I was wondering not three long ago, what artists are on about…
But maybe I was expecting too much of artists — that they be great original thinkers as well as great at expressing great thoughts.
Maybe the thinking and the expressing of the big thoughts should be more often pulled apart: so the hands that do the doing don’t necessarily belong to the same body as the head that thinks the thinking.
That does happen of course: I don’t think Antony Gormley does all his own welding. And in the overtly commercial world it’s like that, too: we don’t necessarily expect somebody who’s great at the nuts and nails of animation, to be great at coming up with the story (though they might be); and we don’t expect that animator either; or the photographer; or designer; or whomever, to be the originator of the big idea that their art is an answer to.
When pound, euro, dollar, or other notes are at stake in creating a ‘thing’ as an answer to the big idea, we have client + creative director + crafter. With others thrown into the mix or not.
The crafter isn’t a nobody without ideas. And the client isn’t a nobody with no cop-on of how to represent the idea. We’re just talking more heads and hands, with inclinations of different skills.
Now if instead of thinking ‘big commercial idea’ we think ‘big society idea’, the client would be replaced by another animal: someone with great ideas – artist, philosopher, whomever…
…we now have philosophers teaming up with creative directors and crafters to create brilliant stuff:
That’s the new model for making art.
Though maybe it isn’t really all that new. Just rare. Instead we have ‘art’ that I’m thinking maybe doesn’t merit the label ‘art’. Maybe – to squeeze in a bit of slagging – maybe it’s just stuff created by people who like to think of themselves as artists.
So anyway, we just need somebody to pay for the ‘new model’ stuff.
Or can commercial clients + creatives be it?
Because it ain’t only about anorexics puking up their bacon butties:
Another blog post: