Artists under control

Over an early breakfast this past Sunday, a friend mentioned to me that he didn't understand how some "artists" can think of an idea for "art purposes", have others actually produce a piece based on it (ex. do the actual painting or drawing), and still have all artistic credit go to the original "artist".. and not the person or persons who did the implementation. At this point I should mention - if you did not know this already - that I have no formal art background and approach the subject of art as an outside (but semi-educated) observer (and, um, "fan"). ;)

My first response was basically to say that your perspective on the matter comes down to your definition of art in general, and, by corollary and for the specific case my friend was talking about, painting too. Is art the "thing" or the "idea" behind it? Or something else altogether?

Most people's concept of art, at least at first (and, many times, forever), is that of a static object: a drawing, a painting, a sculpture, or perhaps even a piece of jewelry. Certainly this concept of art being a "thing" is classic, proletariat, and, perhaps, the most primal function we can subscribe to. So, if it's not exactly how I would think about "art" *in my bones* (or genes), it certainly is how I think about it per my original social conditioning. And, for sure, it is a good place to start your exploration of the subject.

But even though I do like the ability to own and "control" an actual piece of art (craft and beyond!), I can also appreciate an expanded definition - one that includes higher levels of abstraction or episodic action, however ephemeral or bidirectional (from artist to viewer and back, onwards and onwards).

But before we get into semantics or wordworkings-of-layered-design, why don't we see if there is historical precedence relevant to my friend's observation that started this discussion? That is, are there other well-established artists who did not actually "construct" all their work? I believe that there are plenty, but a few come to mind immediately:

Jeff Koons
Damien Hirst
Thomas Kinkaid

And a few from further back in time:

Duccio
Rembrandt
Michelangelo

Do you consider these people artists (before you read this anyway)? You probably have to say yes. Did you know that other people produced many of their most famous works (even as the artist designed them fully)? If you say no, then you have to ask yourself if you still consider these people artists. But if you say yes (or, you said no, but still consider these folks artists), then we do have some historical precedence for the phenomena.

As such, an expanded definition of art would include the possibility of one putting forth an "artistic idea", no matter how it is implemented, and still be recognized by the public as the artist in the equation. And I don't think we can stop there; the concentric circles of recognition (for art) have accelerated their rate of inclusion in the last 150 years (vs. the prior few millennium of human existence); there is much more to be had (and be defined)! For example, art also considers context: environmental and temporal (and fashionable) conditions. However, I think that discussion is beyond the initial query (and, for now, my attention span).

But before we call it a day, we could also consider if an artist can contribute anything else to a piece, besides "just" the idea (that they have not implemented themselves). Given there is a need to finance artistic creation, we should also think about the artist's place in the market. In this way, they can also be providing a commercial outlet for the work; that is, a network of people that know and (hopefully) appreciate the artist - and are willing to pay a premium for something with their name on it (over a lesser-known compatriot).

And what do the people making the art pieces get out of it? Is it only for the money? I would think that for some, yes, it is only a matter of money, but there are plenty of intangibles to be gained from this sort of relationship (at the sacrifice of personal fame - if only temporarily). There is the chance to hone skills, be exposed to new ideas, and, perhaps most importantly, meet the gallery dealer of your dreams.. or, at least, the gallery dealer's assistant.