It's funny. When I did a search just now for Hirsh on Flickr, and had the search evaluate the pictures on the basis of "interestingness," even the favored ones at the top of the heap had the views far outnumber the favoritings or gallery adds.
So there's people looking at them, the spectacle, the name recognition.
But there doesn't seem to be a real loving of the art itself.
It's the usual gawker phenomenon, which is ultimately art churn.
The theory goes that once you're historic, you're historic.
But I don't know. I remember selling repros of many a totally obscure 19th century artist on EBAY, and in doing research discovering an entire generation was alight with this artist.
And now nobody has a clue who this person is.
History is always about to make a "slight correction."
But why worry about such things. They aren't utility bills.
Sometimes people will keep an artist's name alive just because they can't believe people once "liked that shit."
That's probably the funniest type of immortality of all.
An Immortality of Dissing.
