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

91–100 of 159 posts

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

#91

Post by gcb0 »

mc32 wrote: post #84
TinyPants wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We identify and categorize products through branding, which often has very little to do with their corporate origin. The artist's name (and their story) is a brand.

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

look at fashion designers. almost all big brands still carry the name of one dead "artist" (eg. Channel). And in some cases, the living artist even sell the name so this happen sooner (e.g. marc jacobs, kate spade)

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

#92

Post by onemoresoop »

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…

This seems to be the reverse, the apprentice with financial resources asks the artist to build the work and then take the credit. They most likely give some headaches to the technicians when they don't know what they want or are unhappy with the results of the specifications

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

#93

Post by pbhjpbhj »

nailer wrote: post #65
extralego wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you point out an artefact that he instructed someone to make and then labelled as his own artwork? Or indeed a piece still called a DaVinci that it's accepted he has no hands-on input to.

FWIW we're not taking about apprentices doing blocking-in, backgrounds, or minor characters.

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

#94

Post by gcb0 »

MrLeap wrote: post #87
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?

Once most movies have digital reconstructions of dead actors, identity will lose meaning and I think we'll start seeing new works by picasso.

this won't happen with paintings because paintings are not art. They are artificially rare investments. The (financial) powers that makes a painter relevant will ensure new works, even if what you suggest happens, will never carry any value as it implies dissolving the value of previous works. Its the same mechanism that makes only dead painters world famous.

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

#95

Post by mc32 »

gcb0 wrote: post #91
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?

look at fashion designers. almost all big brands still carry the name of one dead "artist" (eg. Channel). And in some cases, the living artist even sell the name so this happen sooner (e.g. marc jacobs, kate spade)

I think you make a good point, although these have been more brands in the traditional sense who hire designers (who after making their mark) go off and found their own design house with new up and coming designers...

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

#96

Post by gergles »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #86
Balero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the people who only contributed financing gets a bigger cut just for already being rich.

Yeah, taking all the risk if the project fails is just their job for having the unmitigated temerity to be rich.

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

#97

Post by socrates1998 »

>'I can't believe they're not making that stuff, you're making it, so you're the artist, not them'. I think that's what the general population thinks.”

Yes, that's sure as hell what I thought. I mean, the whole point of being an artist is you create the work.

It's a lot less talent to tell someone what to do.

This article left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

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

#98

Post by knuththetruth »

jdietrich wrote: post #69
7952 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

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

#99

Post by GauntletWizard »

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…

A director still makes the movie, despite never appearing on film or touching the camera. Design and oversight can be a large part of the finished product. There's no doubt that Chihuly is an artist despite never touching the pieces. He's not their only artist, though. I think that his technicians should be demanding credit. Movies come with credits, why shouldn't other forms of collaborative art?

As to the specific case: living in Seattle, I heard nothing but bad things about Chihuly himself, and experienced it firsthand; he was presenting at a Sounders game, and had made a piece to be given to the opposing team. About halfway through the first half I headed in for a snack and the club was dead except him ordering something in front of me. While they were getting his order he turned and looked at me, and I said something simple and nice about his piece. He scoffed dismissively and his handler moved between us. Just came across as snotty.

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

#100

Post by analog31 »

flanban wrote: post #76
analog31 wrote: post #71

I'm a musician, and a lot of these ideas are familiar. But I wonder if the music scene is a little bit more mature or realistic (searching for a word here) about it. A work can go through a lot of different hands before it reaches an audience. People are fully aware of this. Yes, a few people get screwed, but others make an honest living as "technicians." It's been a reasonable side income for me. And except at the s…

More mature or more commercial? You're talking about making money, but no mention of making music. A better argument is that art is getting more technical. or even just that's it's getting physically bigger. Also, when music is commercial it's still called music. Art stops being art when it's made for money. It becomes illustration, design, decoration or some such thing. Historically a lot of EU or American artists a…

Even within noncommercial (e.g., academic) music, there is still certain amount of division-of-labor. Also, one person may perform multiple roles, e.g., composing their own music while also working for other musicians, doing production work, teaching, etc.

I suspect most musicians also don't draw a bright line between artistic and commercial work.

Post reply on HN