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

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

#61

Post by oytis » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:26 PM UTC

mattkevan wrote: post #15

oytis wrote: post #11

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

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.

That's how industry works. I don't know the details of Iphone business model, but they could in theory let all the components be manufactured by Tier-1s, let all the software be written by outsourcers, let the design and integration be done by someone else and only leave branding and marketing to themselves. But I would kind of expect of an artist to be a little bit more than self-brand manager.

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

#62

Post by wolfgke » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

oytis wrote: post #51

wolfgke wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work. And a modern artist told his technician how to do his work. In this sense, I think the boundary is much more fluent. In my personal opinion, the artist is the person who has the "most established name" to sell the piece of art that he branded under his name to rich people.

Then maybe these rich people should get the credit for the piece of art, because it's their willingness to pay their money that makes it valuable.

What you are joking about is in my opinion much more serious than it looks like at first appearance. Why do you think so many rich people love to spend lots of money to have e.g. buildings named after them (for example at reputable universities)?

So your suggestion, of course refined gallantly in a way that makes it presentable in polite society, does not sound that absurd to me.

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

#63

Post by ballenf » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:29 PM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #46

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 ar…

You make a strong point, but I would argue there's more subtlety than you acknowledge. At least there are other metaphors that might shed light on the idea of agency.

For one, there's the coach of a team sport. We don't say that the coach played the game, but we do credit them with being a vital part of the team's success or failure. These artists seem more like coaches than CEOs to me.

One big difference between artists and both CEOs and coaches is that the products of an artists are standalone, enduring (except for some new media works) pieces. And I think that difference makes artists and the analysis of a technician in the production of any piece a somewhat unique situation.

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

#64

Post by cbcbxxx » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:34 PM UTC

The value of art today (and since the rise of avant-gardism) is highly contingent on context, the positioning of an object/gesture/operation within x context.

This article is essentially addressing the classic 'art vs. craft' question. From the perspective of art history, the technician, here, is not understood as the artist. She is understood as a skilled laborer who will be properly remunerated upon completion of her work (regardless if the work sells).

The other individual is understood to be the artist because it is she who 1) had the initial will/reason to make the work, 2) conceived of the idea and the object-form that this idea would take, 3) will assume risk for the work even if it 'fails,' and it is through _her_ history of production (and not that of the technician's) that the work will be valued and possibly historicized.

The canonical reference for the 'art vs. craft' question is Duchamp, who in 1914 presented his "Bottle Rack" as his art (an industrially produced rack for drying bottles) and later his famed "Fountain" (an upside down porcelain urinal) deeming them "ready-mades."

A more recent example can be found in the work of Jeff Koons. See this conference from 2008 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mbnWJNUtEc "The Koons Effect: Fabrication: Between Technology and Craft"

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

#65

Post by nailer » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:39 PM UTC

extralego wrote: post #50

nailer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK. What specifically don't you understand? Leonardo being the most famous and still using craftspeople was my point.

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

#66

Post by window-maker » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #46

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 ar…

This is a little egotistical of you I think. It is only your opinion. A CEO is generally in charge of maintaining something that already exists. An artist is creating something from nothing. Maybe a 'founder' fits your example better.

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

#67

Post by flanban » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

mattkevan wrote: post #47

Hendrikto wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would argue that the fact it's in a design museum rather than an art museum makes it design in that context.

Speaking very broadly: Designers manifest other people's ideas for money. Art is more when you bring your own ideas into the world because you want to.

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

#68

Post by jdietrich » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

JamesMcMinn wrote: post #14

jdietrich wrote: post #3

For as long as there have been artists, there have been apprentices. Sometimes those apprentices went on to become renowned masters, sometimes they languished in obscurity.

Except that's not even remotely the issue being discussed here. This is about artists going to people who are already experts in their field and having them construct the art, but taking (or being given) all of the credit for it.

It's exactly what's being discussed here. Historically, this kind of operation is the norm rather than the exception. If you walk around the Louvre or the Met, a large proportion of what you see will have been painted largely or wholly by an apprentice or assistant. Many Renaissance and Baroque masters ran something akin to a factory, with each painting being the product of several artists specialising in a particular task. The idea of art as the personal product of a singular genius is largely a work of romantic mythology, continued into the present day as marketing puffery for the art industry.

Are you morally outraged that Marc Jacobs does not personally cut and sew every garment bearing his name? Are you shocked to learn that many pop stars are entirely unable to write, produce or play music?

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

#69

Post by jdietrich » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 1:51 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #23

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.

In software development I tend to believe that the idea is not particularly valuable. The real value is being able to implement an idea effectively. That is what makes a great product work. It is striking how differently the art technicians in this article think. They see the idea as having all the intrinsic value. More cynically I wonder if it is really the marketing value of a big name rather than the quality of id…

In a capitalist system, the economic value of anything is whatever the market is willing to bear. That economic value is largely uncorrelated with any particular assessment of intrinsic value.

Like many businesses, the art business is primarily driven by marketing. The act of painting is largely orthogonal to the act of persuading an oligarch that your painting is valuable.

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

#70

Post by trocadero » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #63

heavenlyblue wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 ar…

You make a strong point, but I would argue there's more subtlety than you acknowledge. At least there are other metaphors that might shed light on the idea of agency. For one, there's the coach of a team sport. We don't say that the coach played the game, but we do credit them with being a vital part of the team's success or failure. These artists seem more like coaches than CEOs to me. One big difference between art…

A coach is different because the players get one chance to play the game. Art can be redone as many times as you have the time and resources for. When doing that directing the iterations and making the final selection becomes the important thing. For example, take this piece from the GP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihu...

How much credit Chihuly deserves varies wildly with how that piece was made. If he had merely said "Make me some yellow/orangish flowers" then he doesn't deserve much credit. If the ~40 flowers we see were the result of 1,000 attempts with him directing ("Make this one 1" bigger, this one less orange" etc.) then he deserves almost all the credit.