Our professor, John, asked this question of our class last Thursday: "Do we have artists [here in class] who did the [art] work and never showed it to anyone?" There were plenty of hands that went up, since it is realistic to presume that many artists in the world choose to keep their art out of the public eye. Is it right and moral though, to bring an artist's "private" collection out into the spotlight after their passing? It is hard to know where to stand on this issue. If Van Gogh had requested that his widely acclaimed painting "Starry Night" stay hidden, would his request be honored? It is no doubt that his painting serves as an inspiration for all, and most importantly, documents the talent of this great artist. Without its presence, there would most definitely be a void in the art sphere. After pondering this question, I then thought, why WOULD an artist want to keep their work hidden? The first reason that comes to mind is that an artist may not perceive their work to be worthy of showing the public. They may believe that this "lower quality" work may decrease the value of past pieces on display. Furthermore, the content of the piece may have been intended to only be viewed and understood by the artist himself. Are we doing the artist an injustice when we choose to ransack their art studio and publicize their work after their death? Or is it worth it, because, in the opinion of one, or perhaps a few people, a quality piece of art does not deserve to be packed away in a dusty box?