>> It's an interesting thought experiment about what art actually IS: is art the idea behind the piece? Is it the skill that the individual has in physically bringing the piece to life? If the person with the vision doesn't physically produce the outcome, is it still their art?

I sincerely enjoy the fact that people regularly visiting Hacker News think that is an "interesting thought experiment", in the context of art.

Isn't that an interesting thought experiment to question what does a CEO do, for example? But it isn't, since people on HN are mostly familiar in detail with what a CEO does. On the other hand art is somehow assumed to be a special case in our world.

These are two absolutely equivalent questions.

>>On the other hand art is somehow assumed to be a special case in our world.

I think this is most due to a romanticized vision of what an artist really is/does. When people think artist, they think of the starving-artist stereotype - locked away alone in their studio pursuing their passion and living in poverty to 'do what they love'. Or, the crazy-genius archetype (think Van Gogh). People attribute creativity to 'natural talent' or 'artistic genius', when it's really a skill that can be sharpened the same as running a business like a CEO would.

Craftsmanship and creative vision are two sides of the same coin art, just as they are in business. You can have a killer business idea, but it's worth nothing without proper execution. The same goes if you are a skilled programmer but have no vision on how to sell your skills.

> when it's really a skill that can be sharpened the same as running a business like a CEO would

Running a business is not the same as visual art, literature, mathematics, physics. Most people will spend years sharpening their skills at these things and never produce something of note. It's not romantic to say this, it's just the way it is.

Except we attribute the product to the company, not the CEO. Wouldn't the equivalent be "This is a MyArtStudio piece of art", rather than "this is a piece of art by pdpi"?

We identify and categorize products through branding, which often has very little to do with their corporate origin. The artist's name (and their story) is a brand.

But, I wonder, once the “artist” dies, can the brand continue to produce with the same or better renown?

I haven't read a Tom Clancy book in ages, but it was just very recently I learned that he had died, and that the books with Tom Clancy written all over them in the airports in fact were not written by him.

If you see "Tom Clancy" on the cover he probably wrote it but if you see "Tom Clancy's" that's a sign that somebody licensed his name. The same for Sid Meier's Civilization and such.

look at fashion designers. almost all big brands still carry the name of one dead "artist" (eg. Channel). And in some cases, the living artist even sell the name so this happen sooner (e.g. marc jacobs, kate spade)

I think you make a good point, although these have been more brands in the traditional sense who hire designers (who after making their mark) go off and found their own design house with new up and coming designers...

Once most movies have digital reconstructions of dead actors, identity will lose meaning and I think we'll start seeing new works by picasso.

this won't happen with paintings because paintings are not art. They are artificially rare investments. The (financial) powers that makes a painter relevant will ensure new works, even if what you suggest happens, will never carry any value as it implies dissolving the value of previous works. Its the same mechanism that makes only dead painters world famous.

You can't imagine some marketing firm deciding to call new works "Effluvia, by Pablo Picasso"? No arguing it wouldn't have the value of an original, but I'd wager everything it would sell for more than the same thing by Josh Leap.

I'm thinking black webpages with pencil thin white fonts. You have to scroll down like 3 meters of page before you get to any content, it's just tag lines every break, staggered on either side of the page.

"After more than a century" "We revived the master" "Witness history being made at <blahhbhablh> on <date>"

Then they hold an auction, pay a descendant or two some money and book their trip to Aspen.

I can imagine the art world rejecting a newly produced work by Picasso. In fact, it’s already happened: many forgeries have been made and disclaimed over the years. The difference is just that a truly new “Picasso,” marketed for what it is would not land anyone in prison.

Picasso is kind of an interesting example. In his later years, he got involved in ceramics, working with a small factory in the south of France. He turned out hundreds of designs, some made by the factory artisans in editions that ran into the 100s of copies.

For years they were ignored, but they've been growing steadily in value as they come to be seen as worthy Picasso works in their own rights.

They aren't really "new" Picassos, but they hadn't been considered as valid as they are now.

http://observer.com/2015/04/so-you-want-to-own-a-picasso/

I'm not talking about forgeries, I'm talking about paying artists to ghost draw for you, and coming up with flowery language to obfuscate, but not defraud the fact it is a "re-imagining". Think the albums released by Tupac since his death.

If you want some added legitimacy, drop a paint chip from an authentic Picasso into the mix, homeopathy style. If no one will let you do that, pay someone with some Picasso's to let you leave your paintings in the same room as them for a few weeks. Then, pay someone to write on behalf of the people who did the painting to say they "felt Pablo's spirit working through them, guiding their hand."

Get a descendant to sign off on how emotionally impactful and authentic the whole thing feels and I think you've got a high 5, low six figure painting. Do like 5 of them for your grand debut and I think we have a real RoI.

Yeah a ton of real artists will loudly decry it, articles will be written, teeth will gnash -- but I think they would sell with little to no difficulty.

I think this vision of the future is a little too despondent for my first cup of coffee.

Sorry if I brought you down. Despondent is where I tend to go when I prognosticate. There's nothing sacred when it comes to people making money.

Damien Hirst has dozens of technicians and they crank out paintings for him.

Theranos?

You make a strong point, but I would argue there's more subtlety than you acknowledge. At least there are other metaphors that might shed light on the idea of agency.

For one, there's the coach of a team sport. We don't say that the coach played the game, but we do credit them with being a vital part of the team's success or failure. These artists seem more like coaches than CEOs to me.

One big difference between artists and both CEOs and coaches is that the products of an artists are standalone, enduring (except for some new media works) pieces. And I think that difference makes artists and the analysis of a technician in the production of any piece a somewhat unique situation.

A coach is different because the players get one chance to play the game. Art can be redone as many times as you have the time and resources for. When doing that directing the iterations and making the final selection becomes the important thing. For example, take this piece from the GP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihu...

How much credit Chihuly deserves varies wildly with how that piece was made. If he had merely said "Make me some yellow/orangish flowers" then he doesn't deserve much credit. If the ~40 flowers we see were the result of 1,000 attempts with him directing ("Make this one 1" bigger, this one less orange" etc.) then he deserves almost all the credit.

A common idiom on HN is that "ideas are cheap". The artist has the ideas, we often naively credit then with the implementation too; the implementation isn't 'the easy bit', it's an essential part of creating an artistic work.

Duchamp's fountain is a fine idea that continues to inspire newcomers to that age-old what-is-art question; but truly the material science and manufacturing process and craftsmanship that went in to that urinals design and production are a cause celebre - greater than Duchamp's idea by far IMO.

Now reflect on Warhol's prints; derivative instead of visual design rather than artefact production. But Warhol designed and created the works.

IMO: commissioning art doesn't make you the artist of a final work that required artistic and crafting input from others. Warhol is the artist of his self-made silk prints; Duchamp's input to Fountain is curating, or social commentary.

The same is true in architecture,"Wren's" St. Paul's Cathedral would be nothing without the skilled masons. There's a line there somewhere though -- I wouldn't include the sandwich makers, the steeplejacks, et al., A amongst the creators of that work, ...

(This all brings to mind Gaia Hypothesis.)

Ah, says the modern artist, but the art I create is the image/idea in your mind and the medium I use is other artists and craftsmen ...

This is a little egotistical of you I think. It is only your opinion. A CEO is generally in charge of maintaining something that already exists. An artist is creating something from nothing. Maybe a 'founder' fits your example better.

Hmm. If a composer can't personally play or direct his/her piece (e.g. a symphony), is it still composer's art?

The generally accepted answer is "yes, this is composer's art". But it's also generally accepted that those who render the piece also take part in the art, in a different way. The bigger the influence, the more noticeable part it is. You don't normally ask who plays particular violins in an orchestra string group, but you do notice the first violin, and the director; you say "Gould plays Bach", or you say "Band N covers band M's hit". The influence of the performer is very visible, and makes a lot of difference. Still, without the composer's art, their performance would not be possible.

I don't see why this parallel can't apply to other collectively performed art (or any activity).

Extremely well put. Part of the reason I wrote my original comment was to see what the HN collective thought about my reasoning- as I have personally struggled to think of Dale Chihuly as being an artist once I found out that he does not actually create the works that bear his name.

Likening him to a composer directing his own symphony makes a lot more sense- no one would argue that Mozart wasn't a great artist just because he couldn't play the whole symphony by himself.

I think this is a really strong analogy. I would love to see a truthful gallery label such as "_Red Ruby_ by The Washington State Glassblowers, Designed and Conducted by Dale Chihuly".

Composer here. This is a terrible analogy. Whether or not a composer can/does perform a piece has absolutely nothing to do with authorship -- do we expect a writer to read aloud their novel?

A better question to ask is, "If the composer merely told others what to write, is it actually the composer's music?" This is an unbelievably common practice, and IMO, the answer to the question is no.

What listeners get is not sheet music, it's performed music.

To me it's like an artist provides a detailed plan of how to build a monument, and then certified builders actually construct it.

Of course if an artist just gives a few rough sketches, and then a civil engineer provides the detailed drawings, and the builders construct the monument by them, then the artist is a co-author at best.

I don't know how specific D. Chihuly was in his instructions. I just think that such a separation of labor is possible, when the artist does the artistic stuff, and a performer follows on with the technical execution. In an extreme case, a machine (such as a music box) can play Bach, but that machine can't play without Bach having written the notes.

Speaking just as a hobbyist glassblower (I'm not talking about pipes, but rather furnace glass, of the type Chihuly works with):

It is important to point out that glassblowing is a team-focused effort from the very beginning. Although it is possible to work solo, it makes everything many times harder, and on top of that, makes many standard moves impossible to perform. Even the simplest transfer of a cup form to a punty is best done with at least one assistant, and for wraps and handles, having someone able to take a dip and prep the pull while you work on the main piece is a practical necessity. The Corning Museum of Glass has excellent videos of master gaffers at work that show just what a team effort any form is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oahrrN8ZHwE

Great fun to watch if you're even slightly interested in glassblowing.

I don't think this is an interesting thought experiment. You need not fully create a work of art to be an artist. Do you care that a photographer used a Canon DSLR, translated the sensor data to a JPEG using Adobe RAW, and printed using an Epson printer? No. The art is the photograph and the non-artistic tasks were farmed out to Canon, Adobe, and Epson.

Surely we don't credit the canvas and brush for a painting?

The music industry seems to have a pretty good solution for this.

The performer gets a cut. The lyrics writer gets a cut. The melody writer gets a cut.

I'm sure something similar could work.

I'm also recovering from just finding out that the process I thought happened behind artwork was largely false, and has more in common with renaissance painting businesses than the title artists work.

And the people who only contributed financing gets a bigger cut just for already being rich.

Yeah, taking all the risk if the project fails is just their job for having the unmitigated temerity to be rich.

So media tycoons are getting washed up, rather than getting continued returns?

No, of course not: this is why we've had ever increasing numbers of sequels, remakes, franchise films and such. Why lots of heavily promoted music is highly derivative.

Sure, some people invest in riskier stuff, on the hope of much greater returns.

What are they risking, will they suffer in any meaningful way if the project fails?

They get a bigger cut because they bore the most risk and were willing to support a venture that otherwise wouldn't have had the resources to happen.

Their exact cut is generally a balance between the risk, reward, and ability of the venture to happen without them.

A musician might be risking their entire livelihood; an investor risking a percentage point on their portfolio's annual profit. Bonus points if the wealth was inherited and is managed for them. Your claim just isn't true as a generality.

Risking the largest absolute financial input is not equivalent to having the highest risk unless you exclude all human value, and consider a dollar to be of equal value to all people.

I'm not talking about personal risk, I'm talking about risk of loss in absolute value, i.e. the investor is risking more capital so they claim a bigger share of the reward.

If the musician was able to provide enough capital/resources on their own by risking their entire livelihood they'd have no need for an investor and could take the entire profits of the venture for themselves.

I'm not making a moral judgement here, I'm just saying that it's a fairly straight forward logic as to why people who "only contributed financing get a bigger cut". The OP is wrong to claim they get a bigger cut because they're already rich, they get a bigger cut because they're risking more capital in the venture. It is secondary that them being rich means they have more capital available to take risks.

I mean it's also the fact that there are plenty more musicians willing to "risk their entire livelihood" that bring their price down.

Bigger musicians will fetch high prices and in some cases, take on the financial "risk" (almost none since they're a superstar) themselves.

Also, its not like a single bad song is going to ruin a career. Clearly you haven't heard an album from the front to the back if you think that.

Right, but does the drummer bought in get a cut? Or the bass player? No, if they aren't part of the band.

It depends how you see everyone's contributions here... in some cases it seems a little bit like an album being attributed to EMI Records.

Some art is just too big for a single artist. A lot of renisance artists had many apprentices helping out, so this goes back a ways.

Chihuly has litigated and been litigated against by his helpers. His “ paintings” aren’t done by him either. It’s almost like he is a brand.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattlepi.com/entertainment...

Wow, that article led me to the artist Bob Kuster (http://bellemeadhotglass.com/gallery/glass-chandeliers/), "who's making chandeliers so closely related to Chihuly's that Chihuly frowned when he saw them in black-and-white, photocopied reproduction and asked, 'Are those mine?'"

That opens up another interesting thought process of which is more art, the chandeliers created by Chihuly's hired glassblowers directed by Chihuly himself, or the chandeliers inspired by Chihuly designs which are physically created by Kuster? What imbues a Chihuly design with "art"-ness? The fact that Chihuly signed off on it personally? The fact it was created in his studio and received his blessing?

Good find. Very “Chihuly” like glass (I saw the Chihuly exhibit around the grounds of the Brooklyn botanical gardens). Too close in my humble opinion: you can be inspired by someone but you have to bring something new to it.

The market seems to like the price of this imatation art however..

I have no answers to the question you pose but they are interesting to think about.

Funny this comes up. I've recently become friends with someone who worked for Chihuly, doing precisely this.

They have commented on how the "technicians" put a lot of effort and research into turning Chihuly's designs into a piece of glass. They aren't just "cranking it out"; they're figuring out how the pieces can be made, in the first place.

This is without getting into personalties, beyond this rhetorical tease of a sentence.

Exactly! So if all Chihuly does is take a crayon to a piece of paper and say "Make this thing!", but your friend and others like your friend do the heavy lifting to bring the idea to life, is Chihuly that great of an artist after all?

Well, I don't know whether I'd go that far. And we haven't talked about it extensively -- just for a few minutes.

With Chihuly, as well, the accident really did limit his own physical capabilities.

A lot of people enjoy the work. I saw one of the first "garden" shows, years ago at the Garfield Park Conservatory in Chicago, and it was amazing.

But, people should keep in mind that it's a team effort. And the PR might do a bit more to highlight that, as well.

A director still makes the movie, despite never appearing on film or touching the camera. Design and oversight can be a large part of the finished product. There's no doubt that Chihuly is an artist despite never touching the pieces. He's not their only artist, though. I think that his technicians should be demanding credit. Movies come with credits, why shouldn't other forms of collaborative art?

As to the specific case: living in Seattle, I heard nothing but bad things about Chihuly himself, and experienced it firsthand; he was presenting at a Sounders game, and had made a piece to be given to the opposing team. About halfway through the first half I headed in for a snack and the club was dead except him ordering something in front of me. While they were getting his order he turned and looked at me, and I said something simple and nice about his piece. He scoffed dismissively and his handler moved between us. Just came across as snotty.

Chihuly is a bit different from other artists that have art technicians make the work for them. Chihuly is a skilled glassblower as are the others on the team and they are all internationally recognized. Glassblowing is a craft so has a history of technical craftsmen.

Modern art does not have that craftsman history but is more known for the 'lone genius'. Public sculpture is a little bit different as it does often require access to industrial tools and materials. Tony Smith would sketch plans for his steel sculptures and send them to an industrial fabricator.

I feel like the more apt analogy would be that of a movie director, since we hold movies to be art of a sort already, but accept the fact that it's just an implementation of an idea.

So there’s basically three different definitions of art:

- A work of art, i.e. an artifact

- The skill used to create something

- Something original that changes another person

When we talk about an artist we’re usually talking about the last definition. So technical skill might be required, but the person with the technical skill isn’t necessarily the artist.

E.g. before Jeff Koons went into art he was one of the most talented commodity salespeople of all time. That skill is really the basis of his art, not polishing the metal or whatever.

I'd put that kind of contribution on about the same level as the conductor for an orchestra or the director for a movie or play. The same piece of music played by the same musicians can have noticeable differences depending on the conductor. Similarly, choosing a different director can have a noticeable impact on a movie or play despite having the same script and cast.

I get your point but look at movies. While a movie is usually the directors, there's a ten minute scroll of credits at the end.

When AI Weiwei has millions of marbles produced for an art installation we all know he didn't make them, but the examples in this articles are mostly artist taking full ownership of the entire process.

I'd say in both cases it's pretty much a no. To take another example, producers have input into a movie but nobody would credit them as the sole or even primary movers.

You do get movies that are credited mainly to one person, primarily as a marketing thing, but still.

(In showing my age here, but first movie examples that spring to mind) Steven King's ..., Steven Spielberg's ..., I'm not sure if they're all called Steven though.

Some artists get credit akin to celebrity authors on books a ghost-writer wrote.

Of course, but my contention here is that the director of a movie or the author of a book it's based on has a substantial contribution to driving the work and it is essentially his "vision," while in some of the cases described in this article what is happening is more that an "artist" is putting their name on someone else's work to which they made little contribution.