Of art as a whole, or this art in particular? I would agree if you are talking about the latter, but art as a whole... I don't know, I think that's kind of a subjective thing to say. For example, if I try to sell a Pollock drip painting and told people I made it, I highly doubt anyone would be willing to pay the same amount for it if I had told them who had actually made it.
Exactly. When it comes to art, especially art that people are willing to pay large sums of money for, the identity of the painter is 99.9% of the value of the art. This leads me to believe that good art even though painted/sculpted/created by an unknown artist will never come close to creating an opportunity for profit when compared to shitty art made by a famous artist. This is why people think that it's not morally acceptable to sell/profit from art made by famous murderers for example. At this point the art being good or bad is mute, because generally people buy expensive art for the name on the bottom right corner.
I generally feel like art shouldn't be evaluated based on how well known the person making it is.
I'm thinking about how that should apply in music, but it is obvious that people will go for the album of the more well known singer, even if it is technically inferior to the one of an anonymous young dude who hasn't had success yet.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think most artists would have objections to trying to decide any "ought" statement about the value of art. I'm sure there are plenty who would say the reputation and history surrounding the artist in fact adds to the meaning of the piece and is an inseparable quality.
Of art as a whole, or this art in particular? I would agree if you are talking about the latter, but art as a whole... I don't know, I think that's kind of a subjective thing to say. For example, if I try to sell a Pollock drip painting and told people I made it, I highly doubt anyone would be willing to pay the same amount for it if I had told them who had actually made it.
Exactly. When it comes to art, especially art that people are willing to pay large sums of money for, the identity of the painter is 99.9% of the value of the art. This leads me to believe that good art even though painted/sculpted/created by an unknown artist will never come close to creating an opportunity for profit when compared to shitty art made by a famous artist. This is why people think that it's not morally acceptable to sell/profit from art made by famous murderers for example. At this point the art being good or bad is mute, because generally people buy expensive art for the name on the bottom right corner.
I generally feel like art shouldn't be evaluated based on how well known the person making it is.
I'm thinking about how that should apply in music, but it is obvious that people will go for the album of the more well known singer, even if it is technically inferior to the one of an anonymous young dude who hasn't had success yet.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think most artists would have objections to trying to decide any "ought" statement about the value of art. I'm sure there are plenty who would say the reputation and history surrounding the artist in fact adds to the meaning of the piece and is an inseparable quality.