Kyle asked: does this mean that some pieces that are considered great works of art, really aren't and only have added value because of the creator? Does this take away from the true skill behind some art?
I don't think that there is a single answer to this question as every piece of art should be judged on its own merit. Still, the question is intriguing. Often, humans get caught up in the superficial word of celebrities. One trip to ebay can reveal our mania with fame. Why else would someone pay an astronomical sum of money for a jar of air that happened to be in the same vicinity as a movie star? Many times humans find value in something because it brings us one step closer to our idols. So, if someone bought a Monet simply because they were fascinated with the man and just wanted to own something by him, then you would be absolutely correct. Personally, I'm reminded of a similar scenario in recent literature. I'm an enthusiastic Harry Potter fan, so I was very excited to read the seventh book. Imagine my disappointment when I discovered that a good chunk of the book consisted of camping that did nothing to advance the plot! Of course, I can't read minds and I have never communicated with the book's editors, but it seems to me that Rowling's book was taken as is because she has achieved such fame as a writer and her book would sell well, regardless of quality.
As for your second question, I do not believe that an artist's fame can detract from or add to the true value of their art, only the perceived value, assuming that art is not judge by a monetary criteria. Still, what qualities or scenarios can reduce art's true value, if there even are any?
No comments:
Post a Comment