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.

The assistants he uses are crafts people, skilled artist fabricators. They aren't working as artists, they are working to his specification. They don't expect or need credit.

You'd totally hate Damien Hirst's exhibition in Venice at the moment, "treasures from the wreck of the unbelievable".

( to be fair a lot of the critics did too)

( and actually I don't like his work much either. But he's definitely still an artist. And a good one too. Even if he uses assistants in a totally normal and non contraversial way)

I never knew this!! I'm so sad, you might as well by yourself a pain by numbers of a famous painting :(

Why do you think it's important for an artist to create their work alone?

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/mar/23/artists-assistants-chapman-brothers

www.widewalls.ch/the-world-of-artist-assistants-feature-november-2014/

because I'd like to think the artist put his own hard work and effort into it thats all.

hmmm
i call bs here
if the artists are so open about these methods being normal how come more of us didn't know about it

i am pretty sure they wouldn't be so popular or their work so valuable if it was common knowledge they were so hands off

i have never seen any one other than the artist working on a painting or sculpture on tv so there is a myth that is being perpetuated

ugh

Its absolutely well-known by the people who buy the art, curate exhibitions, and so on, so I don't think that it has any affect on the value of the work. It's really not a big deal. With conceptual pieces where the idea is the key, and with big structural things, the art wouldn't even exist at all in many cases if the artist worked alone.

@guilty100 now I know more, I think not crediting those who have contributed is the issue for me. I don't think I said art had to be the sole production of one person. When you don't know about the assistants in the background you do tend to think the work is solely that of the credited artist.

Where there is a team working on pieces, I think they should be credited. Hirst makes a lot of money and when he doesn't credit his team that to me is a form of exploitation. Otherwise are his assistants supposed get a few crumbs of sustenance on the back of his success?

I had no idea about this. What happens if they are not happy with the outcome of the work?
Is it like an apprenticeship then? Or do you have to be completely skilled but just not well enough known yet to market your own work?

It always strikes me as ironic that when they're living hand to mouth and trying to earn a living to sustain their art, they do it themselves, but when they become 'names' and have money and time to work on the art they supposedly love, they get faceless lackeys in to do it for them, and what? Go off and develop a coke habit to pass the time?

I am an artist (sadly hand to mouth) and had a job gluing textiles for a famous artist once. I didnt need credit for it i wasnt the artist. I was merely someone employed to do the rubbish fiddly bits which is totally normal so the artist can use their time thinking of new pieces. Its a well known thing and each form of art is different. If its a hand painted impressionist piece then of course you want it by their hand. Instillation or repetative pieces require workers. Also I saw it as learning skills for my own work so theres that too.

A friend of mine once had a job helping Christo wrap up islands and hang curtains across the desert.

Yeah younger artists get experience, contacts, income and something for their cv.

Some artists also don't want to follow their own practise and prefer to use their skills to be a fabricator/ assistant . The money is steadier, the risk is less and it suits some.

Your outrage is really misplaced. This is totally normal, has been for centuries and not a big deal atall. It's totally bizarre that you are all so disallusioned!

What outrage is that? I did not know and was very surprised to find that it is seen as the norm for many. Now I do, I find it unpalatable that those who do much of the work are not credited.

It is outrageous that a few famous artists make vast sums of money off the back of the work of others yet seemingly do not share their wealth and fame.

Whenever I've been paid as an assistant I've always been paid well and have never wanted credit, as the work isn't mine. I'm just employed to realise someone else's vision and being paid for my skills. It's in no way my art. I also got to see how a studio operates and to make contacts and gain experience.

It's really not abig deal.

I agree hooochy i was well paid and thouroughly enjoyed it. No credit is needed. If they didnt want to do the job then they wouldnt. Assistants are a sought after job so people do want to do it.

When I admire the Pieta, I'm admiring the skill of whoever coaxed it out of a marble block, not the person who said 'let's have a statue of Mary holding Jesus'. If Michelangelo subcontracted, then whose skill am I admiring?

An acquaintance is a fairly well known (if overrated!) artist and once mentioned this is a fairly common occurrence.

You are admiring Michelangelo's skill in observing and drawing the world. Collecting a vast collection of poses, compositions and ideas about sculpture . About his skill liaising with his patrons and interpreting their needs. You are admiring his business acumen at marketing himself, gaining clients, maintaining the relationships etc. You are admiring his ability to manage a busy studio of assistants. You are admiring his skill in translating his ideas into small 3D clay sketch models, terracotta Models and presenting them to his patrons, gaining approval, negotiating changes. You are admiring his skill at making a wax model to inform the marble and to plan how to cut it. You are admiring his organisation of sourcing and transporting Marble. His ability to plan how are where to cut the marble block. You admiring his ability to plan and free carve, and his ability to train and teach other sculptors these skills. The be able to know how to instruct others to assist and to trust others to do the heavy work where his skills could be better used elsewhere. His ability to make large clay models were for other sculptors to to work from. You are admiring the incredible artist. Not just a romantic idea of a solitary artist working alone starving in their attic.

This has been said of Damien Hirst before.

Well I like this thread OP, tis very illuminating. I think my teenage DD took a and worked on Tracey Emin's Bed as we appear to have a duplicate downstairs

But are you really noble ? Is it the piece of art or the skill of the physical creator? Both together are best, BUT without the artist behind each piece you wouldn't have each piece and the assistants would never have known to bring into being.

There's the skill of the craft and the skill of the artistic thought and expression

I've worked with Tracy Emin a few times and she does use assistants, but is also very hands on. For instance, whenever "My bed" is exhibited she personally unpacks it and arranges it. But then her work is very personal and is in the tradition of an artist being a revered genus bearing their soul, and showing the mark of making, their handwriting, personal style etc. It's more important that she's hands on to the concept. But then I very much doubt she makes absolutely everything herself. What would be the point in her hand sewing everything anymore?