Is there aesthetic value placed on art congruent to the celebrity status of the artist?

When a work of art is being displayed, it is accompanied by the name of the author and the title. However, besides having the role of simply presenting the work of art, at times this information also have the affect of corrupting the viewer’s, what maybe, innocent perception of the piece. Instead of approaching an interpretation or evaluation from an initial neutral point of view it is manipulated by an already determined idea. Although, for the artist their name is what brings people to the gallery showings, and often what puts food on the table , if that name has already reached a level at which it can do that.

So although it may not lead to honest judgments of a work of art , I do think that sometimes aesthetic value is placed on a piece of art due to the celebrity of the artist, which is a really dishonesty not only the art or the artist but also to one’s self. Unfortunately, however, it seems that at times people do not like to think for themselves.

The artist of this sculpture is an artist that did not always complete his work, and although its difficult to fully judge uncompleted work, some of his fans think that some of his pieces were left incomplete on purpose. They attribute to the genius of the artist as opposed to him maybe just taking on too many projects at one time. I think the artist was brilliant but I still tend to side with the latter notion for the lack of completion.You be the judge.

What would happen if art began being displayed without a name attached to it? How would our notions of all their works of art change? Would we even recognize them all as being theirs?