|
Post by sleepboy on Sept 16, 2009 12:48:59 GMT -8
Taken from another thread. Topic sounds familiar but can't find any other thread that talked about it before. Thinkspace: Just curious, and maybe not the best place to start this discussion, but it's been on my mind and I wanted to toss it out there. With so much work, in such a short time, as always, it's rather obvious Mr. Murakimi hasn't created much of this work from his own hand. This is a common practice for those at the top of the art world and it seems to be openly accepted and it still doesn't sit right with me.
So, with this notion in mind, what if say, someone like Audrey or Keyes, announced they were hiring an army of assistants and their upcoming big shows this winter would feature works not actually created by their hand. Would all still be lining up to purchase their works? Some may argue there is a difference here, but why is that? I think this could make for a cool discussion and perhaps already on the boards somewhere and I've missed... but just tossing this out there for folks to think about. ill: I think the argument for this practice would more or less be that the concept is the art, and therefore it doesn't really matter who "created" it since the artist still conceptualized it. That said, I don't really care for the practice, but I'm not in the position to buy art that's priced anywhere in the remote vicinity of these artists' stuff.
For some artists, as with Audrey, I definitely think it's the art and not the concept. Audrey doesn't necessarily have the most breakthrough ideas, but her execution and approach to the subject matter are unique and that's what makes her popular. me: I think that Murakami, Koons, Kehinde Wiley etc would not be able to produce in the scale they want or do the projects they want if they had to do everything themselves. But, I wish they would dedicate several pieces in each show that they do themselves... thinkspace: Just to keep this discussion going, as I am curious to hear what others think on this...
So it becomes product basically, designed by the artist. Sure, it looks nice, that's not the topic I'm aiming for here.
If not Kawasaki, how 'bout Keyes, who I feel is saying more with his work than Murakami or Koons could ever hope to. Speaking of, what is either attempting to say with their work by the way? So, lil' bears dressed up like a rapper are 'breakthrough ideas'? Just playing moderator here I guess, not picking battles with anyone... just keeping the flow going hopefully.
Todd Schorr went off on this in his recent interview in Juxtapoz, and it just really got me to thinking if that way of making art infiltrated our lil' bubble of the art world - how would folks feel? I mean, I agree for any artist to do three solo shows at once ala Murakami, one would need assistance, but what past greed is really fueling one to do this?
|
|
|
Post by steveinca on Sept 16, 2009 17:34:02 GMT -8
It definitely bugs me and it's definitely strange that it's accepted in the art world. I guess that once you hit a certain level, anything from your studio and your stamp on it is considered your art. Didn't the same thing happen with Warhol's Factory?
|
|
munin
New Member
?? si?mk ek meirr um Muninn
Posts: 4
|
Post by munin on Sept 16, 2009 20:38:51 GMT -8
As far as an artist needing helpers, I'm of two minds: for large-scale art or works that are composed of many pieces, such as those by Christo or Chihuly, or that requires many volunteers, such as Spencer Tunick's work, then I can be forgiving (actually, I think Chihuly is by majority a huckster, so I'm not that forgiving). However, needing helpers just to fuel a mass production of work could be driven by many things: greed, fame, consumer demand, or making the most of a brief moment in time.
Money is always going to be a factor, especially when you consider the time it takes an artist to establish their name/technique and sell enough pieces at a price to make a leap to full-time profession. The patron system died long ago and artists must eat--and don't have the security of health insurance, or 401Ks or other such things that 9 to 5 jobs provide. This being said, having helpers mass produce works that aren't "concept" driven does seem more greed driven.
Fame is fleeting and a harsh mistress, so cashing in the easy way is always an option, I guess. Art lovers always hope for "art as expression, not as market campaigns," but that's probably a distorted view in modern times.
Consumer demand will always dictate if a photographer sells multiple prints, or an artist sells giclee prints instead of only selling one original, or if a factory pumps out items that lend themselves to mass production such as vinyl figurines. Consumer demand is fickle, so I'm sure artists don't need much convincing to go a route like this, and it isn't necessarily "selling out" in my mind--it allows broad recognition, fulfills demand, and provides money that an artist's devotion to their craft deserves. The music industry relies on this approach: bands would never get rich or famous by only playing live gigs. Mass produced pottery, such as Red Wing, also lives in this realm.
Last, but not least, time is short. Whether said by Hippocrates' "Ars longa, vita brevis" or by Chaucer's "The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne," what holds true in the past holds true now. If an artist has a creative spark and people want the product, it's better to let the spark burn strong and produce as much as possible in what limited time may exist. But, by using other people to produce a series of works most definitely crosses a line if an artist merely signs their name.
I'm not sure I've answered your question, but maybe this is good discussion fodder.
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Sept 16, 2009 21:17:42 GMT -8
I'm sure this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I think a lot of mass-produced "conceptual" art is basically a huge joke at the expense of rich collectors who are buying art for the wrong reasons... because they think it will increase in value, or because they think it elevates them socially in one way or another. Because the work is usually loud and shiny, it seizes the attention of art critics and the media, who love a good spectacle, especially when there are celebrities and greed involved. This is art for people who buy a new Bentley every year, just on principle. This production model is not about art – it's about making money – and in fact a huge swath of this end of the market is controlled by a single family. Everyone always invokes Warhol at this point, but Warhol's market is a highly manipulated, artificial construct similar to a pyramid scheme. No one looks at a Warhol silkscreen and says, "That's so beautiful," or even, "I really like what he's saying with this piece." We look at a Warhol and think, "He was laughing all the way to the bank." Strangely enough, we admire him for that – after all, we credit that quintessential American, P.T. Barnum, with saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." I think many of the collectors and artists in the lowbrow/pop surrealism scene (though perhaps not the street art scene – e.g. Mr. Brainwash) are a little different. It seems we have in common a sort of nostalgia for a time when there was mystery and wonder, when things were handmade, when childhood was innocent, when nature was unspoiled, when art was beautiful. Before everything was made from plastic and sent in container ships from China, before the beaches were choked with condoms and needles, before kids grew up either behind walls or with a sense of constant peril, before we were bombarded with useless information day and night, before people forgot how to use their hands to create something meaningful and unique. Because of this deprivation in our everyday lives, we have an interest in studying a painting's brushstrokes, the little mistakes, the way the reflection in an eye was achieved with a simple flick of the brush. We have a hunger for the sensual qualities of the application of paint. We adore the creative madmen – Henry Darger, Eugene Von Bruenchenhein – who spent a lifetime pursuing their artistic vision without ever showing it to anyone. We want something in life to be about more than money. In times gone by, the great masters would employ a number of assistants to help them keep up with the market's demand for their individual aesthetic. Some would only let their assistants do the more menial work of mixing paints and preparing canvases, while others would allow them to complete most or all of a painting, and then affix their signature. Even hundreds of years later, it is possible to distinguish Rembrandt's hand from the hand of one of his assistants. Each great painter has a signature that goes far deeper than a mere sigil at the bottom of the painting. Technique is like a fingerprint, and an Audrey Kawasaki or Josh Keyes painted by another hand would just feel wrong. Those of us who are intimately familiar with their work would know it was ersatz. It's not something that can be mass-produced, like a spin painting, a cartoon, or a grid of pastel dots... what makes it amazing is its singularity of vision and execution.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Sept 17, 2009 0:05:19 GMT -8
I can see that Murakami is pretty much doing what many of the Minimalists like Carl Andre, Richard Serra and so on were doing. Many of these artists simply designed the work, and since they were either far too large in scale, or made out of materials that were often too difficult to work with they contracted outside sources to basically make the artwork. An Art Historian would explain that these works were less about being something that was a "product" and more that the concept was the art. The negative and positive spaces, the textures and materials. People tripping off of something made and not really thinking about whether or not the artist did it. I'm not sure if I would fully agree that these mass produced works are a joke at the expense of the buyer, even though I usually don't like these kinds of works. In a way I cant help but compare what artists like Murakami have done with the vinyl/toy collectibles. These are pieces of art that were designed by an artist and made by an outside source, boxed and sold openly as products. But they fetch some insane prices sometimes and are sought out as one would a paitning. Of course I leave out the collectibles that were altered by the artists hand. I don't think it would ever work for someone like Josh Keyes and Audrey Kawasaki to take on assistance, thats more Thomas Kinkade's style and one that has been heavily criticized. I do feel that the more artists that take the route of having less of their "hand" on the final works, will cause people to seek out those that make art with as little of pre-made materials as possible. Apricot Mantle is one these artists, going through the tedious process of custom making every frame for his artworks. I think artists that take this approach are for more interesting, and while they may never get as big as Murakami or others, they are at least creating works of art that a life to them. Something that makes them special, and taken care of and preserved out of respect as opposed to making sure the 1 of 10 collectible one has holds it value.
|
|
|
Post by steveinca on Sept 17, 2009 0:42:17 GMT -8
Many of these artists simply designed the work, and since they were either far too large in scale, or made out of materials that were often too difficult to work with they contracted outside sources to basically make the artwork. In regards to his large animal pieces(Golden Calf etc), does Hirst do this as well?
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Sept 17, 2009 1:10:42 GMT -8
Many of these artists simply designed the work, and since they were either far too large in scale, or made out of materials that were often too difficult to work with they contracted outside sources to basically make the artwork. In regards to his large animal pieces(Golden Calf etc), does Hirst do this as well? I asked one of my Professors about this a while back, not about that specific piece, but whether or not Damien Hirst had people working for him and basically creating his works. He seemed to think so, and even showed me some journal articles that talked about Damien's "assembly line" of workers. I personally believe that he has people make the Vitrine's for him, and then at least is engaged in a good amount of the assembly. For his piece "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" I know he paid a fisherman to catch the shark, and if the Vitrine was made for him all that was left was to put it all together. When Hirst had to replace the shark I know he also had help with getting the shark prepared to be entered back into the Vitrine holding it. I never really got into Damien Hirst, but another one of the "Young British Artists" that I always liked was Marc Quinn. His piece, "Self" the sculpture of his head made entirely with his own blood always fascinated me. It could be because I can't stand my blood being drawn, but Marc had to do draw his own blood (roughly 9.5 pints) over a period of 5 months to collect enough to make the head. Twice, once in 1991 and another time in 2001. Thats a "hands-on approach that I would rather skip.
|
|
|
Post by steveinca on Sept 17, 2009 11:31:49 GMT -8
In regards to his large animal pieces(Golden Calf etc), does Hirst do this as well? I asked one of my Professors about this a while back, not about that specific piece, but whether or not Damien Hirst had people working for him and basically creating his works. He seemed to think so, and even showed me some journal articles that talked about Damien's "assembly line" of workers. I personally believe that he has people make the Vitrine's for him, and then at least is engaged in a good amount of the assembly. For his piece "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" I know he paid a fisherman to catch the shark, and if the Vitrine was made for him all that was left was to put it all together. When Hirst had to replace the shark I know he also had help with getting the shark prepared to be entered back into the Vitrine holding it. I never really got into Damien Hirst, but another one of the "Young British Artists" that I always liked was Marc Quinn. His piece, "Self" the sculpture of his head made entirely with his own blood always fascinated me. It could be because I can't stand my blood being drawn, but Marc had to do draw his own blood (roughly 9.5 pints) over a period of 5 months to collect enough to make the head. Twice, once in 1991 and another time in 2001. Thats a "hands-on approach that I would rather skip. Thanks for the info my friend. Never heard of Marc Quinn before. Crazy stuff! Is this a pic of the piece you were talking about?
|
|
|
Post by morticide on Sept 17, 2009 11:32:44 GMT -8
I am what you would class as an artist's "assistant", although I just make panels and frames and gasp at the results. My personal take:
There are two (at least) kinds of talent involved, conceptual talent and artistic talent. A genius concept and a monkey-handed jab with a paint brush can create a masterpiece; or a significant emotion packed rendering of athletes foot could also be classed as a masterpiece. Some artists have buckets of both talents, some have none.
I think to get away with having other people involved with the production, you would need to have an extreme amount of conceptual talent and a lack of much artistic talent: for instance covering a park with thousands of red flags.
But more important in my mind is if you do use an army of helpers then this should be honestly and openly portrayed to the rest of the world. Other wise it would be as much cheating, as say, redoing a fashion photographer's entire artistic vision, concept and composition but with your artistic talent.
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Sept 17, 2009 12:20:21 GMT -8
Victor Vasarely & Mark Kostabi are two artist that come to mind. Both used/use assistants to produce work in say artist style and then the artist signs them making them their own? In the 80's & 90's both were hot sellers but I always felt I was cheating collectors. (My Martin Lawrence days) martinlawrence.com/kostabi.htmlExcerpt from Kostabi articleKostabi runs an ‘art factory’, with teams of assistants thinking up ideas and turning out art which, like a modern-day Andy Warhol, he then signs. He claims to sell almost 1,000 paintings a year at between $5,000 and $80,000. To do that, he has hawked his art in malls, and now also sells on eBay and even on a specialist shopping channel on Italian TV. The question is, does Kostabi really create art? He provides much of the inspiration - 50-99%, according to the article - but as he is not putting brush to canvas, is it okay that he signs the paintings and claims them as his own? Opinions differ, naturally, but from my point of view he can certainly claim ownership of the piece if one is to judge him by historical precedents - many of the best known artists in history had assistants in their studios, doing much of the work - and by modern copyright law. More hereallabstract.com/a0277606_Gustav_Klimt__Mark_Kostabi_Andy_Warhol_had_nothing_on_this_guy__Upcoming_Exhibitions__Baltimore_Museum_OF_Art_BMA.html
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Sept 17, 2009 14:39:02 GMT -8
Thanks for the info my friend. Never heard of Marc Quinn before. Crazy stuff! Is this a pic of the piece you were talking about? Yeh thats the first head that he made. The second one was ten years later, and I like how you can see his face aged. The first one I heard was at Saatchi's house, and somehow the freezer was unplugged so the head melted. The second head he made is here:
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on Sept 18, 2009 10:15:49 GMT -8
To compare the depth of Keyes work to Murakami and Koons is almost laughable. I wont argue the Koons side because I just dont know his work as well. I know Josh Is a popular guy on the forums and comes across quite friendly, but to me, the work is just kitschy and easy. Yes it is a nice message and rendered well, but it just leaves me blah. Murakami's work is so far from anime characters. His work is a running commentary on the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Japan and the rebuilding of a plastic, shallow culture that is veering away from the traditional ideals of ancient Japan. I feel he is far more successful at relaying the image in a poetic way than Keyes ever could be. And as far as rapper bears, its just more of the same. Similar to Banksy's morons, just much more subtle.
|
|
|
Post by thinkspace on Sept 18, 2009 10:46:13 GMT -8
I only used them as examples of two popular artists within in our lil' bubble of the art world. That's all.
If you want to take this to another level and bash artists, that's fine, that's not the point here. It's the method being discussed and how a bunch of assistants create most of his work. It's not that he couldn't create the work himself, he has in the past, it's just that he's going for such quantity right now that it is a lil' transparent as to why he's doing it ($$$), and just seems like you are getting a glorified hand-touched print to me when getting one of these new works or something.
But to come back with saying Keyes work is "kitschy" and defend Murakami's work with what seems like pull quotes from a show PR, is a bit laughable to me, bit I digress. Not like one could look at Murakami's work and get that is what he's going for (and who even knows if that's what he is going for, given how things are spin doctored to the moon at blue chip galleries to make the art seem 'smart' and beyond the perception of the common man).
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on Sept 18, 2009 11:03:45 GMT -8
Wasnt my intent to bash an artist. Dont really see how it was any different from your statement "how 'bout Keyes, who I feel is saying more with his work than Murakami or Koons could ever hope to."
but anyway...
I do agree that the over use of assistants is a bit grotesque. That said, Murakami's and Kaws' over supply/production line oriented work is part of the art itself. It's up to you as a collector as to whether it holds any merit. I think Hirst would have been a much better example.
The reason I defended the work is because it seemed that you so easily dismissed it. There are very few great artists out there that have something to say. And while you may not agree with his method, there is no arguing the strength and importance of the message.
|
|
|
Post by COOPER COLE on Sept 18, 2009 11:06:32 GMT -8
It definitely bugs me and it's definitely strange that it's accepted in the art world. I guess that once you hit a certain level, anything from your studio and your stamp on it is considered your art. Didn't the same thing happen with Warhol's Factory? You might find this an interesting watch if you have an hour to kill
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Sept 18, 2009 13:00:32 GMT -8
Murakami's work is so far from anime characters. His work is a running commentary on the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Japan and the rebuilding of a plastic, shallow culture that is veering away from the traditional ideals of ancient Japan. I feel he is far more successful at relaying the image in a poetic way than Keyes ever could be. And as far as rapper bears, its just more of the same. Similar to Banksy's morons, just much more subtle. Murakami says that's what his work is about, but we just have to take his word for it, because it's so impenetrable that there's no other alternative. It's just another iteration of the "intellectual" elitism that has dominated the art world for the past century, this time cloaked in cuteness (which, like a sugar coating on a bitter pill, makes it go down easier). We peasants are just too dimwitted to really understand concept, so we must wait for the artist and the critics to explain to us what we're supposed to see. Of course, the cute characters themselves appeal to a certain segment of these dimwits, as happily it's not essential to appreciate their "depth" in order to be entertained by cartoons. It's still beyond me why someone would spend $12,000 on two small pieces of canvas with designer logos printed on them, but like they say, there's a sucker born every minute. I guess in the art world "kitsch" just means "accessible to the everyman." That puts pretty much every painter previous to Marcel Duchamp in that category... and that's company I'm OK with keeping.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Sept 18, 2009 13:18:33 GMT -8
His work is a running commentary on the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Japan and the rebuilding of a plastic, shallow culture that is veering away from the traditional ideals of ancient Japan. I feel he is far more successful at relaying the image in a poetic way than Keyes ever could be. And as far as rapper bears, its just more of the same. Similar to Banksy's morons, just much more subtle. I think the right person could make as compelling of a statement with Josh Keyes, or anyone's work for that matter. With contemporary art, especially those artists from the 80's, half of the art was coming up with a powerful statement. The trick, is if you can get someone to read the statement, look at the art and think "yeh, I can see that". Art is such an amazing form of communication, and if a certain work of art or body of work needs to come with an instruction manual of sorts because what the fans are getting is so different that what the goal of the artist was, then to me that communication failed. I'm not that much of a fan of Keyes work, but once I read his statement, it wasnt far off from what I was thinking.
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on Sept 18, 2009 13:23:52 GMT -8
although away from the original point of the thread, that is kind of my point. Id rather be challenged to come up with a meaning, or be required to do some research/dig deeper, than to be spoon fed imagery on why I should be recycling.
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Sept 18, 2009 13:33:40 GMT -8
although away from the original point of the thread, that is kind of my point. Id rather be challenged to come up with a meaning, or be required to do some research/dig deeper, than to be spoon fed imagery on why I should be recycling. So would I. I love doing research. But in the end there is still that great feeling when you find out that what you felt about the work was close to what the actual intentions were, as opposed to learning about the work and thinking that maybe the artist is trying to tie two things together that might not fit. There's a professor in the art dept of my college, and when you read his artists statement and then look at the art, its so hard to not think that the statement was in fact trying to give more credit to the work than it actually deserved.
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Sept 18, 2009 13:53:57 GMT -8
although away from the original point of the thread, that is kind of my point. Id rather be challenged to come up with a meaning, or be required to do some research/dig deeper, than to be spoon fed imagery on why I should be recycling. In the end, it boils down to the difference between the "kitsch" artist who has the talent, skill and drive to eloquently convey the corner of human experience about which he's passionate, and the "conceptual" artist who chooses an object (a urinal, a balloon animal, a pickled shark, a cartoon character) to represent an idea which he lacks the skill to convey without words.
|
|
|
Post by sbgallery on Sept 20, 2009 6:29:50 GMT -8
I've never really looked down on an artist for the use of assistants, as long as it seemed like they actually needed them. For example, Thomas Kinkade does not need assistants. He should paint his paintings, sell the bejeesus out of his prints, and be done with it. He has assistants as a matter of commerce, which is unnecessary and lame. Banksy needs assistants when he wants to do something like his recent installation at the Bristol Museum. Banksy doesn't know how to cast porcelain, nor should he have to learn, practice, and perfect it just for one piece in an installation show that stretches across well over a dozen mediums. THAT is when use of assistants shouldn't even be questioned...it's clearly just a logistical necessity. The idea of someone like Audrey K. using as assistant would, in my opinion, be utterly and completely worthless. She's quite capable of painting her works herself, so unless she needs help branching into another medium with a hard-core learning curve (like ceramics or metal working) it would be of no benefit to her or her collectors. As for Hirst...my opinion of what he does is pretty low so whether he has help doing it or not doesn't really matter much to me. I've always been of the opinion that conceptual art is predominantly a marketing exercise...which is fine, really, as long as you aren't trying to make more of it than it is. When people talk about the "importance" of Hirst I start to giggle and go looking for the bar.
|
|
|
Post by thinkspace on Sept 21, 2009 12:21:35 GMT -8
Agreed on that point and didn't mean to throw dirt in either of their directions as well, but worded things in a way to get the discussion going, which it has. And yes, Hirst would have been a much more prime example of all this.
I went to the Murakami exhibit 3 times out here, don't get me wrong, just wish he put out less and put more of his own hand on it is all. He'd still be loaded, but maybe not enough so to employ so much help, which at the end of the day would be a good thing in my eyes, but as you say, it's really about the person buying it at the end of the day (and why they are doing so in the first place).
|
|
|
Post by sbgallery on Sept 22, 2009 7:11:20 GMT -8
I went to the Murakami exhibit 3 times out here, don't get me wrong, just wish he put out less and put more of his own hand on it is all. Agreed. Although I shudder to think how high his prices would be if he was making everything himself....
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Sept 22, 2009 20:33:06 GMT -8
Here's an article from the Financial Times that's very relevant to this topic and talks about the upcoming "Pop Life" show at the Tate Modern.
|
|
|
Post by sbgallery on Sept 23, 2009 5:35:38 GMT -8
Here's an article from the Financial Times that's very relevant to this topic and talks about the upcoming "Pop Life" show at the Tate Modern. Thanks for the read... I can't believe I never drew the parallel before, but Murakami seems to have simply set up his own Factory...but minus all the trappings that made The Factory so interesting and engaging. Or maybe that makes it more so?
|
|