Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Death as a condition, of course, is not necessary for the author's work to become more popular. But the fact is that many creators think globally and are sometimes ahead of their generation. Therefore, their ideas simply “reach” their contemporaries later than they were invented. Sometimes after death.
And if we talk, for example, about Russia during the USSR period and writers of that time, then censorship played a big role here. Many of their works have come down to us decades later, but still have not lost their relevance.
Perhaps, the factor of the fact that after death a person will not write anything else plays a role here. His creative career is over, and people can appreciate all his legacy, analyze and make a complete impression.
The value of works of art is made up of so many factors, and one of them is the uniqueness, uniqueness and “limited party”. The death of an artist increases the value of his existing works by the fact that they will no longer appear.
But death is by no means a necessary or sufficient condition for an artist to gain popularity and value.
Good afternoon.
By arts, I hope you meant works of painting and sculpture?
Well, in this case, I would like to note that the situations were different.
There were painters who were practically not recognized during their lifetime. Usually such an example is van Gogh, although modern researchers count 14 paintings sold during his lifetime. But yes-they began to call him a genius after his death. And it was after his death that the hunt for his works began.
But, at the same time, a significant part of the artists became recognized during their lifetime. And even during their lifetime, the cost of their paintings was fabulously expensive. Here you can list dozens (hundreds) of names. But I will only mention a few. These are da Vinci, Rubens, Repin, Dali, Picasso, Bruegheli (senior and junior), Sokolov, Winterhalter, Bryullov, Zichi, Tintoretto, and Raphael. (I list them without chronology, mixed up as I recall).
Another thing is that there were artists who were recognized during their lifetime, but did not become rich for various reasons. For example, drunkenness. A striking example of this fate is Alexey Savrasov, best known for the painting “Rooks have Arrived”. He was recognized as a great man in his lifetime, but he became a bitter drinker. To make a living, he wrote countless repetitions of Rooks, which he sold at a ridiculous price. Under such conditions, his paintings could not be expensive. Although now, of course, they are appreciated.
This is a myth, in fact, works of art do not cost anything at all, their price is the result of artificial demand among connoisseurs, who are very few. But after the death of the master, no other works of his will appear again, and therefore the market will stabilize, like a pond after a stone. This stabilization represents a slight increase in the price due to the fact that the works will no longer appear, and the master himself will no longer influence the quotation of his works by unexpected eccentricities. In general, nothing special.
While a person is alive, it is not known how many similar works he will make yet. It can produce so much that it completely devalues its creations. Or he can do something stupid, turn society against him, and his things will stop being bought. And when a person has died, there is some certainty. It is clear that nothing new will appear anymore and the reputation has already been established…
Yes, the author's death is not a necessary or sufficient factor.
The author's death makes it possible to accurately assess not only the” circulation of originals”, but also the full range of his works. It turns his work as a whole into a commercial product that can be analyzed, theoretically, quite fully. That's when the vultures start coming.
Reputable exhibitions and museums “want” to have as complete information about the author and his work as possible before putting his work on public display, linking his work with his own good name, with his own trademark. This is no less important for them than sharing with experts the responsibility for exposing authentic works, and not imitations and copies, fakes-under the guise of the original. A live artist can even put up a can of PU of their own production as another work without waiting for the end of the current exhibition. Sometimes. And even those galleries that are willing to put up and such (and not such) – will conduct appropriate advertising, profiting from their own freethinking and support for creative freedom, even they do not need it as a kind of “unexpected”.
The authors of biographies also examine the dead for their prospects. They don't like surprises, either.
Expositions in reputable places and published biographies are just the first round of posthumous PR. Further, universities, humanities professors, and training programs will be connected. The turn of popularizers will also come in time.
Yes, “the dead author has the most enviable opportunities.”..