It's been that way for a long time, though authorship and merits were (and arguably still are) very intermingled. It started with the simple fact that really go

It's been that way for a long time, though authorship and merits were (and arguably still are) very intermingled. It started with the simple fact that really good artists were those that made really good art, and once somebody had a reputation it would be both to the artist's benefit and the collector's to have that front and center: for the artist, as advertisement to attract buyers, and for the collector to brag about. I think the things that are very different now (i.e. since about the 80's) are: 1. Much, much more money is involved. 2. In many cases there is a huge gap between what insiders would consider the "underlying work's value" and what average people would find inspiring. 3. Media, obviously, and the Internet. (And of course even insiders can differ on #2: there are plenty of cases where the market says Yes but the academics say No. The market works hard to "correct" this in its favor.) Here's a great article on a great artist whose name recognition was a big part of his career in the 1500's, for instance: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieronymus-bosch/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/mystery-of-hieron...