I read an article yesterday at the Cluster Mag about the ever-widening circle of art-superstars who never actually participate in the fashioning of their own work. While this is nothing new, the recurring image of toiling masses laboring to produce works of supposedly high aesthetic rank always, well, rankles. I’ve always had a pretty general disdain for this sort of hierarchical creative process, with its cynical manipulation of our culture’s lust for both the celebrity velvet-rope sausage factory and the shiny dream-deferred golden ticket mirage. How important can one person’s ideas really be? The dreck dripping from the orifices of culture is a byproduct of our over-consumption of this art-world Olestra, the product that aims to provide the mouthfeel of real emotional involvement with creativity, but which causes an unfortunate level of leakage. We need more real-time, real-world collaboration, not this pseudo-epic horseshit.
Whose Art Is This, Anyway?
January 28, 2013
agreed!: “How important can one person’s ideas really be”
I do often think about all the talented people working for these big names, who then make much less of their own work or take never get a chance to take on some real collaboration with the big name. I at least wish the celebrities would credit their “workers” in the shows. But alas it all seems about branding.
Now I need to get me interns over here to finish cutting some linoleum for me.
It’s true. So many talented folks I know, to pay the bills, either handle and package art or produce it for more “successful” artists.
I would love to see a challenge to the notion of artist as producer, it could be as simple as presenting work as a “collective” or “collaboration” under their name. Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Banksy, are brands and companies, why not credit all that had a hand in the process. It would be way more interesting to me.
Pete,
I’ve got to get back to printing some street artists edition and build another Chris Stain installation (Just kidding).