Fetishism of Artistic Labor

Edward Manak: "SHOULD the artist of a work affect our aesthetic judgment of a piece? Why or why not?"

Well, there are subtleties here that I think your question is amiss at addressing.

No, the artist of a work should not affect our aesthetic judgment of a piece, but let us not forget that I think there is a significant and important distinction here between aesthetics and art. It is all too common that we experience an aesthetic response to say a sunset or a birds nest. . .etc. . . and yet these things are not necessarily art. Our aesthetic response should not be affected. I'll go further. Our aesthetic response IS not affected by the artist.

Now, should the artist affect how we view the object as an object of art? Yes and No. Yes, I think that the fact that the object was created by an artist and was not a haphazard coincidence, is important and should affect how we view the work of art. It is natural for this to occur. Intellectually speaking, how we view a work of art is always going to change dependent upon our information. In this regard Dutton was right. To view art as art and not merely as an aesthetic object, the fact that it was created by an artist is important. The specific artist in question, however, should not affect how we value the work. The effectiveness, the overall quality of the piece should not, as it was in VanMeegeren's case, be influenced by the plaque beneath the painting.

Dutton made more sense as time wore on in the last class, and I think the most important aspect to take from that was the difference between aesthetics and art.

Question: Should we view an aesthetic object as an art piece? Or, perhaps, does taking into account all the necessary information of an artwork detract from our aesthetic response?