Allegedly David Hockney recently took a dig at Damien Hirst when a poster for his upcoming show at the Royal Academy of Art read, “All the works here were made by the artist himself, personally.” The Royal Academy of Art has since clarified that the phrase appeared on Hockney’s gallery wall, not their poster, and Mr. Hockney was not attacking anyone specifically.
This got us thinking. It’s not uncommon for artists to have assistants or employ experienced craftsmen to help with the production of their work. Sometimes, that’s the only way to bring their ideas to life. Sometimes, that process is part of the art’s conceit. Sometimes, they just want the money without doing much of anything. Here’s a brief and wide survey of classical and contemporary artists who conceive, but don’t or didn’t always “make” their own work. This is not exactly “in defense” of Damien Hirst. It’s a bit that, but more of … “in contrast,” just some thoughts to levy the hype and hate currently swirling around the artist. Let’s get to it!
Christo and Jeanne-Claude
“All of Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s projects come from ideas from their two hearts, and two brains,” the artist duo have strongly asserted. “The artists never create works that come from other people’s ideas. Never.” The two did not accept proposals, commissions, licensing deals, or grants, and they paid for installation out of their own pocket, as to not “alter and compromise their art” and work in “total freedom.” Now then, you don’t expect them to have wrap Parisian bridges and the Australian coast by their lonesome or run around planting thousands of giant umbrellas by themselves? Naturally, they employed workers for that. What do you think they were doing, painting dots?
Comments (36)
The difference between a Renaissance art studio and a modern studio is that the Renaissance studio was being run by a Master craftsman who understood all of the techniques and materials and was passing it on to assistants. Today’s studios (like Fairey and Hirst) are merely brand names that are supported by the talent of their assistants. The assistants are expected to bring their knowledge to the studio, not learn it in the studio.
And of course, one of the most talentless and offensive “artists”, Dale Chihuly hasn’t blown glass since the 1970.
Jeff Koons doesn’t make much of his work anymore either. I watched a documentary about him recently and I actually am not sure what he actually does haha.
GREETINGS TO ONE AND ALL…SACRED ART MUST HAVE A BIT OF THE SOUL OF THE ARTIST IN IT IF IT IS TO HAVE ANY INNATE VALUE…LIKE THE BLESSINGS OF A SAINT…AN ICON CAN GIVE ONE A SPIRITUAL HIGH…THE POWER OF PRAYER CAN BE STORED AND RELEASED TO THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING…A TRUE ICON HAS THE POWER TO HEAL AND GIVE HOPE TO LOST SOULS…I DO BELIEVE THAT A SAINT BY DEFINITION WILL PAINT “BETTER” PICTURES THAN “THE ART” THAT IS MANUFACTURED IN A FACTORY WHERE THE WORKERS ARE PAID A PITANCE…
BENDING WITH THE WIND
THE TAOIST GATHERS WATER…
IN A STRAW HAT
PS: ART CREATED FOR LOVE SURELY MUST BE BETTER THAN THAT MADE JUST FOR “MONEY”…
EVERYONE can comunicated the great ideas,emotions,concepts,BUT,the spiritual and aesthetic recption depends us.
I realize page space on this site is limited for any topic, but I also must mention one of the most grievous exploiters of this practice: Thomas Kincaid. My schadenfreude meter went to eleven upon reading about his comeuppance.
How can you leave out Sol LeWitt. He writes detailed instructions for other people to create, which is brilliant,
Agree with Laura. This is a great topic, flavorpill, and Sol LeWitt should be on this list.
Agreed, what about Jeff Koons? He’s unapologetic about hiring minions to do his work. Don’t think he’s ever made a thing with his own hands.
Nothing is produced in isolation. And if everyone only created what they could do with their own hands I wouldn’t be writing this on a Macbook Air. Creative Genius is an outmoded myth that is still instilled in many art schools. An artist / creative producer of any kind of content uses the resources around him/her and their skills to create a personal vision or idea. Everyone has lots of ideas, sometimes people with the best ideas are not the best at getting those ideas realised.
The most “successful” artists understand the systems of production and consumption in which they are operating and understand the steps they need to take to get an idea from their brain into a gallery / art collection / movie theater etc. I’m sure Damien Hirst is quite happy because he fully understands the art market in which he is working, he has a lot of resources and he very successfully brings his “ideas” to lucrative completion. Are these ideas “valuable”? well… their worth frickin millions. Are they any good? Hmmm. Do they make us think differently? Meh. Do I like his work? Meh. Do I admire his achievements? Yes. Do I think he is a Twat? Yes.
I guess Damien Hirst is a master craftsman passing on knowledge but I’m not sure if the artists painting his dots are the one’s learning from him and I don’t think I want to be in the same room as the people who are learning from him.
I’m with No CTRL above. I think understanding something you spend time learning and passing on that knowledge is more valuable than understanding how to manipulate people and make a lot of money and take advantage of people who are more skilled but less organised.
BTW was it not David Hockney’s PHD that debunked the whole notion of the Classical masters’ skills by researching the history of optics and redating the camera obscura? He wrote a book called Secret Knowledge.
Certainly multiple viewpoints – if these artists can produce work that qualifies as an investment these days, the study of this art is as much a business study as a humanities study.
I wonder if you could raise VC to start an art factory – ?
How it is produced is irrelevant .. The product and value added to the cultural enrichment of society at large is what is imperative. Brilliant topic though… Would love to see more
Philosophical theories/idealogies and the like are rarely developed in isolation .. But are more a collective of history combined with creative process-an evolution of thinking as we grow as a civilization — the making of art is no different – the message is the medium.
Mick Smith Studio has been making artists work for years. If you want the best maker – he is your man. If you have a idea/concept but need someone with expertise in the fabricating department, why not get it made relatively effortlessly.
In the 80s Robert Longo made an issue out of his using assistants to execute his work, once giving them all credit on the gallery wall at Metro Pictures, in a style reminiscent of film credits. David Salle jobbed out many of his paintings to a company in Jersey City called Acadia Scenic Design. Even Basquiat, who one thinks of as an artist with a very personal, expressionistic touch, employed Rick Prol to paint backgrounds for him. Peter Halley is an obvious assistant user. I do in fact take great pride in organizing Kostabi World to paint my paintings, but I take even greater pride in getting scores of well known art critics to work for me when they titles my paintings on my TV show called The Kostabi Show.
We get the Hirst reference. It’s obvious, and it was in the introduction. You don’t have to reiterate it in every paragraph. It makes it sound like you’re writing for children.
Otherwise, it’s a great article that addresses an important issue. Same for most of the user comments.
thanks!
In the 80s my now ex-boyfriend, a recent MFA grad from CalArts, worked in a Hockney factory in L.A. making large-scale photo collages. I don’t believe he ever met Hockney in that period. So not sure why Hockney is pointing the finger…
Designers are artists who may not do the actual creation of the final work of art.
Musicians are artists who may not be the ones performing their art.
Same with architects and more.
I met one of Hirst’s dot painters and he was able to do a perfect Hirst signature. He signed a lot of dot paintings for his boss.
Sure, Hirst doesn’t paint his dots . . . but surely he comes up with the colour schemes, right? Wrong, it is generated from a computer algorithm. So where is the artistic statement? Is it on the canvas, or is it in the houses of fools who eat up this rubbish?
I of course understand that some works, especially when large in number or scope, need assistance, but there’s something powerful and magic about a work of art that emanates the artist’s touch and craftsmanship…
What about the no-talent Mr. Brainwash? Put his lame ass on this list – Gupta doesn’t lift a finger for his art.
I know you can’t include everyone, but I would like to have seen Donald Judd and his “specific objects” on this list. Outsoucring fabrication as part of the concept of a piece was a much more novel idea then . . . why is this type of work still being made? Although I respect its place in the cannon, work like this just seems irrelevant now.
What really confuses me is the fact that Hirst could make ANYTHING and sell it for a ton of money. Wealth aside, he has what most artists don’t have: complete and total freedom to make any piece he wants to make. He doesn’t have to concern himself with whether he can afford to make it, whether it will sell in a gallery, whether it’s too controversial, too out there, etc. So why dots? Why a concept that’s been beaten into the ground over and over again? Because its so edgy that he can get people to shell out for formalistic dot paintings in 2012? Please . . . maybe I’m wrong and he really has a burning passion for dots, or getting people to pay gobs for dots. Honestly, I’m all for “going with your subversive self”, but how about with an interesting and contemporary perspective?
I guess Hirst doesn’t give a crap. . . figuratively. . . however, I wouldn’t be surprised if he dusted the cobwebs off the ol’ “artist’s shit in a can” concept.
agree with Laura and Kelsey!
was really amazed by the works (walldrawings/paintings)
‘by’ Soll LeWitt (1928-2007)
that i observed, painted and drawn recently in Bonnefanten Museum, Maastricht NL.
all done by hired (local)artists who followed the late artist’s fine instructions. Great !
Dale Chihuly is a great artist.
Great great great, as always, Marina. You’ve really become my favorite aspect of this site!!!
I agree with no ctrl, taramisue and multiple viewpoints. That said, artists will continue to have their work fabricated by someone else as long as Conceptual Art is relevant and so far that has been 60 years or so. I don’t see a problem with outsourcing fabrication as long as the idea is strong, meaningful and sincere on many levels. That is very tough to do over and over again.
The negative for me is when an artist is seemingly taking advantage of his or her success and produces work that is cynical, empty and reliant on antiquated formulist tactics that more talented artists create in their name- i.e Damien Hirst- Wow what happened to him ?
Oh and Thanks Flavorpill for this article – such a great topic !
For the sake of argument, Chuck Close could certainly be included on this list, no?
I am the only one who snaps the shutter. I do have them printed, matted and framed by others. This enhances my art, and allows others to add the additional finishing touches. Couldn’t live without them.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Boogie-Woogie-Danny-Moynihan/dp/0715630210
This fabrication issue heated up in the 70′s with minimalism. To me, that seemed to be a perfect time to create a body of hand-made minimalist work. I also did a few miniature colour field paintings. To this day I remain un-famous and un-rich but nonetheless secure in the knowledge that humour, while usually underestimated, is the most incisive criticism. As Freud said, humour is the weapon of the powerless, and as I say, artists with power are a drag.
All this bother about who physically makes art pales in comparison to the distortion caused by which gallery sells the art. Once an artist gets chosen to partake in the vortex of a major market like New York or Berlin the only relevant thing is price, the higher the better. And nobody gives a flip who made it.
Interesting talk for art dealers and speculators. They want to keep these persons in the news, so we are confronted with yet an other article about them….again. = Contemporary salon art.
Add Chahuly to the list!
I guess “RC” thats exactly what they thought about the abacus.
Post a new comment