Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 159 posts

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#41

Post by Alex3917 »

sageabilly wrote: post #30

One of the longstanding examples of this that immediately sprung to mind is Dale Chihuly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly ), the renown glass sculptor. Except Chihuly has not physically produced ANY of the glass sculptures attributed to him since 1979: "...he continued to blow glass until he dislocated his right shoulder in a 1979 bodysurfing accident. No longer able to hold the glass blowing pipe, he hir…

So there’s basically three different definitions of art:

- A work of art, i.e. an artifact

- The skill used to create something

- Something original that changes another person

When we talk about an artist we’re usually talking about the last definition. So technical skill might be required, but the person with the technical skill isn’t necessarily the artist.

E.g. before Jeff Koons went into art he was one of the most talented commodity salespeople of all time. That skill is really the basis of his art, not polishing the metal or whatever.

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#43

Post by fredophile »

sageabilly wrote: post #30

One of the longstanding examples of this that immediately sprung to mind is Dale Chihuly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly ), the renown glass sculptor. Except Chihuly has not physically produced ANY of the glass sculptures attributed to him since 1979: "...he continued to blow glass until he dislocated his right shoulder in a 1979 bodysurfing accident. No longer able to hold the glass blowing pipe, he hir…

I'd put that kind of contribution on about the same level as the conductor for an orchestra or the director for a movie or play. The same piece of music played by the same musicians can have noticeable differences depending on the conductor. Similarly, choosing a different director can have a noticeable impact on a movie or play despite having the same script and cast.

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#44

Post by extralego »

pastage wrote: post #39
lizardskull wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Very little is actually about execution, because the execution's primary purpose is to represent the idea. It's the actual idea that contains the values.” This quote from the article is a strange reflection of what the world of software development teaches.

My take on it is that it is the artist that brings the idea and make it come to light, they do this by letting other people do the work but they are still the visionaries and in charge of the execution of art. Good examples of ideas and execution is plentyfull in both software and art, just because you get both of them right doesn't mean you will succeed.

This just doesn’t represent reality of contemporary art. It’s a bullshitters game. These artists almost never even have a vision that is important to them. They behave as such, but the project motivations are consistently reflexive. They are just a response to what they thing will help their recognition. This is just not about expression.

Historically, this is extremely wrong. Renaissance artists were the technicians of course. That’s what they were known for.

This is the rot of an industry built on extracting funds from overly wealthy patrons with no limit to the amount of dishonesty.

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#45

Post by protonimitate »

pmoriarty wrote: post #2

As an artist, this article makes me so upset. The people doing the actual work should be getting credit. Of course the people coming up with the ideas should be getting credit too. When one person comes up with the idea and another with product, it's a collaborative work and credit should be shared. Artists who try to pass off a work they merely collaborated on as exclusively their own are despicable.

I wish the crews would receive more credit as well.

A good analogy would be if Hollywood films didn't list credits and pretended that only the director worked on the film and did everything by themselves.

It would be insulting for people to believe that a director did 100% of the work on one of their films and ignored the entire crew. Not sure why this doesn't apply to the art world where teams are way more common than people believe.

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#46

Post by heavenlyblue »

sageabilly wrote: post #30

One of the longstanding examples of this that immediately sprung to mind is Dale Chihuly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly ), the renown glass sculptor. Except Chihuly has not physically produced ANY of the glass sculptures attributed to him since 1979: "...he continued to blow glass until he dislocated his right shoulder in a 1979 bodysurfing accident. No longer able to hold the glass blowing pipe, he hir…

>> It's an interesting thought experiment about what art actually IS: is art the idea behind the piece? Is it the skill that the individual has in physically bringing the piece to life? If the person with the vision doesn't physically produce the outcome, is it still their art?

I sincerely enjoy the fact that people regularly visiting Hacker News think that is an "interesting thought experiment", in the context of art.

Isn't that an interesting thought experiment to question what does a CEO do, for example? But it isn't, since people on HN are mostly familiar in detail with what a CEO does. On the other hand art is somehow assumed to be a special case in our world.

These are two absolutely equivalent questions.

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#47

Post by mattkevan »

Hendrikto wrote: post #17
mattkevan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skill and art are not necessarily linked. It's possible to be a craftsman without being an artist, and vice versa. Think of a fabricator as an OEM. iPhones are manufactured by Foxconn, and I'm sure their technicians contribute greatly to the manufacturing and design, but it's still the Apple logo that gets stuck on the back.

I wouldn‘t call an iPhone a piece of art though.

The Design Museum in London has pretty much everything Jony Ive ever designed in their permanent collection.

They certainly are art in this context.*

And I'd argue that Apple are one of the few tech companies that genuinely view their products as art objects, as well as being boxes of mass-produced consumer technology.

* There's a wider question about whether the mere act of displaying something in a gallery makes it art, but its one that many fine art postgrads haven't been able to get to the bottom of yet :)

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#48

Post by extralego »

jp555 wrote: post #18
pmoriarty wrote: post #2

As an artist, this article makes me so upset. The people doing the actual work should be getting credit. Of course the people coming up with the ideas should be getting credit too. When one person comes up with the idea and another with product, it's a collaborative work and credit should be shared. Artists who try to pass off a work they merely collaborated on as exclusively their own are despicable.

Isn’t this kinda like the the difference between a chef and a cook? Many cooks work for a chef, and some grow on to become chefs.

Not at all. The technicians get no credit; never actually have any chance to “grow on”.

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#49

Post by emodendroket »

sageabilly wrote: post #30

One of the longstanding examples of this that immediately sprung to mind is Dale Chihuly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly ), the renown glass sculptor. Except Chihuly has not physically produced ANY of the glass sculptures attributed to him since 1979: "...he continued to blow glass until he dislocated his right shoulder in a 1979 bodysurfing accident. No longer able to hold the glass blowing pipe, he hir…

I'd say in both cases it's pretty much a no. To take another example, producers have input into a movie but nobody would credit them as the sole or even primary movers.

Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?

#50

Post by extralego »

nailer wrote: post #20
oytis wrote: post #11

Pretty what should have been expected after we alienated skill from art.

Skill isn't required to make or present something that has an emotional reaction. Major artists have often had external craftspeople - Leonardo Da Vinci had a workshop.

Can’t see your point at all. Leonardo is the most famous of all the artist/technologists.
Post reply on HN