Reith lectures 2013: Grayson Perry

[jean]

The Strad comparison was only there to show how most things in the world aren't the result of a single person's work. So it's somehow "wrong" for a contemporary artist (and i'm not really a great enthusiast of Hirsts work BTW) to use assistants as its somehow "cheating" BUT ok for this to have happened in the past

I don't think Straduivarius would have seen himself as a visual artist in quite the same way that Hirst does (or maybe, ironically, knows he isn't.)

This is my favourite violin:

[jean]

This is maybe a question of what you mean by "make"
actually there's more "making" than in Duchamp's Urinal , he did actually inject the shark with preserving fluid etc

It may, certainly, and we have not defined trhat.

But Duchamp turned the urinal upside down, which is what distinguishes his concept.

How is making a model of something different from making a description ?

It depends on the 'something': a maquette for a three-dimensional sculpture of the complexity of one of Moore's will require more of the artist than telling your assistant where to put the dots.

[MrGongGong]

But Duchamp turned the urinal upside down, which is what distinguishes his concept.

And Damien preserved the shark in a tank .......... I don't think the amount of work that goes into something is necessarily in direct proportion to how effective it is.

It depends on the 'something': a maquette for a three-dimensional sculpture of the complexity of one of Moore's will require more of the artist than telling your assistant where to put the dots.

So are you suggesting that the complexity of the instructions required to make the work is (also) in direct relationship to how effective it is ? (if so thats 1:0 to Xenakis and Ferny will be delighted )

[jean]

... I don't think the amount of work that goes into something is necessarily in direct proportion to how effective it is.

It was you who talked about more 'making', and I was answering that.

I don't think it's the amount of work nor yet the complexity of it that's important.

(I am trying to avoid any reference to ability on the part of the producer or quality in what's produced, but I may be forced to it yet.)

[MrGongGong]

Ok
It is an interesting (and a bit of a slippery fish !) area to think about......

I went to a talk last night by Dominic Murcott who is head of composition at Trinity College Of Music, entitled "Good & Bad" music which (as intended as part of a series of "Rants") raised some interesting questions about intention and execution in relation to music.

Quality is a tricky one I think, and I think we don't all mean the same thing (like with the word Music) when we use it.

Ability or Skill is also tricky, i've been more inspired by the fiddle playing of an old man in a pub near Malin Head than I ever have by Joshua Bell .... but also inspired by Vengerov so it's not a genre or stylistic issue

[mercia]

transcript of lecture 1

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/transcripts/lecture-1-transcript.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt

[jean]

Disappointing this week; nothing a reasonably thoughtful consumer of art (such as me) has not thought of/read/considered already.

And ideas about process in art-making weren't touched on.

[MrGongGong]

Disappointing this week; nothing a reasonably thoughtful consumer of art (such as me) has not thought of/read/considered already.

And ideas about process in art-making weren't touched on.

Is it worth listening to Jean ?
or should I stay with Ligeti this morning ?

[doversoul1]

Is it worth listening to Jean ?
or should I stay with Ligeti this morning ?

I find the exchange between you and jean is much more Reith Lecture-ish. Please continue.

[Dave2002]

Is it worth listening to Jean ?
or should I stay with Ligeti this morning ?

You have jean's reply. I thought it was a good attempt, and entertaining, as was the first one. Pick it up off iPlayer if you've not yet heard it.

[MrGongGong]

You have jean's reply. .

erm No I don't

[jean]

Here it is, then - much the same as Dave's.

Listen to it while you're doing something else, make a list of the things he could have said but didn't, and we can discuss them later.

I do think that with two discrete lectures, one on the subject of who decides what is art, and the next on where the boundaries defining art are without any reference to who's drawn them, he was bound to be both repetitive and contradictory.

Maybe the next one will pull it together.

[MrGongGong]

You aren't selling it to me
But i'll try and finish some more music then have a listen.........thanks

[french frank]

Only 2 sentences ?

The Strad comparison was only there to show how most things in the world aren't the result of a single person's work. So it's somehow "wrong" for a contemporary artist (and i'm not really a great enthusiast of Hirsts work BTW) to use assistants as its somehow "cheating" BUT ok for this to have happened in the past

Was it not the case (sorry to be bit late coming in on this) that there was not the same concept of 'authorship' that we have now in all branches of art. In medieval times a 'master' would have his studio but his own name would not necessarily be any better known than that of his apprentices who contributed to the masterpiece? This was surely the tradition that survived at least into Rembrandt's time. Now, a work or art is attached to a (celebrated) name, someone who is 'known' to the general public via the media, and the eye-watering prices go to that individual (and HMRC). That's why the expectation is that they will have created the work themselves.

[MrGongGong]

Was it not the case (sorry to be bit late coming in on this) that there was not the same concept of 'authorship' that we have now in all branches of art. In medieval times a 'master' would have his studio but his own name would not necessarily be any better known than that of his apprentices who contributed to the masterpiece? This was surely the tradition that survived at least into Rembrandt's time. Now, a work or art is attached to a (celebrated) name, someone who is 'known' to the general public via the media, and the eye-watering prices go to that individual (and HMRC). That's why the expectation is that they will have created the work themselves.

I imagine so (but i'm no art historian)
I'm always a little surprised that people somehow assume that artists create work without any collaboration or assistance, it's not GCSE or A level exam where this would disqualify you (or not if you were a Windsor I seem to recall )