|
Edited on Sun Oct-19-03 08:06 PM by The Lone Liberal
Background for question: I am currently reading “the Natural History of the Rich, a Field Guide”by Richard Conniff. He has written for such publications as Smithsonian, National Geographic, and Worth. With this book he tries his hand at ethnology of the rich. In the book he tells this story:
Gertrude Vanderbuilt Whitney,…was an immensely rich woman whose deepest wish was to be known not for her money but for her talent as and artist, which was, alas small. She once sponsored an event at her Greenwich Village studio, according to biographer Barbara Goldsmith, in which each of the other artists was to produce a finished canvas over three days. George Luks, a painter from the Ashcan School, got stinking drunk, then tailed Whitney around the room in a cloud of whiskey. “Mr. Luks, why do you keep following me?” she demanded finally.
“Mrs. Whitney,” he replied, “because you are so damned rich.”
This brings forth the question do we consider the wealthy to have arisen through, Konrad Lorenz thinks, some form of “cultural pseudo-speciation” until they have become another species? Do they view us, that is when they see us, as a different form of life, as a sub-species? If this is so, then why is it that we tend to structure the society for their care and maintenance? Why do we support social mores and political systems that bind us in subservience to wealth? Just a few of the questions that hang in the air as you read Conniff’s book.
|