Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
1–10 of 159 posts
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#2As 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.
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#3For 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.
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#4For 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.
It's not about apprentices, it's about people, technicians, actually making the 'objects' for and in place of the artist whose name is linked to the 'objects'. Because often those artist don't have the technical know-how or tools to make something. So they pay someone to make it. Hence the problematic question.
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#5[deleted]
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#6This is basically the plot (in my opinion, anyway) of Exit Through the Gift Shop
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#7This is awful, of course, but nothing new. Plenty of painters sold their students’ work under their own names. Rembrandt is an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/arts/design/06rembrandt.h...
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#8For 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.
It's not about apprentices, it's about people, technicians, actually making the 'objects' for and in place of the artist whose name is linked to the 'objects'. Because often those artist don't have the technical know-how or tools to make something. So they pay someone to make it. Hence the problematic question.
How is this different from Rembrandt slapping is name on his apprentice’s work?
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#9As 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.
If the technicians want credit, they should put it into the contract. If their input into it is a bought-and-sold commodity, which it seems to be, then they’re being paid in lieu of credit. Ghost writers will get paid different amounts depending on if they get to self-attribute or not.
Re: Art technicians: The industry’s dirty secret, or all part of the process?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about apprentices, it's about people, technicians, actually making the 'objects' for and in place of the artist whose name is linked to the 'objects'. Because often those artist don't have the technical know-how or tools to make something. So they pay someone to make it. Hence the problematic question.
How is this different from Rembrandt slapping is name on his apprentice’s work?
Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work. Apprentice's skill is the result of master's work. That makes a huge difference to me.