Name Dropping

Sorry that I have not had a chance to post much this week. I'm in the middle of Finals, so I'm working to help all of the students finish up with the semester. Here was another student question - one that I'll probably have to revisit soon.

As you were saying before there has been art that was credited to being Rembrandt but then when the commission was created and they found it not to be Rembrandt's painting but one of his students the value dropped dramatically. Why do you think in this instance that the name alone dropped the value of the art as well as the opinion of it. Like you said it the lecture it was considered a masterpiece. Also why is a lot of art judged by its creator not its content or message.

A difficult question. First off, I would point out that all disciplines deal with celebrity. Many of the musicians that are popular became so because of personality, controversy, or other factors outside of their talent.

Sometimes there are good reasons to celebrate an individual over others even if their contributions are only part of a larger whole. Some of Newtonian physics was overturned by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, but we still celebrate Newton because he lead the way as far as establishing our understanding of physics. And we celebrate Einstein because his theories reveal the answers to many of the mysteries that had surrounded our understanding of the universe. But there were plenty of other scientists and philosophers whose work built upon the concepts of Newton and Einstein. Unfortunately, most of their names are not well know, even though their work was just as essential as the more famous scientists.

Darwin, for example, did not know 99% of what we now know about evolution (he had no knowledge of genetics, for example), but we still celebrate him because he was an innovator. Natural Selection would have been discovered without him (Wallace made the same hypothesis in complete ignorance of Darwin's work), but Darwin was first (and most articulate) and became famous for it.

Our Rembrandt example seems to fit into this same category. If the painting is by Drost, then it is a fine painting - but it should be remembered that the technique was originated by Rembrandt.

It is important to remember that the value of art is established by our perception of it. And our perceptions can be quite flawed. Generally speaking the only true test of art is the test of time. History has shown Rembrandt to be significant, therefore anything associated with him is significant. History has NOT shown Drost to be particularly significant, and therefore his work (regardless of their own merits) has not received the same appreciation.

200 years from now that may all change - and professors will ignore the Beatles in order to focus more on the Monkees.

What can you do?