anonymity and the artist

From Ananda K. Coomaraswamy's Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art

In all respects the traditional artist devotes himself to the good of the work to be done. The operation is a rite, the celebrant neither intentionally nor even consciously expressing himself. It is by no accident of time, but in accordance with a governing concept of the meaning of life, of the goal is implied in St. Paul’s Vivo autem jam non ego, that works of traditional art, whether Christian, Oriental or folk art, are hardly ever signed: the artist is anonymous, or if a name has survived, we know little or nothing of the man. This is true as much for literary as for plastic artifacts. In traditional arts it is never Who said? but only What was said?

What role does the identity of artist play in the perception of an artwork? And consider how and why this has changed over time. What function does art serve today, and how does this compare with the function of art in the past? With that in mind, does the existence of an art market eliminate (or at very least limit) the an artist's anonymity?

-------------------------------------------------------
Image from Suicide Blonde