Well, historically it probably goes back to the master/apprentice, atelier setup of the Renaissance era and earlier. And then with the cult of the "genius" that surrounds artists nowadays, it's no wonder that assistants would be invisible. A friend who took classes 19th century art said that a particular French artist of the time is partly responsible for that mess, but damn if I can remember who he is--I took the class in Renaissance art instead. :)

I really enjoy Liu Bolin's work. I'm a little disappointed that it was called "a little help from an assistant" in an article I just found when, judging by the video, the painter seemed to do most of the work. The paintings are so detailed and perfectly aligned, they definitely deserve credit for that. It might have been tough for the photographer to get a good shot too.

I suppose I'd say that the painters are the artists (in the traditional sense, that is), Bolin could be considered a model. Credit should be given to everyone and the work should be referred to as collaborative. Does he use the same assistant every time?

To be fair to Bolin, he is the creative mind behind the project. He also sculpts.

Why is it that when a painting which was believed to be by a famous artist is revealed to be a forgery, its value collapses (and museums remove it from display) no matter how good the painting itself is.. The answer to this question is probably related to the answer to your question.

I think one element of Bolin's work is the physical product, ie - the painted body and the photograph. There is a team that produces that product and I fault the "genuis narrative" that has plagued Western society since the Renaissance (Vasari, et al) for so effectively writing collective art practice out of our historical understanding of art production and the creative process in general.

However, regarding this work, I think it is better classified as performance art, or conceptual art. Thus, Bolin's piece or his "work" is the represented experience of being erased and blended into his surroundings, not necessarily the photograph taken of him when its over. While this performance has a particularly 'spectacular' visual outcome (a lot of performance work does not), I don't think approaching it as a painting is very productive. One could even argue that the fact that he doesn't paint himself but has it, in a sense, done to him, is an integral part of the concept being explored in the piece.

That is not to say that the reference to the team as "assistants" or what have you is not problematic. I merely wish to point out that while I think the issue raised by Lisa is very important -- and in fact is a major topic discussed in the academic world regarding art production -- I don't agree with the straightforward summary of his work that reduces it to him getting painted and then taking credit for the painting. There is a lot more to it!

I work in games and animation and it always drives me nuts when they credit the voice actors in animated films with ENORMOUS TITLES on all the posters, but don't credit the animator(s) who did all the "physical" acting for the character at all, let alone the entire huge art team who designed, modelled, textured, etc that character.

just because an artist employees people to realize his vision doesn't mean they share credit any more than a fashion designer or architect needs to credit the people who do the tough work of cutting templates and creating blueprints. It's understood that the artist is the "director" in this regard, and the work wouldn't exist without the artists concept and direction of execution. See Andy Warhol, Damien Hurst, Sol Lewitt. Banksy takes the idea one step further with there not even being a real, physical "Artist"; it's a chimera that is the front for a collaborative group.

What I find particularly interesting in this case, is it brought to mind an article I had read about a similar artist:

(note: link contains artistic nudes, possibly NSFW)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-564271/An-artists-body-work-quite-literally-brings-walls-life.html

In this case, the paintees were models, and the painter was considered the artist.

Such a fine line.

You can find parallels in music as well. Often credit/admiration will go to the lead singer and they might not even write the music or pick up an instrument.

Or another parallel would be Martha Stewart. Sure she has some good ideas and a clean house, but she has an army of people behind her. Yet, she gets the credit.

I think works like these really take full advantage of the mythology of the artist as genius-individual (or the artist as a type of "auteur") and its these kinds of stories which enable economic modes like capitalism to function, allowing some people to capitalize enormously, by overlooking the collective effort involved. If we have to look critically at the disparity between roles (like artist and assistant) across many different cultural practices, I'm sure we'd find the majority of individuals celebrated in our society are given much more credit than they deserve. It would be better to view people like Bolin not as a brilliant artists, but rather as clever entrepreneurs.

People really like the idea of a person with a singular vision creating a work ex nihilo. In the West, the template for this is God creating the universe. In the service this ideal, we downplay the contributions of those who help the "primary artist."

In his youth, Jean-Luc Godard helped create the vision of the film director as auteur. But he soon rejected that concept, and has often played with the notion in his movies. The opening credits for Tout va bien take the form of his hand signing checks for the various classes of workers who helped him make the film, from "international movie stars" to "electricians."

Here's the credit sequence. The video is in French and has no subtitles, but the point is still clear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYTZvTwqUtU

Dale Chihuly.

Harkening(?) forward one post, I had an exquisite turkey sub the other day, and while the high schooler who made it for me was dubbed "Sandwich Artist", she had no real hand in the design of said sandwich.

I think the term "artist" has been cheapened considerably in our current marketing-driven world of labels.

The first time I was ever conscious of this kind of thing was when I was a little girl, probably about 11. I was reading a fashion magazine and I noticed that in the arty fashion shoots, the photographer is credited, but not the model. It didn't take long for me to realize this is the industry standard.

And I mean, I get it. The photographer is the creative director behind the shoot, and s/he is the "artist," using lights and whatnot to create a stunning visual effect. The model is a prop. But consider film credits; when you watch a movie, you're given a long list of about 100 names or more that helped with the creation of the film. Maybe they made the sandwiches that the actors ate, and they're going to get credit for participating in the artistic process. It's always bothered that the model is not considered an "artist." A model is often doing far more artistically, after all, than Liu Bolin is doing by standing there; some shoots can be really demanding and striking certain poses becomes a form of acting, in a sense.

Wait a await a wait a minute. I'm an artist, and when I'm rich (AHAHAHA) I fully intend to have assistants.

The important thing about art is the idea. If one is the sole author/auteur of the idea, then good gracious, he or she should be allowed to realise the form in whatever way they choose, either by their own hand or others'.

Anonymous got it right, with the J-L Godard example: the assistants/apprentices get paid. They are paid for their manual labour in translating the artist's vision. Renaissance apprentices were housed, clothed, and fed by their masters. Modern big-name artists pay their staff. And thank goodness, otherwise there would be a lot more starving artists in the world.

I really don't see anything wrong with it, unless the assistants are conceptual partners. If they actually have input and autonomy over the process, then they should be co-credited. Assistants can and should be named for their own original creations, but one can't expect an artist to credit other people for his or her own ideas.

Another parrallel is in exploration. Until recently the only name I associated with the first successful ascent of Mount Everest was Edmund Hillary; and I had always assumed Stanley found Livingstone while trekking through Africa by himself.

I wonder if it wouldn't be ideal to change the terminology we use in situations like this---say, applying the term "visionary" to the person who conceives of the idea, and "artist" to everyone involved in creating the work.

But on the other hand, the vision, the design, the meaning, is as inherent to our concept of art as is the nuts and bolts of making it.

Art of this type is inherently a joint effort between the person with the idea and the people who make it happen. And yet we don't have language to reflect this, that gives credit to everyone according to their effort.

Perhaps "craftsperson" or "crafter" or "creator" for the people who do the physical work---visionary and creators. That might work.

Just wait until someone makes a post about found objects in art...

That was a wonderful posting about the artists who are major pillars for the best movie to come out, beetv app is an awesome movie watching application for the HD Movies and TV Shows.

Finally I have found a reasonable solution, thanks for sharing.

I see otherwhatsapp mentioned a lot in recent times.

The first time I was ever conscious of this kind of thing was when I was a little girl, probably about 11. I was BEST CHROMEBOOK FOR DIGITAL ART reading a fashion magazine and I noticed that in the arty fashion shoots, the photographer is credited, but not the model. It didn't take long for me to realize this is the industry standard

Thank you for sharing this great and useful post.
شركة تركيب مكيفات بالدمام

Thanks for the article you have shared