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

141–150 of 159 posts

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

#141

Post by gukov »

knuththetruth wrote: post #98
jdietrich wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The act of painting is largely orthogonal to the act of persuading an oligarch that your painting is valuable. Which is more an indictment of the Capitalist system than anything else.

Is there a better way of assigning/determining value? Make everything equal? Randomly pick one? The first one to market wins (essentially what we have right now)?

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

#142

Post by JamesMcMinn »

jdietrich wrote: post #68
JamesMcMinn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 particula…

> It's exactly what's being discussed here.

No, it's not. There is no training being given. These are not apprentices learning how to create art, they are skilled professionals carrying out work that the artist themselves is often incapable of. An apprentice learns their skills from their master and could be seen as a creation of the master, art technicians are simply there to do the work.

> 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?

No, and I never said I was outraged at the art technicians not getting credit, since they themselves are certainly don't seem to be. However there the public perception is that the artist who gets the credit is the one who did the majority of the work when this if often not the case.

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

#143

Post by MrLeap »

pmiller2 wrote: post #120
MrLeap wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't imagine some marketing firm deciding to call new works "Effluvia, by Pablo Picasso"? No arguing it wouldn't have the value of an original, but I'd wager everything it would sell for more than the same thing by Josh Leap. I'm thinking black webpages with pencil thin white fonts. You have to scroll down like 3 meters of page before you get to any content, it's just tag lines every break, staggered on either s…

I can imagine the art world rejecting a newly produced work by Picasso. In fact, it’s already happened: many forgeries have been made and disclaimed over the years. The difference is just that a truly new “Picasso,” marketed for what it is would not land anyone in prison.

I'm not talking about forgeries, I'm talking about paying artists to ghost draw for you, and coming up with flowery language to obfuscate, but not defraud the fact it is a "re-imagining". Think the albums released by Tupac since his death.

If you want some added legitimacy, drop a paint chip from an authentic Picasso into the mix, homeopathy style. If no one will let you do that, pay someone with some Picasso's to let you leave your paintings in the same room as them for a few weeks. Then, pay someone to write on behalf of the people who did the painting to say they "felt Pablo's spirit working through them, guiding their hand."

Get a descendant to sign off on how emotionally impactful and authentic the whole thing feels and I think you've got a high 5, low six figure painting. Do like 5 of them for your grand debut and I think we have a real RoI.

Yeah a ton of real artists will loudly decry it, articles will be written, teeth will gnash -- but I think they would sell with little to no difficulty.

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

#144

Post by MrLeap »

TheGRS wrote: post #118
MrLeap wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't imagine some marketing firm deciding to call new works "Effluvia, by Pablo Picasso"? No arguing it wouldn't have the value of an original, but I'd wager everything it would sell for more than the same thing by Josh Leap. I'm thinking black webpages with pencil thin white fonts. You have to scroll down like 3 meters of page before you get to any content, it's just tag lines every break, staggered on either s…

I think this vision of the future is a little too despondent for my first cup of coffee.

Sorry if I brought you down. Despondent is where I tend to go when I prognosticate. There's nothing sacred when it comes to people making money.

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

#145

Post by wmf »

filleokus wrote: post #121
mc32 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, I wonder, once the “artist” dies, can the brand continue to produce with the same or better renown?

I haven't read a Tom Clancy book in ages, but it was just very recently I learned that he had died, and that the books with Tom Clancy written all over them in the airports in fact were not written by him.

If you see "Tom Clancy" on the cover he probably wrote it but if you see "Tom Clancy's" that's a sign that somebody licensed his name. The same for Sid Meier's Civilization and such.

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

#146

Post by yellowcherry »

pmiller2 wrote: post #120
MrLeap wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't imagine some marketing firm deciding to call new works "Effluvia, by Pablo Picasso"? No arguing it wouldn't have the value of an original, but I'd wager everything it would sell for more than the same thing by Josh Leap. I'm thinking black webpages with pencil thin white fonts. You have to scroll down like 3 meters of page before you get to any content, it's just tag lines every break, staggered on either s…

I can imagine the art world rejecting a newly produced work by Picasso. In fact, it’s already happened: many forgeries have been made and disclaimed over the years. The difference is just that a truly new “Picasso,” marketed for what it is would not land anyone in prison.

Picasso is kind of an interesting example. In his later years, he got involved in ceramics, working with a small factory in the south of France. He turned out hundreds of designs, some made by the factory artisans in editions that ran into the 100s of copies.

For years they were ignored, but they've been growing steadily in value as they come to be seen as worthy Picasso works in their own rights.

They aren't really "new" Picassos, but they hadn't been considered as valid as they are now.

http://observer.com/2015/04/so-you-want-to-own-a-picasso/

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

#147

Post by itronitron »

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…

Chihuly is a bit different from other artists that have art technicians make the work for them. Chihuly is a skilled glassblower as are the others on the team and they are all internationally recognized. Glassblowing is a craft so has a history of technical craftsmen.

Modern art does not have that craftsman history but is more known for the 'lone genius'. Public sculpture is a little bit different as it does often require access to industrial tools and materials. Tony Smith would sketch plans for his steel sculptures and send them to an industrial fabricator.

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

#148

Post by megy »

Balero wrote: post #37
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…

The music industry seems to have a pretty good solution for this. The performer gets a cut. The lyrics writer gets a cut. The melody writer gets a cut. I'm sure something similar could work. I'm also recovering from just finding out that the process I thought happened behind artwork was largely false, and has more in common with renaissance painting businesses than the title artists work.

Right, but does the drummer bought in get a cut? Or the bass player? No, if they aren't part of the band.

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

#149

Post by emodendroket »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #89
emodendroket wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You do get movies that are credited mainly to one person, primarily as a marketing thing, but still. (In showing my age here, but first movie examples that spring to mind) Steven King's ..., Steven Spielberg's ..., I'm not sure if they're all called Steven though. Some artists get credit akin to celebrity authors on books a ghost-writer wrote.

Of course, but my contention here is that the director of a movie or the author of a book it's based on has a substantial contribution to driving the work and it is essentially his "vision," while in some of the cases described in this article what is happening is more that an "artist" is putting their name on someone else's work to which they made little contribution.

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

#150

Post by jp555 »

extralego wrote: post #48
jp555 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

Anything a sous chef invents becomes the creation of the chef they are working under.
Post reply on HN