32 ms·

>> It's an interesting thought experiment about what art actually IS: is art the idea behind the piece? Is it the skill that the individual has in physically br

>> It's an interesting thought experiment about what art actually IS: is art the idea behind the piece? Is it the skill that the individual has in physically bringing the piece to life? If the person with the vision doesn't physically produce the outcome, is it still their art? I sincerely enjoy the fact that people regularly visiting Hacker News think that is an "interesting thought experiment", in the context of art. Isn't that an interesting thought experiment to question what does a CEO do, for example? But it isn't, since people on HN are mostly familiar in detail with what a CEO does. On the other hand art is somehow assumed to be a special case in our world. These are two absolutely equivalent questions.

protonimitate 8y ago
>>On the other hand art is somehow assumed to be a special case in our world. I think this is most due to a romanticized vision of what an artist really is/does. When people think artist, they think of the starving-artist stereotype - locked away alone in their studio pursuing their passion and living in poverty to 'do what they love'. Or, the crazy-genius archetype (think Van Gogh). People attribute creativity to 'natural talent' or 'artistic genius', when it's really a skill that can be sharpened the same as running a business like a CEO would. Craftsmanship and creative vision are two sides of the same coin art, just as they are in business. You can have a killer business idea, but it's worth nothing without proper execution. The same goes if you are a skilled programmer but have no vision on how to sell your skills.
- discreteevent 8y ago
  > when it's really a skill that can be sharpened the same as running a business like a CEO would Running a business is not the same as visual art, literature, mathematics, physics. Most people will spend years sharpening their skills at these things and never produce something of note. It's not romantic to say this, it's just the way it is.
ballenf 8y ago
You make a strong point, but I would argue there's more subtlety than you acknowledge. At least there are other metaphors that might shed light on the idea of agency. For one, there's the coach of a team sport. We don't say that the coach played the game, but we do credit them with being a vital part of the team's success or failure. These artists seem more like coaches than CEOs to me. One big difference between artists and both CEOs and coaches is that the products of an artists are standalone, enduring (except for some new media works) pieces. And I think that difference makes artists and the analysis of a technician in the production of any piece a somewhat unique situation.
- trocadero 8y ago
  A coach is different because the players get one chance to play the game. Art can be redone as many times as you have the time and resources for. When doing that directing the iterations and making the final selection becomes the important thing. For example, take this piece from the GP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihuly_at_Kew_Gardens_043.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihu... How much credit Chihuly deserves varies wildly with how that piece was made. If he had merely said "Make me some yellow/orangish flowers" then he doesn't deserve much credit. If the ~40 flowers we see were the result of 1,000 attempts with him directing ("Make this one 1" bigger, this one less orange" etc.) then he deserves almost all the credit.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    A common idiom on HN is that "ideas are cheap". The artist has the ideas, we often naively credit then with the implementation too; the implementation isn't 'the easy bit', it's an essential part of creating an artistic work. Duchamp's fountain is a fine idea that continues to inspire newcomers to that age-old what-is-art question; but truly the material science and manufacturing process and craftsmanship that went in to that urinals design and production are a cause celebre - greater than Duchamp's idea by far IMO. Now reflect on Warhol's prints; derivative instead of visual design rather than artefact production. But Warhol designed and created the works. IMO: commissioning art doesn't make you the artist of a final work that required artistic and crafting input from others. Warhol is the artist of his self-made silk prints; Duchamp's input to Fountain is curating, or social commentary. The same is true in architecture,"Wren's" St. Paul's Cathedral would be nothing without the skilled masons. There's a line there somewhere though -- I wouldn't include the sandwich makers, the steeplejacks, et al., A amongst the creators of that work, ... (This all brings to mind Gaia Hypothesis.) Ah, says the modern artist, but the art I create is the image/idea in your mind and the medium I use is other artists and craftsmen ...
window-maker 8y ago
This is a little egotistical of you I think. It is only your opinion. A CEO is generally in charge of maintaining something that already exists. An artist is creating something from nothing. Maybe a 'founder' fits your example better.
pdpi 8y ago
Except we attribute the product to the company, not the CEO. Wouldn't the equivalent be "This is a MyArtStudio piece of art", rather than "this is a piece of art by pdpi"?
- TinyPants 8y ago
  We identify and categorize products through branding, which often has very little to do with their corporate origin. The artist's name (and their story) is a brand.
  - mc32 8y ago
    But, I wonder, once the “artist” dies, can the brand continue to produce with the same or better renown?
    - MrLeap 8y ago
      Once most movies have digital reconstructions of dead actors, identity will lose meaning and I think we'll start seeing new works by picasso.
      - gcb0 8y ago
        this won't happen with paintings because paintings are not art. They are artificially rare investments. The (financial) powers that makes a painter relevant will ensure new works, even if what you suggest happens, will never carry any value as it implies dissolving the value of previous works. Its the same mechanism that makes only dead painters world famous.
        MrLeap 8y ago
        You can't imagine some marketing firm deciding to call new works "Effluvia, by Pablo Picasso"? No arguing it wouldn't have the value of an original, but I'd wager everything it would sell for more than the same thing by Josh Leap. I'm thinking black webpages with pencil thin white fonts. You have to scroll down like 3 meters of page before you get to any content, it's just tag lines every break, staggered on either side of the page. "After more than a century" "We revived the master" "Witness history being made at <blahhbhablh> on <date>" Then they hold an auction, pay a descendant or two some money and book their trip to Aspen.

protonimitate 8y ago

>>On the other hand art is somehow assumed to be a special case in our world. I think this is most due to a romanticized vision of what an artist really is/does. When people think artist, they think of the starving-artist stereotype - locked away alone in their studio pursuing their passion and living in poverty to 'do what they love'. Or, the crazy-genius archetype (think Van Gogh). People attribute creativity to 'natural talent' or 'artistic genius', when it's really a skill that can be sharpened the same as running a business like a CEO would. Craftsmanship and creative vision are two sides of the same coin art, just as they are in business. You can have a killer business idea, but it's worth nothing without proper execution. The same goes if you are a skilled programmer but have no vision on how to sell your skills.

discreteevent 8y ago
> when it's really a skill that can be sharpened the same as running a business like a CEO would Running a business is not the same as visual art, literature, mathematics, physics. Most people will spend years sharpening their skills at these things and never produce something of note. It's not romantic to say this, it's just the way it is.

ballenf 8y ago

You make a strong point, but I would argue there's more subtlety than you acknowledge. At least there are other metaphors that might shed light on the idea of agency. For one, there's the coach of a team sport. We don't say that the coach played the game, but we do credit them with being a vital part of the team's success or failure. These artists seem more like coaches than CEOs to me. One big difference between artists and both CEOs and coaches is that the products of an artists are standalone, enduring (except for some new media works) pieces. And I think that difference makes artists and the analysis of a technician in the production of any piece a somewhat unique situation.

trocadero 8y ago
A coach is different because the players get one chance to play the game. Art can be redone as many times as you have the time and resources for. When doing that directing the iterations and making the final selection becomes the important thing. For example, take this piece from the GP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihuly_at_Kew_Gardens_043.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihu... How much credit Chihuly deserves varies wildly with how that piece was made. If he had merely said "Make me some yellow/orangish flowers" then he doesn't deserve much credit. If the ~40 flowers we see were the result of 1,000 attempts with him directing ("Make this one 1" bigger, this one less orange" etc.) then he deserves almost all the credit.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  A common idiom on HN is that "ideas are cheap". The artist has the ideas, we often naively credit then with the implementation too; the implementation isn't 'the easy bit', it's an essential part of creating an artistic work. Duchamp's fountain is a fine idea that continues to inspire newcomers to that age-old what-is-art question; but truly the material science and manufacturing process and craftsmanship that went in to that urinals design and production are a cause celebre - greater than Duchamp's idea by far IMO. Now reflect on Warhol's prints; derivative instead of visual design rather than artefact production. But Warhol designed and created the works. IMO: commissioning art doesn't make you the artist of a final work that required artistic and crafting input from others. Warhol is the artist of his self-made silk prints; Duchamp's input to Fountain is curating, or social commentary. The same is true in architecture,"Wren's" St. Paul's Cathedral would be nothing without the skilled masons. There's a line there somewhere though -- I wouldn't include the sandwich makers, the steeplejacks, et al., A amongst the creators of that work, ... (This all brings to mind Gaia Hypothesis.) Ah, says the modern artist, but the art I create is the image/idea in your mind and the medium I use is other artists and craftsmen ...

window-maker 8y ago

This is a little egotistical of you I think. It is only your opinion. A CEO is generally in charge of maintaining something that already exists. An artist is creating something from nothing. Maybe a 'founder' fits your example better.

pdpi 8y ago

Except we attribute the product to the company, not the CEO. Wouldn't the equivalent be "This is a MyArtStudio piece of art", rather than "this is a piece of art by pdpi"?

TinyPants 8y ago
We identify and categorize products through branding, which often has very little to do with their corporate origin. The artist's name (and their story) is a brand.
- mc32 8y ago
  But, I wonder, once the “artist” dies, can the brand continue to produce with the same or better renown?
  - MrLeap 8y ago
    Once most movies have digital reconstructions of dead actors, identity will lose meaning and I think we'll start seeing new works by picasso.
    - gcb0 8y ago
      this won't happen with paintings because paintings are not art. They are artificially rare investments. The (financial) powers that makes a painter relevant will ensure new works, even if what you suggest happens, will never carry any value as it implies dissolving the value of previous works. Its the same mechanism that makes only dead painters world famous.
      - MrLeap 8y ago
        You can't imagine some marketing firm deciding to call new works "Effluvia, by Pablo Picasso"? No arguing it wouldn't have the value of an original, but I'd wager everything it would sell for more than the same thing by Josh Leap. I'm thinking black webpages with pencil thin white fonts. You have to scroll down like 3 meters of page before you get to any content, it's just tag lines every break, staggered on either side of the page. "After more than a century" "We revived the master" "Witness history being made at <blahhbhablh> on <date>" Then they hold an auction, pay a descendant or two some money and book their trip to Aspen.