Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Famous artist didn't do his own painting?

318 replies

wowfudge · 26/09/2017 08:22

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.

OP posts:
ThomasRichard · 26/09/2017 19:13

Wow, I really had no idea that this was the norm. I knew about pupils and schools and backgrounds/trees/hands but I thought that the big-name artist would always do the main bit.

I always thought I was pants at art because I can't get the image in my head down on paper. When I become massively rich, I shall employ a minion to do that bit and I'll sign it Wink

noblegiraffe · 26/09/2017 19:18

I think it's the skill of the creator, triptrap. Probably because I'm totally cack-handed and could never manage anything so delicate.

If Michelangelo had sketched the statue then I think his sketch would be a reflection of his skill at drawing, but to create the statue is something else. It's breathtaking.

It's funny because some other Michelangelo sculptures are crap. I'm now wondering if this one of 'Night' which looks like a man with boobs stuck on was done by the same person who did the Pieta. Crappy student versus good student? Or Michelangelo on an off day?

TripTrapTripTrapOverTheBridge · 26/09/2017 19:20

Ah but Thomas of course they can (usually) get the image down onto paper, they'll have developed it, not woke up one morning and though 'ooh I'll make them paint a sunset today' expecting a masterpiece and expecting them to translate the artists thoughts completely. It's just one of those things, like moving up the chain in a business I suppose.

TripTrapTripTrapOverTheBridge · 26/09/2017 19:23

But art isn't just about the skill of production (and you're verging on craft). A masters drawing isn't just good mark making, it's translation, expression, creativity, thought, emotion, composition, place and various other things. Not just marks on the paper.

QueSera · 26/09/2017 19:24

It's very common.

Nousernameforme · 26/09/2017 19:32

I understand but it id's a bit like hearing authors using ghost writers

hooochycoo · 26/09/2017 23:45

Important to point out that not all artists use assistants. It really depends on the nature of the work they make .

noblegiraffe · 26/09/2017 23:51

I think that art is a bit about the skill of production. If you couldn't have done as good a job yourself making a sculpture/painting, then is it fair to put your name to it?

Tedious bits like applying sequins to fabric in a pre-ordained design is probably fine to farm out, but if the artist isn't doing the fiddly skillful bits themselves? Not convinced.

BackieJerkhart · 26/09/2017 23:58

Another one here who has just had her mind blown by this thread! I genuinely (naively!) did think that an artist's work was all their own! Clearly i don't know anything about art but I agree that it sounds like they are art designers rather than the artist if they have outsourced the actual doing of the art.

WyfOfBathe · 27/09/2017 00:10

Other art forms seem to be better at giving credit. For example, a film might say at the beginning an XY production, starring A and B, directed by C, screenplay by D, based on a book by E and give more detailed credits at the end. Songs are often "by" one artist or band, but if you buy a physically copy - or even look up the lyrics online - you can normally see who the writers and composers are. I think it's a shame that art isn't credited in the same way, designed by A, realised by B, assisted by C and D or similar.

sashh · 27/09/2017 06:45

I love Tracy Emin and I think she surely does her own paintings and drawings, they are incredible. I bet she has a team to do the embroidery though.

She does, there was a programme on about her, it showed her 'office' - she has a swimming pool in the basement - and she explained that the women 'sewing' have to sew in exactly the same way she does. She was going out to a meeting and said she'd have preferred to stay sewing and chatting.

hooochycoo · 27/09/2017 07:05

Quite often too assistants, foundaries, photographers, writers, craftspeople WILL be thanked in the exhibition catalogue. But most folk looking at art don't read the exhibition catalogue. I suppose a bit like most folk don't watch all the way to the credits.

As an artist and would love more assistants. That'd mean I'd get to realise things I just can't physically achieve alone. Also sometimes elements that I maybe want to incorporate in my art are better done by someone who specialises in the appropriate skills. I can learn and do most things, but sometimes it's not important to do it myself when the concept of the work doesn't demand it.

For instance I could make a drawing. But first the paper needs prepared, stretched and attached to the board. For some art, that's about process perhaps, it's important that the actual artist prepares the paper. For for other art, it isn't. So an assistant stretches the paper. And then the drawing is finished. For some artists, the frame of the drawing is part of the whole artistic piece and it's important that they frame it themselves, so they do. For many others, it's not important, so a framer who is more experienced in those appropriate skills does that.

The level of assistance is decided by the concept and meaning of the artists work, not by a set of established rules. And the artist decides what is important or not to do personally. For some, it is very important to be directly involved in every act of making. For others the concept is the only important thing and the work is a set of instructions that can be realised by others. And then many many different variations and permutations of this in between.

PeaceAndLove1 · 27/09/2017 07:08

It may be normal but it's shitty and I wouldn't be buying it.

5rivers7hills · 27/09/2017 07:20

@hooochycoo great post

Yorkshire sculpture park often has detaile me exhebitons on the 'making of' and you can usually see info about the collective/assistants.

JaimesGoldenHand · 27/09/2017 07:38

From a Fascinating Aida song:

"Yes but is it art?"
"I don't know and I don't care
And that's 'cause I'm a millionaiiiiiiiiire!"

hooochycoo · 27/09/2017 08:10

Sometimes it's so depressing realising the level of art education of the general public.

CamperVamp · 27/09/2017 08:22

The vision / concept and every artistic / aesthetic vision is the artist's though.

The people painting the dots are not the originators of any of that.

They are technicians, implementing it.

hooochycoo · 27/09/2017 08:22

Do you think it's wrong that all architects don't credit all their subcontractors on each building they design?

Original poster
wowfudge · 27/09/2017 09:04

Thing is, you do see who is building architects' designs in hoardings, etc and when they have the RIBA awards the contractors are credited.

@hooochycoo your comment about the general public's art education levels is condescending.

OP posts:
hooochycoo · 27/09/2017 09:17

And like I said, much of the time you'll find thanks and credits in the exhibition catalogue.

Apologies if you find my comment condescending. It is just pretty depressing to hear some of the views here about my profession

Maryz · 27/09/2017 10:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz · 27/09/2017 10:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MessedUpWheelieBin · 27/09/2017 11:00

I don't think anyone should see the idea of lacking education or knowledge of something as a criticism. Most of us have a massive lack of education about all sorts of spheres surely, and it must be depressing for those who live and breathe them.

There's a horrible gap between the art world and the rest of the world that can be hard to bridge, and assumptions and a lack of knowledge on all sides is the reason.

Until quite recently I've been stopped from studying and practising art because of all those assumptions of what it is, who does it, and if it can ever be considered 'a proper job' or worthwhile.
My answer to what I'd do if I won the lottery was 'become an artist.'
I've managed to acquire many skills under cover of more acceptable trades, and late in life gone for it regardless.

The resentment it's caused in my background and from some of my neighbours has been painful.
Some of the attitudes I come up against from university lecturers over what I don't automatically know or believe are harsh.

The only thing that's clear is how little either lot gets about the other and how much we all (me included) hold assumptions and don't like being told we could be wrong.

When going after work as an assistant, all anyone generally cares about is skills levels. It's a relief.
I don't want credit for work done on behalf of others. I'm not collaborating with them, I'm providing services that without their 'name' success they wouldn't need, or be able to afford.

What I want is money / any other bonuses (ie studio space, creative environment, left over materials, contacts etc) to put towards my own work, that I hope will eventually be good enough, to make a living from.