Should artists have assistants to make their work?

Apparently this practice is still not widely known to exist. The truth is, its been going on for centuries. Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Moore all had assistants employed to help them complete their work. I'm sure it was needed too given how much they were in demand to produce new work all the time.

Of course, my first reaction to this question posed was 'well I would if I could!' Not many artists have the luxury of actually being in a position where they can employ people to help realise their work on a massive scale.

This is limited to those established variety.

But even if they can afford to employ and even be busy enough to require them in the first instance, does it take away from the work 'they' are creating?

An article in The Guardian a number of years ago by Rose Aidin addresses this issue amongst others:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/oct/12/art

Being removed from your work such as Damien Hirst asking assistants to create his spots paintings, is he still the artist then?

The question then i suppose is "What is the 'art' here, the concept or the craft?"

The truth being if I was loaded and wanted to buy one of Hirsts spot paintings I would want to know is was actually created by him and his sweaty little hands, instead of letting his assistants do it while he marches to off to the bank.

But then I suppose its then a brand your buying. Of course I don't expect Gucci or Armani to individually sew all his clothes before trucking them over from the factories himself and selling it directly to me. Maybe then this is how we should see artwork? A label?

But surely this takes away from the uniqueness of the piece; I wouldn't want to buy or view the Mona Lisa and find that everyone on has a version painted by his assistants on every street corner.
So too, the artist should want to get his or her hands dirty no? Personally speaking, its only then you find that concepts, ideas, your craft evolves as you are there developing the piece seeing it grow. Would you get that if you had assistants? Not so sure.

Conceptual or Commercial?

So the debate over the last two weeks in the SWA house - should we be putting a commercial or a more conceptual slant into our exhibitions? Should they be exclusive? Does one override the other?

The truth being a matter of a nice balance of both seems to be the most sensible. We want to be able to showcase great contemporary work of all practices but like with anything we need the capital to do it.
Putting on an exhibition costs money, through promotion, and the curators time, as well as artists material expenses. In the ideal world we would want to be able to pay the artist for their showcasing their talent not just pay them for materials. This time next light year Rodney when we have found the right formula, which once again comes down to this debate, how much Commerical? How much Conceptual?

Of course some pieces can be both, but not all. I can only assume very few people would want a film of an ass crack suspended over a circle of short film work named Moonlighting, created by Fine Artist Ed Jones. The day we sell that to put in someones living room I promise to eat my left shoe. But the point of the piece isn't to appeal to the buying market, its appealing to the art viewer, the art appreciator. The entertainment of the piece is right there in the exhibition space, to view, enthuse and move on. Of course if someone wishes to buy it this is a bonus. An unlikely happening, but still a bonus.

This is why we need funding in the first off, before the exhibition begins to enable the exhibition to be realised fully, and to get the general public to want to come in and see it. And yes we do our exhibitions for the public, for everyone, not just the elite 'artist circles' you can get in some areas. This is the problem with contemporary art or any art for that matter, why just open the doors to a select few? Art is for everyone. Anyway I'll get off my soapbox on that matter and come back to it on a another blog post.

So back to buying, selling, buying, selling. Of course the more we sell the more we can reinvest into the SWA to enable us to put on more shows and show off the great talent we have here in the South West, dahling. But if its all pretty 2D work that people are happy to take away and put above their mantle piece then some of the magic of an art show can be lost. The exhibition is the entertainment, well thats what we believe anyway. The exhibition should be curated in such a way the space is alive with work, concepts, musings, ideas, debates, entertainment.
Getting the funding to do this however, is now minimal. We aren't big enough yet to compete with the organisations that get over £100k a year from the Arts Council, but we are keen on getting even a percentage of it if it means the artists and the general public can enjoy something a bit different. That however isn't as easy as it may sound either. Hundreds of man hours filling in proposals , funding applications to get £100 isn't that appealing I have to admit.

So we are back to selling! The scrap yard show was intentionally bereft of 'sellable' work. The space warranted a more conceptual theme, the poundbury garden centre show however has a more open element of people coming in to 'buy' something, usually some pesticide and bulbs but if there is some artwork in the space that takes their eye then we hope to sell it to them. Then we can always have the odd conceptual structure that has the viewer enthralled, entertained, but not necessarily a piece they can buy.

For now thats the way to play it, I think anyway. Of course if we sell both commercial and conceptual in one show I'll eat both my shoes. As then I'll be able to buy a new pair!

If you are around between the 14th - 30th August pop in to the Poundbury Garden Centre, see what you think of the mix.