There was a chapter of Scharfstein that was very interesting about artists leaving their mark on the work that they do. Sometimes a piece is worth way more money if it has their mark on it while some artists in the chapter protested putting their names on a piece because it took away from the sentimental value if others just idolized it because of the price. These people were considered to be "anonymous craftsmen" and stayed true to what they believed in...their art and their morality. This is respectable because art should be popular because it is aesthetically pleasing to an individual, not because all of his/her friends are buying the pieces. This reminded me of the conversation we had in class about the guys who bought Andy Worhol paintings and defended why they bought them. The snarky British critic was hysterical in his explanation of the Worhols they bought seeing them as simple pieces anyone could create made out of materials we all use. It is people like that who keep the art business going because they make a big deal out of famous artists and basically determine what is "good art" and what is not. That is a sad realization because it takes away from the true passionate artists that are being overlooked. Should we just sit back and let this happen or move to have more artists that are content with being anonymous?
I would personally like to have marks/names taken off famous works and see if regular people could identify who they were created by as well as identify the true meaning behind the work....that would be comical I'm sure.