Wow, excellent thread, and excellent posts from thecat. I too am a Bourdieu (and Foucault) fan.
To go back to the OP briefly, it’s true, as hooochy and others have said, that the use of studio assistants is widespread and legitimate. But that isn’t to say that it’s non-controversial, particularly where the input of assistants is less mechanised than the Hirst examples suggest. In sculpture particularly, I would say, mould-makers bring a great deal of artistry to the work that a viewer of the finished piece, lay or ‘educated’ alike, would struggle to ascribe accurately. Ultimately, an assistant who has difficulty with this will probably set up their own studio.
The blanket response that ‘it’s been going on for centuries’ isn’t necessarily as relevant as it first sounds, as technological change in theory at least makes the need for a team of uncredited assistants less vital in the production of large-scale art than in the past.
Technological change also underpins a lot of the debates about the nature of fine art and the value placed upon different aspects of it that this thread has moved on to consider. For example, in a post-photography era, the value we place upon the ability to faithfully reproduce something visually with paint is reduced, and the purpose for which the skills of an artist are harnessed changes. Put simply, art has been less concerned in the last 120 years or so with the naturalistic depiction of ‘things’ and more with the expression of ideas and the provocation of thoughts, feelings and responses.
In many ways there are two sorts of art, bluntly, ‘pictures’ - and conceptual art or the art of ideas. (When I say ‘pictures’, I’m not excluding sculpture and other 3D art, so much as alluding to the idea of art that gives immediate aesthetic pleasure.) These two approaches to art are very much in tension with each other, giving rise to a tension between people who favour one over the other. The manner and quality of execution is more obviously important in the former, and gives rise, perhaps understandably, to a sense that authorship matters and needs to be stated upfront – although, as this thread clearly demonstrates, it often hasn’t been. The art of ideas, fairly obviously, foregrounds ideas, concepts and audience response to those, rather than aesthetic pleasure and technical skill in delivering that pleasure (which is not to say that all those things can’t coexist). In that context, authorship arguably is less the point. And which is why it doesn’t matter if your 5yo ‘could have done it’ – the point is that she would never have thought of it, or if she had happened to do it anyway, it wouldn’t have had the same meaning.
The art world is endlessly self-referential – everything that is created is created in the context of all that has gone before, which has the effect of rending all artistic meaning a glorious tunnel of opposing mirrors. This can be thrillingly freeing in its possibilities, but can also have the effect of excluding anyone who hasn’t to some extent internalised the discourse to date. In practice, this does invalidate the opinions of the uninformed but, and this is the important bit, only as far as concerns debate that takes place within the established discursive parameters. Opinions that fall outside that narrow frame of reference are still valid and indeed can open it up for the benefit of all. That said, imho, anyone who takes the time to discover more about any topic will in turn both get and give more from their participation in debate.
Hope this hasn’t been patronising. I work in contemporary art and am a bit over-excited about finding a thread on MN about it! 