The class discussion centered on whether it was okay or not to work in an artist's painting sweat-shop. Surprisingly, several people thought it was a perfectly acceptable route to take. I totally disagree with this. This is not some kind of Shaolin temple, where the sensai gives the pupil seemingly menial tasks, but is in fact training that pupil to be a great karate master. A sweat shop is a sweat shop, no matter whether you are producing sneakers or you are making paintings. While it is true that sculptors often require skilled help to realize their projects, I would like someone to name a single decent painter who had assistants do their work. Rubens often had assistants help him with parts of his paintings, and his paintings suffered greatly for this. The only motive for an artist to have assistants do paintings for them is purely financial.
-JP
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
word up, jim. i agree.
Dear Jim,
I just started to read your blog. I fell a little bit behind in my classes and I regret it cause there is a lot to say about your comments.
when it comes to what you call sweatshops for artists for instence. I do admit that some artists are asswholes that had somehow money falling on their head (trustfunds babies I call them) and they just use art as a big game forcing people to play with them. But we also have to take into concideration that contemporary art most often involves ideas than techniques. In conceptual art, the idea is more important than who made the actual art.
In photography, it is VERY common that artists use assistants to take their pictures for them. Controlling the setup and the objects, they let assistants figure out lighting and crap like that. The work of art is done. A lot of photographers are also their own models. Cindy Sherman, Niki Lee... they all use assistant. Cindy Sherman thought like you when she started, and she was using mirors and hard core setups to take pictures of herself thinking that if someone else pushes the button it is going to be someone else's work...
Who pushes the button is not important. Who created the image is...
I
i think what jim is referring to is not the actual use of assistants per say, but the abuse of power that results in paying people less than they need to survive (e.g. mark kostabi paying $7.00 to highly skilled painters who are in turn paying nyc rent- or tryng to anyway). when he turns around and sells the painting for several hundred thousand dollars. it just seems unethical much in the same way that the practices of walmart or nike do. obviously if an atist is not as successful and making less oney then they have no choice but to pay low wages to their help, but those lucky rich bastards should share the wealth!!
Kostabi is for me a very uninteresting topic, but as I heard it through the grapevine he is hardly employing "skilled" painters...more like folks just arriving from Ellis Island who are asked if they are any good at making pictures. Also of note is that Kostabi's enterprise, as I understand, consists of a hierarchical scheme with Kostabi at top as CEO followed by an 'idea team' and then the manual laborers. The paintings are pathetic in every imaginable way. Also, having known persons who are assistants for such names as Joseph Kosuth it seems these big names can act as good networking tools, etc.
Post a Comment