This post has been annoying me for weeks, sitting my drafts because I don’t know what to do with it so I may as well just get it out there.
Adaptation, translation, transmission, assemblage, replication, reenactment and contamination.
What artist wouldn’t want a factory of workers helping to create your work with only you being recognised as the soul author of the work. My tutor made an interesting comparison with the connection this method has with that of the old renaissance artists having apprentices. The only problem I would say I have with that is the direction of knowledge, in that relationship it is passed down in a one way system, Eliasson needs a two way system, hes creating ideas (like most of us) and needs help from professionals to produce them, to see whats possible. When your working in the realm of contemporary art then its necessary to seek out help. In my practice I jump from material to material with no prior knowledge of how to use it. I need to learn and the best way to learn is from someone who knows how to use these materials. This is my basic opinion on his situation as an artist but there is obviously more at work. He’s obviously turned the production of art into a business and his studio looks less like a factory and more like an office/studio structure.
So really the best comparison I can make with Eliasson isn’t with the old ways with renaissance apprenticeship but rather a comparison with the film industry. A director can’t make a film on his own, he needs all the help he can get from the people with the right skills. However it then all comes down to credits, and I quite liked this quote from a frieze art talk which I’ve linked to at the bottom. It’s not particularly relevant but its interesting none the less
“There is certainly too many people credited within the credits and that just discredits the whole thing”