Following up from my post last week in which I raised the question whether the artist needs to actually do the work to create his work of art in order to call it his own, I posted the question in this thread on WetCanvas. I got several answers there which helped me understand the question and its answer(s) a bit better.
I asked the question “When is it legitimate for an artist to get a craftsman to do the work for him and when must he do the work himself?” Some suggested answers are:
- A work of art that the artist can specify to another craftsman exactly what to do, can be created by that other craftsman who is then just the executer of the artists work.
- That would rule out most painting because you can’t specify every brushstroke, but it would include most sculpture, architecture and print-making.
- It is generally accepted today that anything I choose to call art is art – which is a very post-modern concept. Therefore automated, random or mechanised art production would not be considered to denigrate the artistic status of the work if I were to call it such. That’s unless you think post-modernism is c**p.
The idea of the specificability rule was an interesting insight.