Critics do not seem to be overjoyed by David Hockney’s latest exhibition at the RA, but as the man himself has said, it is all his own work. All the work on show was produced by the 74-year-old artist himself.
David Hockney: A Bigger Picture at the Royal Academy of Arts.
The art journo’s were also falling over themselves to report that Hockney was criticising, the once young British artist, Damien Hirst for outsourcing his work.
Can an artist be an artist if he is not his producing his own work ?
Defendants of Hirst will always be quick to point to the fact the great masters had teams of other artists in their studios producing works. Surely, if it was good enough for dear old Leonardo it is good enough for Hirst?
NO, no. This argument makes me want to scream. Yes, the masters did have other artists in their studios, they were pupils. The clue is in the word ‘pupil’. If you wanted to study art in Leonardo’s day you had to become a pupil to one of the great masters. You couldn’t just toddle off and enrol at art college.
Yes, some work was produced by the pupils and because they attempted to copy their masters work some work has been wrongly attributed to the master not the pupil. This is a very different kettle of fish to the work of an “artist” who merely designs the work for a factory of workers to complete. Getting someone to catch a huge fish and then have someone stick it in a tank of formaldehyde is not art. There is no involvement, the hand of the artist can not be seen in the work.
Criticise Hockney’s latest landscapes all you want, but the artist is present in the work, not just his signature.
