Artin's representability theorem gives conditions for a functor from commutative rings to sets (or groupoids) to be representable by an algebraic space (stack). The conditions are largely expressed in terms of the formal deformation theory. One key condition is the existence of an obstruction theory.
Lurie's representability theorem is a similar looking statement in "spectral" or "derived" algebraic geometry. It gives similar looking conditions for a functor from $E_\infty$ rings to spaces to be representable by a spectral scheme or stack. One notable difference is that the condition on the existence of an obstruction theory (which seems to be auxilliary data) is replaced by a condition on the cotangent complex
Sometimes I hear that Lurie's theorem is a generalization of Artin's theorem.
Does the statement of Lurie's representability theorem imply the statement of Artin's representability theorem?
Let me clarify the question a bit. Lurie's theorem takes as input vastly more data than Artin's theorem: whereas Artin asks for a functor from commutative rings to sets, Lurie asks for a functor defined on spectral commutative rings. So, to get Artin from Lurie, one must know how to extend a functor from commutative rings to spectral commutative rings.
There is one remark in Lurie's article that hints at the answer to this: "In the setting of Artin’s original theorem, a deformation and obstruction theory are auxiliary constructs which are not uniquely determined by the functor F. The meaning of these conditions are clarified by working in the spectral setting: they are related to the problem of extending the functor F to $E_\infty$-rings which are nondiscrete."
So a more precise version of the above question is:
How does one use a deformation/obstruction theory to extend a functor from commutative rings to sets (satisfying Artin's axioms) to a functor from $E_\infty$ rings to spaces (satisfying Lurie's axioms)?