 Absolutely YES!! Add to that
composers. Why shouldn't they make
their millions while they are
alive? Footballers do, pop stars
do, politicians do. Why not
artists? |
 03 Sep 2008 09:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that totally sucks that a
artist has to wait to die to be
famous. But I know the offsprings
love it. |
03 Sep 2008 20:42
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be nice if they could
enjoy the rewards of their work
during their lifetimes. But it is
unlikely, as the death of the
artist drives the values up simply
because of the fact that the artist
will be producing nothing more. |
03 Sep 2008 18:19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 It works like that because once the
artist is dead, even if they were
slightly know while living,
everyone knows that there will be
no more work done, and so all want
to collect that work at that point. |
08 Sep 2008 21:32
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are today's artists so lazy?
Artists have died for fame for
centuries, so why should we give
the new generation of poseurs a
pass? |
07 Sep 2008 02:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they are great or do something
great but famous because they are
artist, no way. |
03 Sep 2008 06:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Woman 1982 I also
think that maybe the artists death
is partially what brings want to
the art forms. |
03 Sep 2008 03:08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on the individual
artist,just like most things you
have to earn your right to be
recognized.it would be an unjust
for the deceased artist who blew
our minds with their art to have
every person no matter what level
of skill to be famous.then a lot of
our artist who are well known
wouldn't be if we put them in a
sea of others depriving them of the
chance to stand out and be
recognized. |
02 Sep 2008 23:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Na, I don't think so. |
02 Sep 2008 22:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
