Dafen Holbein doesn't account for any more than a Soundgarden poster—they're both examples of cheap decor you can buy at Wal-Mart.
Which is not to say that China won't or has not already had a massive impact on the market. But with regard to this story, the significant point is that economic conditions in China are such that highly skilled labor can be organized (or exploited, if you prefer) as if it were the most basic unskilled labor. I'm not the professional economist, though, so I don't know whether this collapse of categories is an unprecedented or even significant aspect of the global market. Ryan? Felix? Tyler?
(Confidential to Sadly, No!: I was so thrilled to get a link from your page—S,N! is one of very few sites that I will read before I have even put on pants— so I was saddened when it turned out to be merely part of a slam on Megan McArdle. Which is fine, whatever, she's my friend who says crazy things about torture. But I'm confused by this specific issue, which is, what, again? Megan threw up some bat-signals and asked for expert opinion from bloggers she knows personally (to whatever extent). Are we not doing that any more? Really, that's deprecated?)
Posted by Kriston at August 22, 2007 2:28 PMIs it true that the Chinese are opening workshops full of people who will make moronic libertarian arguments for pennies apiece?
Posted by: MikeJ at August 23, 2007 12:43 AMWe all like people personally whose politics we find troubling or even abhorrent, and I understand that McArdle has a lot of friends on both sides of the political divide. But honestly here, we're talking about a professional opinion writer at a major journal. Criticism of her public writing and persona is totally fair and appropriate, no matter who has drinks with whom after work, and so forth.
We've traditionally tried very hard to keep good relations under the table with people whose politics we make fun of. Sometimes it works and sometimes not, but it's no different, for us, with McArdle than with anyone else.
Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at September 8, 2007 2:46 PMI follow what you're saying. It's probably too small a point to niggle, but I think we're also talking about a blog post about art, which McArdle doesn't write about professionally. So, she floated a half-formed notion about free markets and art—one that was shot down by the people whose opinion she asked. Yes, criticism of her writing is fair and appropriate, even expected—but all that you were criticizing was the bat-signal. Which seems like an acceptable and even standard thing that bloggers do.
Posted by: Kriston at September 8, 2007 11:09 PMIt was really the ethos of not bothering to Google -- a continuing problem, Megwise. I mean that if you're at the Atlantic, it isn't as charming as perhaps otherwise to be posting entries like, "Wasn't there a thing where Abraham Lincoln had a hat?" or "'La playa' -- is this Spanish? What does it mean?" There's a very literate, very capable readership there that one ought to be trying hard to say in front of. Is my idea of it, in any case.
