At 2/16/10 04:55 PM, Kinsei01 wrote:
All my art is made by a trained monkey!!!!
Actually that brings up a really intresting topic that has been the talk around the water coolers in the art world as of late.
Lots of artists who are famous/ becoming famous DON'T actually produce their own work. Jeff Koons for example has all his stuff made in factories by other people, yet it is still considered his. We recently had a talk by this artist couple, which during the discussion they mentioned that they don't do any of their own paintings, instead they have hired studios in china do the work for them, however again they get all the credit and glory and no mention of the actual artist is ever seen. They see nothing wrong with this, and its surprisingly split sides on the issue. Some people believe that its not really their stuff, others say its the idea that matters more than the final product in these cases so they deserve full credit.
Its really interesting to see which side people take, its pretty surprising. Ive seen hardcore traditionalists side with the artists, and open minded wackos who agree with everything adamantly object to the practice of getting others to do your work then claim its yours because you thought of it.
Personally I am against it, if you didn't make it then it ain't fucking yours. But people argue that this has been going on for centuries. The great Renaissance masters had schools and apprentices doing most of the actual work on their paintings. Many artists today do similar. Robert Rauschenberg was known for having a team of assistants who did the actual work for him, all he did was design the compositions then they did the physical assembling. The same can be said about many recent sculptors. They think of the concept, and have their workers make the physical piece (and I'm not talking about architects).
How much of the artist's hand though needs to be in the piece for it to truley be theirs though. Chuck Close being wheelchair bound gets his assistants to prep his canvases (stretch, assemble and grid as well as oftentimes drawing out the outlines of the painting) then Chuck just colors in the lines. Could that be considered like doing a coloring book?
Just something to think about (and get shit back onto an art related topic)