'The Art Of Not Making' Explores The Intentions And Effects Of The New Artist/Artisan Relationship (PHOTOS)

There was a time when the artist at work meant hours of solitude, piles of tossed-out failed works, and clothes covered in smudges of charcoal and paint. Talk about stressful. Now many artists use artisans to do the dirty work and actually create their pieces. Does this completely upend the traditional definition of an artist? Well... maybe.

While in theory hiring artisans is a strange concept, the practice arguably goes back to the Renaissance, with artists such as Bartolommeo (Baccio) Bandinelli using assistants to execute a piece. Rodin also used a number of assistants to help create his sculptures. The book 'The Art of Not Making: The New Artist/ Artisan Relationship' by sculptor and MOCA London director Michael Petry explores the budding relationship between artist and artisan.

Petry expands upon two main effects of the new intermediary artisan. One is the popularity of the object, made to riff off the commercial or mass-produced aesthetic. Secondly, as Petri says: "the museological space, for better or worse, is also very interested in spectacle, which requires bigger kinds of works, which are almost never made by one person." Now that the role of artist is no longer limited to a single entity the possibilities for creations are infinitely expanded.

This peculiar new dynamic gives birth to many questions: who gains ownership over the work, the creative or the creator? At what point between 'vision' and reality is the art in essence produced? Who maintains authorship over the works? Is authorship even relevant in today's vocabulary? Petry explores these questions and more through interviews with both artists and craftsmen.

Check out a slideshow of some of the 115 artists mentioned in Petry's book; we have to say, the works do look good, and often even 'beyond handmade.' You can also see more artists who don't create their own work over at Flavorwire.

What do you think? Is this a harmonious relationship where everybody wins? Or are big-name artists squeezing the labor and talent from anonymous workers?

Comments

[gouache]

05:32 PM on 02/09/2012

as an artist, this makes me really sad. do your own artwork!

[William Wray]

05:24 PM on 02/09/2012

If an “artist” doesn’t make the art he’s not an artist, he’s a
Entrepreneur.

[RandyMan7027]

11:38 PM on 02/05/2012

"According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author. In some countries, this is known as corporate authorship. The incorporated entity serving as an employer may be a corporation or other legal entity, an organization, or an individual."
-----
It is this onerous provision of US Copyright law that has for decades enabled corporate giants like the Disney Company to pay little more than a token salary to legions of artists and craftsmen who have generated billions in profits. In virtually every case --except for some elite performers-- both the "creative and creator" are sucked dry and left with no participation in royalties, licensing or product sales while the corporation is free to exploit their work for a full 90 years! Mind you, the limit used to be 70 years but Disney opened offices and greased a lot of palms in Washington and succeeded in getting the law extended by another 20 years. Why you ask? Because Mickey Mouse was about to turn 70 and fall into the public domain.
------

The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Actor as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, passed in both houses of congress by voice vote making it impossible to determine who voted for or against.

[giuseppe de piero]

02:56 PM on 02/05/2012

..I have seen many an insignificant concept disguised by exquisite craftsmanship...

[SocBeat]

11:02 AM on 02/05/2012

"Does this completely upend the traditional definition of an artist? Well... maybe."

Well... maybe not. For centuries that was exactly how painting worked. The Master ran the studio, with a team of apprentices who did the dirty work, including painting backgrounds, minor characters, clothing, and sometimes even major components of the painting, while the master supervised the work and attached his name to the piece.

The artist is the director rather than cameraman.

[allhands]

01:47 PM on 02/06/2012

That's just wrong. You're re-writing history. While painting was often the product of a studio or workshop involving apprentices working under a master, that is not the same as supervision by a master who wasn't himself a painter. The term "master" implies he had himself mastered the art. The absurdly extreme division of labor between the head and the hands which informs the idea of "the art of not making" is a modern invention. Painters of the great eras of painting would have understood that the way we -- at least for now -- understand that one can't be a chef and do nothing but write recipes.

"The art of not making" is just the latest iconoclastic, but hollow, idea from an "Art World" that's abandoned its mission to help sustain material civilization and represent the actual arts.

[SocBeat]

03:40 PM on 02/07/2012

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the master wasn't a painter in the scenario I described. I just said that the idea that a master's painting was actually painted in its entirity by the master is often wrong.

[William Wray]

05:25 PM on 02/09/2012

but he could paint and he did the main thrust of the art. A lot of "artists" today can't do what their assistants can do.

[brflux]

08:37 PM on 02/04/2012

It is better for an artist to hire someone that posses a skill to make something if the artist does not have the skill to make the work. There is nothing worse than see bad craftsmanship of a good idea.
Artist cannot master every skill possible.

[allhands]

12:19 PM on 02/06/2012

2 responses:
1. Yes, but then in those instances "the artist" shouldn't get all the credit. The collaboration should be acknowledged.
2. You're ignoring that craft is the source and foundation of artistic expression, not incidental to it. (Historically the art-craft distinction is very recent, and in fact artificial.) Art isn't pure idea illustrated or demonstrated by physical objects. It's the expression of our engagement with materials and craft traditions and, most fundamentally, human need -- the inspiration for all the arts. Remove that engagement altogether and you cut off the blood and nutritional flow to the body.

[brflux]

09:08 AM on 02/07/2012

If the artist paid the craftsman to make the object then no credit is due it is not a true collaboration. It is work for hire. Donald Judd, Andy Warhol et al never credited the manufacturer for industrial production. I am not ignoring craft. I stated that if an artist does not know how to build or make something well then the artist should hire a person who knows how to make the object. If my work calls for well build plywood boxes with finished edges and I do not have the skill to make them well. Then I would hire a carpenter to make them. I would not credit the carpenter as co-maker.
If I ask another another artist to collaborate directly on a project and we both contribute work of the idea and physical object etc then we are collaborators and will be credited as such.

[William Wray]

05:28 PM on 02/09/2012

That theory is responsible for idea artists ( writers) turning skilled artists in wage slaves. The only way to right the ship is for the artist to learn to draw and paint well.

[brflux]

11:06 AM on 02/10/2012

It's not about learning to draw and paint well. My statement (explained poorly) was about artists that want to but cannot build structures or objects. I would rather they hire someone that can to make some of the work. I would rather see the idea made well by a craftsperson hired by the artist then a poorly crafted object made by an unskilled artist. Skilled artist do not need to be wage slaves. They should charge what they think their skill is worth. I am a pretty skilled artist in many media but there are simply some skills I do not possess nor do I have the time to learn. I hire an art fabrication company to make a few bits. This fabrication company is not cheap to hire. I pay the wage they ask for because I value their labor and skill. I do agree that artists should learn better skills but like any field their are specialists that fill a need. Artist have always hired foundries to cast bronze work. I would not consider casting foundries to be wage slaves hired by writers.
Just my other two cents.

[nastywolf]

02:22 PM on 02/04/2012

Back in the 1970s, when I attended school on the eastside, MMOA had an exhibit of amazingly lifelike figures in various situations, including a couple having a soda at a cafe table. All the details were perfect EXCEPT for the fact that there was no change on the little round table. So, I left forty nine cents. A month later the change was still there. That was my contribution to the arts and I'm proud to say that my work was featured at a major institution of the arts.

[Nico Wood]

02:11 PM on 02/04/2012

Collaboration is wonderful, beautiful, and productive. Working with other artists to actualize a vision that you could not produce alone is not a crime. But when one person gets all the credit and the other people's names are not even listed, I think that's a problem. When Tim Burton makes a film, we all know who's "vision" it was, but at least every person who helped gets a shout out in the credit sequence.

[BMHVR]

02:06 PM on 02/04/2012

Is it just me or does any of you feel the uncontrollable urge to beat this yellow things mercilessly with a baseball bat?

[MaybeMilo]

02:18 PM on 02/04/2012

?

[Caryn Banker]

07:35 PM on 02/04/2012

Don't know if it was only you, but I want to snuggle up on it and watch TV. It looks like one of those TV pillows.

[BMHVR]

12:12 AM on 02/05/2012

What??? It looks like a giant baby rat except yellow instead of pink. For God's sake, someone call the Orkin Man!

[allhands]

02:04 PM on 02/04/2012

This isn't new. It's called division of labor.

Let's be clear: there's a difference between, on the one hand, collaboration & master-apprentice relationships, and, on the other, a complete division of labor between head and hand. The latter has been the cause of much misery -- and mediocrity -- in the modern world. It debases the primal human activity of making -- an activity that makes us human -- and is essentially dehumanizing.

Damien Hirst defends his spot paintings, few of which he painted himself, with the argument krayonc sites here: "Is an architect wrong for not doing the construction all by his or herself?" Not at all. But let's bear in mind that the word architect means master builder; an architect who has no grounding in the art of building, no respect for the craft of building & the actual builders, is at best mediocre at his art form & at worst a dictator. A designer who has no respect for the actual work of making something degrades & denigrates both the act of making and the maker.

In any case, I'd ask, Can one be a chef & never cook but only write recipes? The arrangement invites mediocrity.

Not making is BY DEFINITION not art. Webster's: "Art: human ability to make things; creativity of man as distinguished from the world of nature."

[Caryn Banker]

07:48 PM on 02/04/2012

Fanned and faved. As a former costume designer, I often had a costume shop of 10-20 people actually constructing my designs for a play. I also had years of experience cutting, stitching, dying/painting and crafts/prop-making behind me. I did know designers who did not have that experience and yes, they often came into a problem of drawing something that was impossible to make and arguing with their shop that "Anything should be possible!" (only after a lot of tweaking until it was fairly unrecognizable).

I definitely understand there is worthwhile pieces and installations that need more than one pair of hands to accomplish, but still, IMHO the 'Artist" should be deep into that process, just like the chef in their dishes.

Hirst, I think is just thumbing his nose at the 'Art-World', critics, viewers and everyone by having his assistants paint simple spots, the idea of which have been done before by other artists, and slapping it up in an exhibition.

[William Wray]

05:32 PM on 02/09/2012

Right on. Your one of the brave one's man.

[ckimble]

01:19 PM on 02/04/2012

This has been a trend, and an excuse (imhp) ever since Duchamp proclaimed that art is the idea and Warhol created The Factory.

Art has become manufacturing where the artist barely, if ever, gets his hands dirty. Making art is a process between artist, idea and material. The art is in the making, not in the naming.

What Duchamp was proclaiming was the birth of conceptual art, not the birth of the assembly line.

[Caryn Banker]

08:00 PM on 02/04/2012

I think both Duchamp and Warhol were actually making statements about those very things. They did it on purpose. (Duchamp) Absurdist art: the absurdity of 'Art' itself and (Warhol) the Factory: The assembly-line manufacturing of EVERYTHING in our modern world.

Not meanings or messages that invite a whole movement or trend, IMHO, but you're right, it seems to have become a trend nonetheless.

[ckimble]

11:56 AM on 02/05/2012

You're right about Warhol, but I have to wonder of his intent to expose the hypocrisy. Sure, you can read his work that way, but it's hard to say for sure because he was so invested in the system. There came a time when he ceased being an outsider and you can't keep your perspective and maintain the distance necessary to point out the flaws in the very thing that you're heavily invested in.

Fine line here and if you look at the work of Warhol throughout his career, you can see the decline. He loved being an insider.

[krayonc]

12:29 PM on 02/04/2012

Is a composer wrong for utilizing other musicians to bring their music to life? Is an architect wrong for not doing the construction all by his or herself?

[pandarzan]

12:28 PM on 02/04/2012

Is a Valentino, not a Valentino because it is sewn together by an artisan with a needle and thread?

[ckimble]

01:13 PM on 02/04/2012

Not Art. Design. And yes, there is a difference.

Both can be beautiful but does a Valentino have any meaning?

[Ellen Dennis]

12:11 PM on 02/04/2012

Nothing new here folks. Theatre designers have, for decades, created images that many skilled artisans/artists bring to fruition. Bronze artists have submitted their works to skilled forges to have their work realized. Some folks are great at the "vision thing" and some are great at the artisanal thing and both find comfort inspiration and mastery in their respective niches.

[William Wray]

05:42 PM on 02/09/2012

It’s not the same thing. The artist s in the cases you’re talking about is copying the art to another scale or format. When the artist today doesn’t do any of the art, there is a disconnect. If you can’t see that you’re simply an improperly formed fetus disguised as a human. Arrogance is not insight.

[Max Thorvald]

11:39 AM on 02/04/2012

It's Rauschenberg, not Rauchenberg. Why is the HuffPo cutting back on editors? Fact checking, editing, spell checking...stay in school kids.

[Dorblu]

12:55 PM on 02/04/2012

Ha...good editors are artisans too!

[Thisbeautifulplanet]

01:05 PM on 02/04/2012

Zero journalism. Did they ever go to school?