return to, the home of critical reviews

Re: that's not the point!

From:     E
Category: Art
Date:     26 October 2009
Time:     01:39 PM


Yes, but...

the point of the article was asking whether Hirst is calling time on
the sort of work he and many others were producing before. 
The use of assistants to produce the work - the ability to throw
money at an idea and have it produced beautifully, is it too slick, too easy? 
Are there too many artists doing it? Is it an interesting process, to get
other people to solve the problems of making your own work? or does
it just enable you to produce more product more quickly?

Or is it interesting to see the artists own hand in a piece of work so, through
time, you can see a progression in what they're doing and in their understanding 
of what they're doing and how they're doing it. 

Making your own work, your own marks is like learning a language, it can
be clumsy and awkward at first, but with time you learn it's structure, also it's
peculiarities, it's difference to the way you speak your own language.
Using assistants is like hiring a translator, quick and effective but you never
learn anything about the language or the people that use it. (If that's not stretching
the metaphor too far.)

It's obviously a question which divides the art world. There are many disgruntled artists
who feel that the hand of the artist and the process of making the work are important. 
There are also many artists who think that doesn't matter, the only thing of importance is the idea, 
the object is redundant. But doesn't that take away the act of creation, what it is to make/paint/sculpt/etc
something yourself, by your own hand?

return to, the home of critical reviews