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?

2a.In other words, should a poorly executed painting of a meaningless object be classified under the category of a "major" work of art simply because it is falls under the "major" art forms category, while a sublimely prepared and artistically-presented sumptuous culinary masterpiece is held to evaluations as a "minor" art because "some" have classified it in the "minor" arts category.

I think the question you raise is one that we have all been circling around in class. Given your examples it really does not seem fair or just even, to place certain things in the categories that we have, but what if we were to maybe look at the other side of the coin. Should these patterns be placed in the same category of "major" as the painting ?











I know that decorative patterns are not the same as food but I only bring the comparison since its seem that in asking about what should or should not be considered minor or major we are also asking whether the two categories of art should actually be considered to be existing divisions. Korsmeyer places both food and decorative art in the same category of minor, it seems that if one is to consider the patterns above as art then the division seems to have some justification; the decorative patterns do not have the same aesthetic merits that the painting does. By placing two objects under the division, it does not make something have more meaning. Using Betty's example the meaningless art piece does not become better since this artist has chosen a "major" medium, bad art is still bad art, what the distinct seems to do it just limit the extent to which somethings can rise. It can seem to take a sort of negative tone, but under these distinction the patterns above or the food in the example still have a place in the art world, which under different circumstances may not exist.

Should these patterns be placed in the same category of "major" as the painting ?