At the end of last class I touched on the fact that so many contemporary artists use outside help to complete their art works these days. Fabricators, technicians, artisans with special skills, assistants...all these people factor into our current culture of art production. We watched how artist Maya Linn works closely with collaborators in order to achieve public, architectural endeavors but still has the need to work alone and with her own hands to complete certain art works. I also mentioned artist Jeff Koons and said how he runs a factory like studio where he personally doesn't really make the work. That he has a large team of people who work for him to manifest his ideas. There is an excerpt from a series on the Sundance Channel called Iconoclasts on Koons currently on You Tube...it is where one type of celebrity(mostly in a creative field) interviews another, it is worth checking out...also worth looking at is his myspace page... www.myspace.com/jeff_koons. The video with him talking in front of people working in his studio is interesting. I would like everybody to take a look at this and give me your honest opinion on what he is saying and what is happening around him. Also this brief article talks directly about Koons's most recent exhibition ttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92873040This practice raises questions about art, artists, and their practices. Questions like: If an artist doe not actual physically touch the work that is called his own, is it really his work? Is the actual art, the idea, or is it the object? Does the artist that has fabricators create the physical work have work that is in some way diminished because the artist did not use his own hands to create the work? Historically, did artists rely on others so much...if so how does that vary from how artists work with collaborators today?
Please address one or more of these questions and comment...
27 comments:
I think that everyone who helped in creating the piece would be considered artists including all those who designed the piece and those who physically did the labor to creat it. The "laborers" would not be able to construct the piece without the design from the origional "artist" and the "artist" would not be able to creat his/her work without the "laborers". Everyone plays an important role in the creation of the piece therfore all should be considered artists.
I do indeed agree that they are all artists in their own right, however, who is to say that these "workers", if you will, could have created the image of the artwork without the assistance of one Mr. Koons? I don't think his artistic ability is to be downplayed, but to be viewed as a new way to develop art.
To me, Jeff Koon's art seems more like an exploitation of the idea of art and artists. He states "my motivations are to achieve the most I can to my potential, it's really kind of the only thing I know how to do," yet he doesn't exactly participate much in the act of art making, he just has ideas-everyone has ideas. His name is placed on the piece of art, and he is rewarded with the fame for the piece of art, but the most creative thinking and intelligent construction was done by an anonymous team of people. Koons is clearly educated about the true concept of art: that it is in the eye of the beholder; however, his idea of what it means to be an artist is skewed. In the video clip we saw about Maya Linn, she was obviously involved and constantly thinking as her art emerged-still active within the process of creating her art. Jeff Koons in contrast simply observes his workers creating art and feels his position as the famed artist was fulfilled when he proposed the idea to make the giant balloon animal and has no second thoughts about actually participating in the physical making of the art piece. I do not condemn the works his workers have produced, but I do not believe he should be the only person accredited for these creations. In my opinion he is the owner of a company of artists more than he is an artist himself.
I do not believe that Jeff koon should be considered an artist. he has no active particapation in creating these works of art. I give Jeff Koon's some credit for coming up with the ideas that creates, but has no personal touch to the pieces that his workers create.
i think the person with the idea should be credited because just because someone can create something doesn't make them an artist, some people have great ideas but not the ability to create them physically. Without the assistance of an "artist" they cannot fully create what exactly the idea is. I think as long as they work together on ever aspect of the piece and the BOTH of them understand fully the idea and its value then the person with the idea and its creators should both be considered artists
when watching jeff koons video on his myspace and listening to him talk really made me think. he created all these ideas but he was having other people make them a reality. i think all the collaborators should be given credit also if it werent for them then he wouldnt be where he is today.
yes he came up with the ideas but he didnt really follow through with them. in maya linn's video that we saw we saw her working with contractors and other architects for what she was doing but we also saw her working with her hands and creating something out of the atlas. jeff and her compared are two completely different artists, in my opinion i dont really consider jeff koon's and artist, i think of him more of the guy who creates the ideas and gets all the credit for it.
In a cases like koons the i dont see the people who help make his pieces artist, see them more as factory workers. But in other cases like apprentinces for example i see them as artist. I also think that if an artist doesnt make the piece it is still theirs because it their idea, but it also the person(s) who help make it work to.
Great insights on J.Koons by all of you...he is tricky and maybe a little too slick...it is hard to say, but I too am challanged by what he does and how he presents his process and work...are there other artists through history who had assistance with their work?...how did they collaborate with others? How does it vary from Koons and Maya Linn?
Its difficult to decided if someone should get credit for something they didn't create. At first I think that they should get credit because it is their idea after all. When you look at it again you see that even though it is their idea they could have virtually no talent and an idea and still be considered an artist. I could hire people to make an idea for me. Would that make me an artist?
I believe Jeff Koons is full of crap. yes, his ideas the start of a work of art but he doesn't actually perform physical work into any of his pieces therefore he is not a real artist. I feel if you a passionate/serious artist you want to get "down and dirty" and into your art literally. you need to make your personal touch not someone else's skill.
One of the questions was, if an artist doesn't touch the art, is it still their art? I used to do ballet, so it's easier to use that as an example. The choreographer is the one who makes up the entire dance, but they don't actually go out on stage and dance the piece. It's the dancers who do that. Does this make it any less the choreographers piece of art? No, it's their job to come up with the idea and have the help of the dancers to carry out that idea. The same goes for something such as the pyramids, someone came up the idea and carried it out to the best of their ability with the help of others. Jeff Koons however, strikes me as the type who just mentions the idea and doesn't actually make it or have any large say in how it's finished.
It's like he's a choreographer telling the dancers about an idea he had and not actually choreographing a dance for them.
I think it calls to question whether pop art can really be called "art" at all. I mean, Jeff Koons even says that it's meant primarily (if not exclusively)for profit. So if you take the soul out of "art" and replace it with an exclusive desire for profit, is it really an artistic expression at all?
And note that this isn't a put down of people who make large amounts of money on their art; I think there's a difference between making a masterpiece and having it be greatly appreciated and valued financially and "for profit" creations.
I strongly believe that in order for an artists to claim something as his own he has to participate in making it. May Linn is a perfect example of what i mean. Even though she did not physically make the ice rink, she did make a scaled down model to work from. May Linn did much of the planning and pre-work herself therefore she deserves the credit she recieves for the ice rink. Historically, artists did recieve a lot of help from the community in which they lived. Artist not only relied on the community for supplies,but also for support and ideas. Without the support and demand of the community, many famous artists would never have gained the prestige we know today.
After watching Jeff Koons video on myspace, I was almost appalled. Artists, in order to create Art with a capital "A" need to have a hand in what they create. Just simply coming up with the idea is not good enough, I strongly believe everybody is capable of having an original thought, but what seperates the artist from the ordinary is the ability to MAKE their idea into something that can be seen by all. Jeff Koons only comes up with the idea for his art, and then after that point he is disconnected from the art-making process, therefore making him a thinker, not an artist.
I definitely think that Koons deserves credit for his art. He comes up with the ideas and he is the brain of the operation. But all of them do put work into it and the laborers deserve credit as well. I mean, an architect doesn't necessarily build a building with his/her own hands. A clothing designer doesn't necessarily sew all of the clothes he/she designs. So, he is definitely an artist and should be given most of the credit for the artwork he creates, even if he doesn't make it with his own two hands.
I would have to say that I think that Koons is very artistic but I think that an artist is more than just artistic. He has great ideas but he cant complete them himself he hires people to complete his thoughts. I have had many great thoughts of artistic pieces in my head but to actually create them yourself is something different. A real artist takes those genius ideas and displays them. For example an artist could take many pieces of different art pieces and put them all together and call them art. But that wasn't his own ideas, he just put other peoples ideas together and called it his own. I believe that an artist creates his work from his own mind with his own hands and that is what a true artist is.
In my opinion, no, Jeff Koons is not an artist. yes; he has creative and passionate ideas but that simply makes him a good thinker and inventor. Does he put in any labor? . . . no. In class we did discuss artists who had apprentices and others workers alongside them but in the end, Raphael and da Vinci were the ones putting in their final input, adding their touches to complete their original idea, and therefore they were the ones doing the dirty work, not just standing by and surveying the scene.
Even though jeff koons didnt create his own art work he is still the one who came up with the idea and made it possible to be created. He may not be an artist in the sense of creating his own art work but he does have the mind of one. He just has people make whatever his idea is come to life.
When it comes to the issue of who is considered an artist in this situation, I feel that both the workers and the person supplying the idea for the piece are all to be considered "artists" in their own sense. Simply because Mr. Koons has others do the actual physical labor behind his ideas should not question his artistic ability at all. On the other hand, who is to say the workers don;t have an artistic mind to come up with ideas like these. Either way, in my eyes, both sides can be looked at, in their own sense, as artists.
I think A.E. Coombs above got it right. Anyone can think up a clever, creative idea, but if you don't have any hand at all in your creation, then you're just a creative thinker, not an artist.
If you consider art that hasn't been placed into the physical world yet an idea, then that idea can be crafted into a physical piece of art by any person(s) so long as it is made to the specifications of the idealist's intended look. I feel that a person with a beautiful idea, whether they have the skills to produce their idea or not, are artists just as much as any other. But if art is a physical skill that requires good brushstrokes for example and merely is a tool that one must acquire to become an artist...well then I may be completely wrong.
Personally, i think the laborers should be credited the same as Jeff Koons for this work. They all participate in the making of it, therefore, they should all be credited the same for it.
I think that the person who is creative and comes up with the art work is the artist. I do not think that the laborers should be considered artists. They are just doing the work that someone else came up with. Because they were not the creative ones to come up with the idea they should not be considered an artist. The laborers should get credit but not as much as the true artist. If it was not for the artist, the laborers would not be able to come up with the work on their own.
Does an architect arduously labor over every piece of steel required to create his masterpiece bridge, or his towering edifice??
Many great ideas require outside support to be completed. The idea that a work requires additional labor to be completed hardly means that it is any less Koon's artwork. That said, of course it is not as personal nor meaningful a piece as a hand-crafted painting.
Koon's is an artist.
The real issue is this: is he using a 'factory' art setting to satisfy his perpetual stream of creativity, or is he doing it to mass produce artwork strictly for profit?
When Jeff Koon's name is placed on art that he did not create it makes him look like a con and a big liar. Anyone that realizes he only has the beginning idea for "his" art and that he has no part of the rest of the creation should realize that he is a fraud. I do not believe you are an artist if you have others that complete your idea for you without you even being there. I think he should be embarrassed for putting his name and only his name on works of art that many people created.
Post a Comment