Does "the value-maker" in the following imply "the artist"?
Much like a work of science, a work of art represents a simulacrum of pleasure – it is foregrounded by the values relative to the value-maker, attests to multiple layers of possible meaning, is inevitable only in that it privileges the mores of a particular culture at a particular time in history and, within its shifting temporary context, it is ripe for continual reinterpretation and validation.
This paragraph is bullshit of the highest order. I am tempted to say that the whole piece is utterly meaningless. It is certainly worthless.
However, as far as I can tell, the "value-maker" is the observer of the work of science or art.
When we observe something that has been constructed by another, we automatically evaluate it in some way.
There's an idiom for this:
The quoted individual has used a lot of purple prose to make their point sound more sophisticated, but what they're actually saying is that the 'value-maker' is the person observing the art.
