What internal urgencies must motivate your William Wilson to interrupt an otherwise informed review of LACMA's Treasury of San Marco exhibit with an assault on "voracious (sic) yuppies whose appreciation will never rise above the level of consumerist feeding frenzy" ("The Venetian Affair Goes On," July 8)?
Must one remind him that 90% or so of all art and craft has always been bought, in one way or another? Was the "feeding frenzy" that gripped the popes or European royalty and aristocracy really different from that which Wilson ascribes to the ridiculed yuppies? Does he think that Dinglinger or Cellini, Faberge or Tiffany worked in garrets in the passionate embrace of Art for Art's sake?
Indeed, do we really need another replay of Slug the Bourgeoisie? After all, that act has been running at least since Moliere's time. Its truth has long since been both exhausted and questionable. What remains is the question why.
Oh, self-elevation, what transgressions are committed for thy sake!