Famous artist didn't do his own painting?

[wowfudge]

Just heard the new children's laureate being interviewed on the radio and she used to work for Damien Hurst. She said she mixed colours and had to paint lots of little circles. If that's the Hirst work I'm thinking of, does that mean he comes up with ideas but doesn't execute them himself? A bit like a couture designer I suppose. I always thought artists did their own art.

Sistine Chapel reminds me of the joke. Two men watching Michealangelo painting away. One says to the other "The fuss he makes! I tell him, you think painting a ceiling is hard? Try papering a ceiling, then you know hard."

arf @ triptrap

I don't think they are the artists tbh. They could be called designers I suppose, but what Art are they actually producing if they are getting somebody else to do it?

The Beatles had a LOT of help, though, in recording and producing those songs, yes? George Martin was known as the "fifth Beatle" for a reason, and the songs didn't come out of nowhere but were massively influenced by the sound of others at the time.

The example of singers or actors is an interesting one, because it's slightly different: they're not originating content but they're interpreting it. There's an element of embodiment to that that makes it slightly different. There are areas of art where even this apparent "authenticity" becomes questionable, though - think of Andy Warhol deliberately sending out an impersonator to give "his" talks!!

It's one thing for assistants to prep canvas or paint backgrounds but quite another for them to do all the work based on someone elses sketches.

Surely that's more like he is designing and commissioning the work rather than creating it himself more architect than artist.

I will let my son know that when it comes to his GCSE Art exam he can get someone else to do it for him. He's a good artist, so he's allowed to do that, right?

As long as he doesn't ask me. I got an F in my GCSE art. I should have delegated to someone who could actually art!

"I wonder what some of these artists get from putting their name to what is ostensibly someone else's work. Apart from vast sums of money, obviously."

It's not someone else's work. They designed the art, they came up with the idea.

Can a builder/fabricator say that the building is their work, not the architects?
Can a seamstress say that the clothes are her work, not Stella McCartney's?
Can a conductor say that they concerto is his. not Beethoven's

Why do you think that artist's have to do everything themselves? Art is about concept and idea as much as it is about labour or skill. This is really not unusual or controversial.

Why is this such a pernicious concept, that artists should be painting every mark?

and also, why is it considered weird/bad that artists can be rich and benefit financially from their creativity?

The "starving artist genius in a garret who doesn't make any money till they die" stereotype is so popular and pernicious that it seems to colour popular views of what artists are/ should be. It's not, and has never been the whole, or even a fraction of the truth. There are MANY MANY different kinds of artist.

A question for those that think that artists should do everything themselves....

How do you define Art?
How do you define design?
How do you define craft?

Do you think the three things can overlap?

It very much depends on how an artist practices. I am a professional artist ( in a small way) and currently I'm doing a residency at a big international ceramic centre. There is an another artist here (much more successful ) who is going away shortly leaving an assistant to do the work, but it is HIS work, his concept, his idea. My practice couldn't easily be done by anyone else because it is all hand built and spun out my entrails so to speak. I often don't know what I'm making until it's in front of me. Both types of artistic practice are completely valid.

Current (mature) art student picking up self employed work as a studio assistant with a range of skills, experience and knowledge.

If every artist did every last piece of production themselves there'd be a lot of unemployed studio assistants.

Studio assistants are to artists what builders are to architects.

Even my five year old does it.

'I can't - you do it - you're better at ears than me. I will take over for the colouring bit'

"spun out my entrails" I love this phrase for your practice. Wonderful.

Now I know why my art will never make me rich!

don't think they are the artists tbh. They could be called designers I suppose, but what Art are they actually producing if they are getting somebody else to do it?

Agree with this. For me an artist is someone who actually carries out the art. A designer is someone who produces a concept and someone else brings it to life, much like clothing and hand bags.

Really shocked that James Patterson doesn't write his own books! Please don't tell me Stephen King is the same!

I hadn't realised that - that's why going to a top restaurant or buying couture is comparable. I'm quite an artistic person myself and find the doing part as rewarding as the finished item.

My last post was in response to a much earlier one.

@hooochycoo I think many people would think of an artist who puts their name to someone else's brushstrokes as a designer, not an artist.

A key difference surely must be that those artists doing the actual work for the designing artist are largely uncredited.

Interestingly, In the world of sculpture it is the norm for the artist to create the 'model', approve the first cast and then for foundry artisans to 'create' the rest of the edition. Often the artist has not seen or touched an original bronze said to by 'by' that artist, .... Rodin, de Chirico, Magritte , they all worked in this way.

It isn't always clear when reading auction catalogue descriptions.

As a buyer you have to be wary..... Jeff Koons with his million dollar empire and his massive 3000+ edition of balloon dogs, had nothing hands on to do with their ' production'.....

I think it should be like TV programmes where you have CompanyName Productions and then list people in the credits.

Funny how the artist thing benefits rich men with massive egos first and foremost.

Wowfudge, that' s a fallacy , even if if it's a popular one. The question of authorship isn't the key distinction between art and design. Definitely not, both fields have individuals operating in differing levels of autonomy or collaboration. And there are also considerable overlaps between art and design.
I'd say the key differences are function of the eventual "product" ( i.e. Does the thing being produced have a "use" or not) and commissioning process ( i.e. Who is the thing for? Who asked for it to be made? Whose questions does the thing answer) But even then again there are considerable overlaps. It's not a simple thing to define.

Alright then - conceptualising artist versus production artist. Don't just call them all artists and give proper credit to those who have contributed

But they are all artists!

Thing is though, it isn't like a film by Scorsese because we all know there is a team which works with the director to make it happen. And they are credited.

To my mind not crediting those people who work to make the concept reality is piss poor.

Thelma Schoonmaker is Scorsese's completely amazing editor, not a DOP.

I agree with you about credit wowfudge, but I disagree with the expectation that artwork must be the sole production of one individual. I just don't think it ever is, either conceptually or productively. In fact, you could argue that this is a bit of a feminist issue, in a way - the contribution made by women not just intellectually but practically (in the realm of social reproduction) is often overlooked by a viewpoint that focuses on the lone artist.