When I was a senior at McDaniel College, Chakaia Booker came to give an Artist Talk. Her work is unique, interesting, and I identified with her. She does sculpture with an unusual material and that was my focus at the time.
It’s a question that has continued to bother me for some time now. It’s her idea, her concept, but a team of assistants are physically putting the pieces together… not her.
Researchers/Scientists do the same thing. An undergrad on their team will break the code, but because the researcher is advising their name goes on it.
Do you think that is fair?
I’m truly perplexed. As a cosmetologist I know what it is to be an assistant. When I was still in school for cosmetology, I was a shampoo assistant for a few months. The assistant does literally all the work. The stylist only touches up the head at the end; plucks a few curls out here and there, and sends the person on their way. Here’s the clincher, the assistant gets maybe a five dollar tip, but the stylist $65 and the recognition.
Having been in that position I don’t think you should get to call something your work (exclusively) if you only oversee. I don’t care how busy you are, or how large the demand for your work is.
I’m too big of a control freak to ever let that happen. As a stylist, I rarely use the assistants I have access to. If I’m able, I’ll do it. As an artist, I’ve never even dreamed about having another person assist me in anything other than an opinion. Art is too personal for extra hands.
What do you guys think?
I guess it depends on the type of art that is ultimately produced. For example, if Michelangelo had his apprentice carve out the statue of David, while he stood in the back giving instructions, I don't think he should get all the credit because much of the "art," specifically for the statue of David, is a direct result of the "skill" needed to carve out shapes as opposed to the "skill" of verbally directing someone else on how to carve out shapes. I think the same can be said for most paintings.
ReplyDeleteHowever, many artists like Michelangelo had apprentices that often did copies of their masters work. Recreations are a constant business in the art world.
So if you have two identical statues of David at the end, one done by the hand of an apprentice and one done by the hand of Michelangelo, I'm sure the apprentice's version would sell for less even though the two works are physically identical.
So in a way, much of what people consider "great art" is more about opinion as opposed to product.
If you look at the work Chakaia Booker I'd condsider how much "skill" is needed to create her statues and/or should it be a piece by piece examination.
Some works are so huge that it's physically impossible for the artist to work on it by hand so they direct a crew, much like a director would utilize a film crew. And much like film, the more control a director has over the making of the film, the more they are responsible for the end product.
I think that you have some valid points but knowing that this happens a lot in the art world, it really does become more accepted. How this would transfer over to many other fields would be interesting to see. For example, I had heard of a writer who states out loud all his ideas and of the other person who puts his ideas together...humm...so- who is the real writer? But back to art- too many times I have heard of the "helpers" getting no credit but at least they get the practice to one day get their own "helper."
ReplyDelete