Is forging a crime?

Should the fact that it has turned out to be a forgery matter to you aesthetically?
Lessing argues no while Dutton argues yes.
Lessing sees no difference between forgery or authentic when dealing with aesthetics. However, a forgery lacks originality as far as Lessing is concerned. The fact in the matter is that there most likely might be no difference between the two.
On the other hand Dutton sees aesthetics to matter as well.
The problem with forgery is that it misrepresents artistic achievement because it gives us misleading information about the origins of the work in question. This hinders us from correctly assessing the achievement it represents. Which is why Dutton suggests it can affect our legitimacy of aesthetically appreciating art.

Fact or Faked

Can a work of art that is not predated be considered a forgery?
Lessing would argue that the origin of origination for the art work doesn't matter because pure aesthetics cannot explain forgery. However because the origin of this work is unknown it cannot be considered a forgery. A critic wouldn't be able to tell what period it was made from. So therefore it would have to be compared to works that are similar in style. But what does forgery matter in art for anyway?

The Relationship is...

Kieran suggests the central relationship between art and morality is the artistic devices that mediate the representation of events portrayed and the state of affairs that are represented be kept at a distance so that we cannot actually intervene. It depends on how the work is meant to be perceived, not what moral principle is relevant in the work. What should be looked at is the arts coherent imagery, complex development of themes and vivid style. An intelligible response to the work is what matters.

Morality Counts?

Do we not read a book because the protagonist is a murderer, and murdering is morally wrong?
 Do the moral principles within that work get ignored?
For us to completely ignore a moral value in a work, we would then have to completely ignore the artwork itself. Although moral character is seen to be irrelevant in art the connection between the two is there, its just minimal.
How then do we identify the central relationship between the two?

A Promise of What

Nehamas sees beauty as a promise of happiness, but why? Since Nehamas sees beauty being provoked by love, it is an ultimate promise of happiness because love can be provoked by anything. He says that beauty is wrenched from aesthetic value because of how it is now defined. It regulates beauty where senses and appearance from value in art require critical intelligence.

Confused

The whole Nehamas reading was a bit confusing. He spoke in circles and half the time I couldn't figure out if he was actually for or against what he was writing about. It was clear to me that beauty is seen by him as the most discredited notion because it is not fully allowed to be considered an open concept. But then a question I would have is how then do we describe beauty?