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.

Another one here who had no idea that an artist can farm out a painting and claim it as his/hers rather than school of) collaboration. Mind blown.

I would say that hardly any painters "farm out" the painting of their work. Painting is generally something that an artist does because the activity of painting is important. Don't get the wrong impression from this thread. Damien Hirst and his spot paintings aren't a good example. The spot paintings aren't really paintings, they are a conceptual piece really. About colour. About mechanisation. About authorship. About sensation. And definitely not in any way about the "hand of the artist " or skill or craftsmanship or self expression in painting. And as such somewhere along the process of developing them he realised that it wasn't really very important conceptually that he painted them himself.

I would say that hardly any painters "farm out" the painting of their work. Painting is generally something that an artist does because the activity of painting is important. Don't get the wrong impression from this thread.
Damien Hirst and his spot paintings aren't a good example. The spot paintings aren't really paintings, they are a conceptual piece really. About colour. About mechanisation. About authorship. About sensation. And definitely not in any way about the "hand of the artist " or skill or craftsmanship or self expression in painting. And as such somewhere along the process of developing them he realised that it wasn't really very important conceptually that he painted them himself.

Messed up wheelybin, I hear you !

x

The condescending remark implies that only those educated about art to a certain level have a valid viewpoint.

Personally - I'll pass the artists on the thread the smelling salts - if you have to explain it to me and I can't simply appreciate it for how it looks, or its form then you've lost me and it's become something else other than art.

I did know this, OP, but I also agree with you, actually. I think: at least do the bloody work yourself. It just reinforces my view of Damien Hirst as a complete tosser.

I really do love "For the Love of God". But I also think it sums up what is a bit troubling about Damien Hirst's work.

I must be very ignorant but I had no idea that an artist can get others to a painting and claim it as his/hers. So how do experts tell fakes and forgeries. I can understand the concept of design and articles being mass produced from the design. I can understand the a building being created from plans. Also I realise that a large metal sculpture needs to be brought to fruition by still metal workers etc. But a one off painting - seems to me a lot of folk are paying a lot of money for something the artist has not done a lot of work on.

of course only those educated about a subject can have a valid viewpoint!

just because you think art should only be something that can be appreciated for how it looks doesn't make that a fact.

Art can be many many things, artists work in many many ways. and many of these things and ways I personally don't enjoy, but they are all still valid and all still art.

but thanks for the smelling salts!

wowfudge "The condescending remark implies that only those educated about art to a certain level have a valid viewpoint."

I think it's not so much that, it's rather that if you are going to 'play the game' of art-as-potentially-rewarding-investment, you have to know the rules - and they're a bit arcane.

If you'e just buying art because you like it and it's for you and your personal taste, none of this really matters. You can prioritise the hands-on, craft aspect, or whatever. However, if you are looking for a career in the more industry end of art, or looking to have a punt on the art market, then you need to know some of the rules of the game that art (in that area) is playing.

And, yes, it can be a bit exclusionary. However, they are learnable. Especially in these days of the internet.

I hope there is a word missing from that post @hooochycoo.

pudcat Traceable provenance. When you buy art, you buy it from somewhere reputable and it has a little letter of provenance, which you can stick in a drawer, or somewhere on the object.

Artists also have to take care to manage 'off-cuts', waste products and to not flood their market. I think the status of the off-cuts and waste products are pretty interesting.

Why is that considered condescending? are you Michael Gove? :-)

It's obvious that only those with a legal education could have a valid opinion on the law

It's obvious that only those that have a medical education can have a valid opinion on medical issues

and so on.

Yes art is slightly different because in some ways it belongs to us all and we all can create and be artists. But don't forget too that it is a professional field with much to learn and think about, many different aspects and ideas. You can't just say that something is or isn't Art without knowledge and education.

Although you can totally say you don't like something! and by all means dislike Damien Hirst's work . Many do, including me. But he is still an artist and what he does is not particularly original or controversial.

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

Amazing!

I have a vivid childhood memory of seeing a picture of the Surrounded Islands in the National Geographic and my mind was just completely blown by it. The scale, the ambition. I'd never seen anything like it.

of course only those educated about a subject can have a valid viewpoint!
I guess all of the threads criticising teachers and doctors will all disappear then!

My opinion of "artists" as a whole isn't really being improved by some of the posts on this thread

Agree!!

MaryZ Probably the Bible for the theory of art, or the demystifying of the 'art industry' and 'Art' as opposed to 'art', is Bourdieu's 'The Field of Cultural Production'. Google it and find a brief synopsis (without too much jargon). Honestly, he deals with all your questions.

It's obvious that only those with a legal education could have a valid opinion on the law

It's obvious that only those that have a medical education can have a valid opinion on medical issues

😂😂😂 you sound exactly like my GCSE art teacher. He was a prick too.

Mary, you are totally entitled to like and buy any kind of art you like! Great that you do. More power to you! and you are totally entitled to dislike whatever kind of art you like. If your preference is for art that displays the hand of the artist and contains considerable craftsmanship, then that's totally fine and absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you dislike conceptual art that is not totally made by the artist and art that looks like your toddler could do it, then fine too. totally valid.

What I don't think is valid though is when you start questioning what is and isn't Art, without an understanding and appreciation of the concepts, ideas and history.

Although you are still totally entitled to like and dislike what you want to

Statements such as "I don't think the artist should have signed that, he didn't make it" or "ffs, a toilet in the middle of the room" or "my toddler could have painted that". just show that you know very little about the art of the last 100 years. If you knew very little about the medicine of the last 100 years I would not come to you for a valid medical opinion!

FFS @hooochycoo: anyone can have a valid opinion on anything they experience.