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.

For what it's worth, I took a punt, a while back, on 'sentimentality' being reassessed. Sadly, it didn't work out and I was down quite a bit of money - and have a picture that a lot of my friends 'like' but I'm a bit embarrassed about putting on the wall.

The difference of that capital letter is, ultimately, the difference between making and losing money, though Backie. And, cards on table, you're going to make more money if you know the rules governing the bestowal of that capital 'A'

That's exactly what I said!! The point of the A is so that people could differentiate between themselves and others to make money without having to actually be an artist.

Well, in that case, you are in agreement with Hoochycoo, I think.

So Art with a capital A is an exclusive club with particular rules, a sense of superiority and is usually associated with money.

Gosh, there's not many of them about

It's a sales pitch. Distract with waffle and make it seem like your contribution was so much more than what it actually is to attract a high price. Nobody pays £££ for work imagined by [famed "artist"] but carried out by unknown single Mum of 3 in minimum wage.

pretty much Catfromjapan.

Much of Damien Hirst's work is conceptually based around that concept.

love it or hate it.

It's called an apprentice, Llandro who made those beautiful figurines had an apprentice and some were made by him.

Well, in that case, you are in agreement with Hoochycoo, I think.

Which part? Hoochy said quite a few things. Do I agree there are rules created so that some can make money that would otherwise be unavailable to them due to their lack of talent and/or effort? Yes, of course. Do I agree that not having studied those rules at university means my opinion on art isn't valid? No.

Lladro*

That's what's so great about Bourdieu.

He analyses all sorts of things, from food to Art/art.

I think of him all the time when I read some of the more class-obsessed threads on MN.

I know I keep banging on about him but he really does take apart all the subtle exclusions of society and culture - as well as the not so subtle ones.

I think a good reading of Bourdieu can stop you from being an unself-aware wanker.

was @noblegiraffe

I never said you had to be university educated Backie. Merely that an opinion needs to be an informed one to be a valid one. and I stand by that.

Hoochie has constantly reiterated that your views are valid. The point is where they are going to be most valued. If your views aren't congruent with those that apply within the 'restricted field', they are going to be less valued there.

Obviously, there is an issue of power involved.

I don't think hoochy's position is very different from yours.

hoochie has constantly reiterated that your views are valid

Hoochie said this- of course only those educated about a subject can have a valid viewpoint!

I never said you had to be university educated Backie. Merely that an opinion needs to be an informed one to be a valid one.

Hoochie, you said this- of course only those educated about a subject can have a valid viewpoint!

funny thing is that as an artist I actually work outside the gallery system, don't sell work and pretty much make art with people , facilitating them to find their own artistic vision, their own power. That's where my personal preference lies.

I just can't stand to here people opining what is and isn't art, rather than what is or isn't heir own preference.

I'm really enjoying what Hoochy and The Cat are saying on this threats. It's very interesting. Surely art is about the idea, and the process of how that idea is made flesh is secondary? Unless of course the process is an intrinsic part of the idea?

Can I say I know nothing about Art, though I have been dragged round a lot of galleries by two daughters doing Art A levels and degrees. I have found that often, something looks like a random pile of rubbish, then you read the blurb and think, "Ooh yeah, that's actually really clever and astute".

Obviously, quite often, it still comes across as a random pile of rubbish.

i think you are getting into semantics here Backie.

Sadly it's not just 'art' it's true in all walks of life.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell is a good case in point

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11941453/Female-physicist-overlooked-for-Nobel-Prize-finally-receives-recognition-as-Woman-of-the-Year.html

and most drug discoveries, are claimed by the head of the research department, even though there are/were plenty of plebs doing the grunt-work.

I did a bread-baking course at River Cottage a few years ago; no sign of Hugh whatisface, just gardeners, kitchen-workers and a nice chap called Aiden who was rather good at baking bread and owned a bakers in Weymouth.

Even the River Cottage Handbook was written by a Daniel Stevens, with a foreword by HF-W.

As with all these things, it's smoke & mirrors and '..fool most of the people, most of the time.'

a big hug to you Tinklylittlelaugh !

sometimes it totally is just a pile of rubbish! x

Something like the poppies installation at the Tower of London, I remember reading that someone came up with the concept, someone else designed it, someone else designed the poppies and a hell of a lot of people were involved with making and arranging them.

That was a pretty popular price of art, with a very poweful idea behind it. And I don't think anyone would have accused the artist of taking credit for other people's work.

hoochyhoo I think part of the difficulty you're having is due to your use of the word "valid". Valid implies an either/or situation, something is either valid or it is not. By taking about certain people having valid opinions your implicitly suggesting that there is a "correct" opinion that you and others in the art world have and everyone outside does not.

Possibly in fields such as medicine or law, where there is some body of objective fact which we can compare opinions to, we can talk about their validity or not, but its not clear you can say they same about art (and especially not Art) which is mostly determined by cultural convention.

It's perhaps more a question of informed opinion rather than valid opinion.

Surely art is about the idea, and the process of how that idea is made flesh is secondary?

So really having an idea is a talent, actually putting that idea onto paper or stone or whatever isn't worth anything at all. Certainly not a credit on the work. Right. In that case I'm worth a fucking fortune.

i think you are getting into semantics here Backie.

You'll be quite comfortable then won't you.

Backie, why are you being so hostile to hoochie? It's kind of off-putting. I feel like I'm watching someone persistently shouting at one person in a conversation.

If you feel the need to pick on someone, at least share it around. You can shout at me for a bit, if you like. I haven't said anything very different to what hoochie has said.

I don't think either of us see ourselves as representatives of the Art establishment. Far from it. I know very little about it (as I've made clear) and Hoochie says she works outside it.

I do think that the one thing you are doing is probably dissuading anyone who is from the Art Establishment from coming on and joining in. Which is a shame because (as I said upthread) the internet can be a great place to learn stuff.

Backie, why are you being so hostile to hoochie

Oh I don't know, perhaps her sneery condecending posts got my back up. Odd that hey would do that. Huh.