Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work. Apprentice's skill is the result of master's work. That makes a huge difference to me.
> Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work.
And a modern artist told his technician how to do his work.
In this sense, I think the boundary is much more fluent. In my personal opinion, the artist is the person who has the "most established name" to sell the piece of art that he branded under his name to rich people.
What you are joking about is in my opinion much more serious than it looks like at first appearance. Why do you think so many rich people love to spend lots of money to have e.g. buildings named after them (for example at reputable universities)?
So your suggestion, of course refined gallantly in a way that makes it presentable in polite society, does not sound that absurd to me.
Considering the etymology and historic origin of "artist" as a skilled artisan. It's not even that novel an idea. Lots of things we consider art pieces are named after the buyer and not what we consider now the artist.
