3 ms·

It's not about apprentices, it's about people, technicians, actually making the 'objects' for and in place of the artist whose name is linked to the 'objects'.

by s3m4j 8y ago

It's not about apprentices, it's about people, technicians, actually making the 'objects' for and in place of the artist whose name is linked to the 'objects'. Because often those artist don't have the technical know-how or tools to make something. So they pay someone to make it. Hence the problematic question.

magic_beans 8y ago
How is this different from Rembrandt slapping is name on his apprentice’s work?
- oytis 8y ago
  Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work. Apprentice's skill is the result of master's work. That makes a huge difference to me.
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work. And a modern artist told his technician how to do his work. In this sense, I think the boundary is much more fluent. In my personal opinion, the artist is the person who has the "most established name" to sell the piece of art that he branded under his name to rich people.
    - oytis 8y ago
      Then maybe these rich people should get the credit for the piece of art, because it's their willingness to pay their money that makes it valuable.
      - wolfgke 8y ago
        What you are joking about is in my opinion much more serious than it looks like at first appearance. Why do you think so many rich people love to spend lots of money to have e.g. buildings named after them (for example at reputable universities)? So your suggestion, of course refined gallantly in a way that makes it presentable in polite society, does not sound that absurd to me.
        s3m4j 8y ago
        Considering the etymology and historic origin of "artist" as a skilled artisan. It's not even that novel an idea. Lots of things we consider art pieces are named after the buyer and not what we consider now the artist.
jaclaz 8y ago
I was a teen when my father did most of the technical work (of course the actual building was done by construction firms and carpenters) for this (1978) exhibition in Florence by Dani Karavan: http://www.danikaravan.com/portfolio-item/two-environments-for-peace/ http://www.danikaravan.com/portfolio-item/two-environments-f... The artist actually sculpted everything in clay (in scale models) or made rather accurate sketches on paper, then they were adapted/modified slightly (and interactively with the artist) to make them actually "buildable" (either in wood or in pre-cast concrete) and transportable to the exhibition site. It never came to our minds that the "art" in the scupltures was not entirely by the artist, my father considered himself an artisan, and simply executed (well and in practice) what the artist view was.

by s3m4j 8y ago

magic_beans 8y ago

How is this different from Rembrandt slapping is name on his apprentice’s work?

oytis 8y ago
Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work. Apprentice's skill is the result of master's work. That makes a huge difference to me.
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > Cause Rembrandt actually teached that apprentice how to do his work. And a modern artist told his technician how to do his work. In this sense, I think the boundary is much more fluent. In my personal opinion, the artist is the person who has the "most established name" to sell the piece of art that he branded under his name to rich people.
  - oytis 8y ago
    Then maybe these rich people should get the credit for the piece of art, because it's their willingness to pay their money that makes it valuable.
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      What you are joking about is in my opinion much more serious than it looks like at first appearance. Why do you think so many rich people love to spend lots of money to have e.g. buildings named after them (for example at reputable universities)? So your suggestion, of course refined gallantly in a way that makes it presentable in polite society, does not sound that absurd to me.
      - s3m4j 8y ago
        Considering the etymology and historic origin of "artist" as a skilled artisan. It's not even that novel an idea. Lots of things we consider art pieces are named after the buyer and not what we consider now the artist.

jaclaz 8y ago

I was a teen when my father did most of the technical work (of course the actual building was done by construction firms and carpenters) for this (1978) exhibition in Florence by Dani Karavan: http://www.danikaravan.com/portfolio-item/two-environments-for-peace/ http://www.danikaravan.com/portfolio-item/two-environments-f... The artist actually sculpted everything in clay (in scale models) or made rather accurate sketches on paper, then they were adapted/modified slightly (and interactively with the artist) to make them actually "buildable" (either in wood or in pre-cast concrete) and transportable to the exhibition site. It never came to our minds that the "art" in the scupltures was not entirely by the artist, my father considered himself an artisan, and simply executed (well and in practice) what the artist view was.