a bit of philosophical reserch

[chris_coreline]

have a think about this question in general and in terms of all art, im very intrested in the quantitive responce from a philosophical perspective, but i hope that any discussion is intresting from a shouting perspective.
artwork in this case is any media, though thinking about it, great works science and engineering can also be analysed

my responce is that the art is more important then the artist as the art is the veachel by which the artist achieves cultural immortality, and while the artist can produce multiple works of art, it is the art itself which endures and draws such depth of analysis.

[emmline]

The trouble with this poll is the word "important." To whom?

There's a chicken and egg game going on in my head that makes me unable to choose an answer.

[treeshark]

The question is not one you can really answer. If an artist produces no work, he/she is thus not an artist, also art cannot be
created without an artist to do the creation. Can you answer which is more important, the chicken or the egg?
You are trying to compare things that are linked in a way that makes relative "importance" almost meaningless.

You might compare the historical importance, IE if an artists work survives but his/her name is forgotten, or the historical record of
an artist survives but no attributable work. Here too the relevance of the term "importance" is dubious.

As the art can have no existence without the artist, you might argue that the artist is more necessary, but the art is also
necessary for the artist to be deemed an artist. All clear?... I hope not.

Edit dammit Emm got in first with the Chicken an the egg

[mutepointe]

The people who pay bazillions for a piece of art because of the artist's signature would never pay the same price if the artist was an unknown. They probably wouldn't even like the piece.

[dwest]

I think the more important question is are we talking contemporary art or real art?

[chris_coreline]

I think the more important question is are we talking contemporary art or real art?

im talking about all art i think, and possibly science and engineering aswell; i probably should have generalised ther question more as - should a person be measured by his achievments or should his achievments, indivicually inform us of the person.

Van Gogh for example, created meny intresting artworks, and was himself an eccentric. however of his time, there were im sure, meny other eccentrics who did not produce and thus are forgotten to us, while, Van Gough has remained through his work, thus, it followes (for me anyhoo) that the artwork as greater then the artist.

[BillChin]

I am probably misunderstanding the question, but I voted the artist. If a famous person produces art, it becomes important even if the art is mediocre.

Along that line, who becomes a famous artist these days is often more based on celebrity, marketing and promotion, friends and connections, more so than any objective measure of the actual art produced.

Perhaps for classics, the art is more important. However, even then works by the famous artists tend to get the majority of the attention even if they are not the best work out there. A third rate work by a first rate artist will sell for much more than the best piece produced by a second-tier artist that may be about the same quality.

[fearfaoin]

The people who pay bazillions for a piece of art because of the artist's signature would never pay the same price if the artist was an unknown. They probably wouldn't even like the piece.

It's easy to think that for, say, paintings. But
few people enjoy the Chrysler Building just
because William Van Alen was the architect.

Seems even less cut and dried when you're
talking about music, esp. traditional music. I
listened to some incredible whistling on a
podcast and was just stunned. I did wonder
who was playing, but even if I never found out
I would still have liked the piece. I don't give a
rat's arse who wrote it.

I think the same would probably be the case for
paintings. In the absence of the artist's name,
many famous paintings would still be well loved
(though there are certainly several which would
have fallen by the wayside without the artist's
name).

[crookedtune]

Yeah, the question is 'important to whom'?

I'm a huge admirer of Bob Dylan, the artist. Lots of his works flop, because he takes chances, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I didn't buy the Christmas album, because I didn't think I'd care for the particular art it contained.

What's more important, Dylan or 'I Pity the Poor Immigrant'? That's not really a sensible question.

[fearfaoin]

What's more important, Dylan or 'I Pity the Poor Immigrant'? That's not really a sensible question.

Exactly. Say you've only ever heard a Joan Baez
cover of that song. You may never know Dylan
wrote it, but that doesn't change your enjoyment
of the work. Likewise, as you said, you can like an
artist even if you don't embrace all his work.

Important works can come from "non-important"
artists, and important artists constantly create
"non-important" works.

[treeshark]

should a person be measured by his achievments or should his achievments, indivicually inform us of the person.

You have to say what we are measuring, I assume you mean historical fame. Why do you need the "or" ? Van Gogh is famous as a person,
and his paintings are famous too. You could argue that Van Gogh is famous because he painted the pictures or you could also argue
he is just as famous for cutting off his ear, so which is more famous Van Gogh or his ear?

[jsluder]

What's most important is cleaning out your attic and finding an unknown masterpiece by a deceased famous artist, which you can then auction off for millions of dollars.

[treeshark]

What's most important is cleaning out your attic and finding an unknown masterpiece by a deceased famous artist, which you can then auction off for millions of dollars.

I don't have an attic, am I doomed to poverty?

[Denny]

not if you move ..... soon

[Hotblack]

Blimey. Heavy subject for a pub this, isn't it??

Anyway. IMHO the work is more important than the artists. There seem to be too many artists around nowadays who think themselves rather more important then the work ref. Tracy bloody Emin and her ilk.

Now. Where did I put my drink?