Mastodon.art just banned AI art

[highplainsdem]

21. That isn't true, and the use of assistants to do the work while

a directing artist takes sole credit is controversial.

See this:

https://fineartviews.com/blog/38751/artists-debate-over-the-use-of-artist-assistants-where-do-you-stand

The use of artist assistants is nothing new to the world of art overall. One can easily find examples of said use throughout art history. In fact, some of the most celebrated artists of the past used artist assistants on a regular basis. However, there is a difference in how, for example, the Old Masters used artist assistants compared to how artists, such as Damien Hirst, typically use assistants today. That difference is a key to understanding why so many artists loathe how art assistants are utilized today. (Note: I'm in no way comparing Damien Hirst to the Old Masters -- I'm simply comparing the use of art assistants.)

The Old Masters tended to be very open about the identity of their artist assistants. After all, having a highly skilled art assistant in your studio meant that you, the master artist, had trained the assistant well. One can imagine the bragging rights an Old Master had when his relationship with a pupil came full-circle -- his methods and teachings lived on in the pupil... who was now a master in his own right. Today we rarely see that kind of transparency in regard to the use of artist assistants in general.

Today artists who utilize artist assistants, such as Damien Hirst, tend to keep said information a tightly guarded secret -- at least within the context of the mainstream art world. In other words, the Old Masters viewed their assistants as pupils -- a point of pride -- whereas Hirst and others view their assistants as mere employees. The artist working for Hirst is providing a service that has been paid for rather than being a student who is learning from his or her teacher.

The differences mentioned above may not seem like much -- but it is when you consider that the Old Masters, when using artist assistants, were passing on a tradition of methods and teachings whereas Damien Hirst and others are simply 'getting a job done'. In fact, Hirst has openly suggested that he utilizes the service of assistants because he does not have time to be bothered with creating the artwork himself. Some articles have implied that Hirst does not look at his assistant created artwork until it is finished -- at which point he decides if the piece is exhibit worthy or not. That is a far cry from how and why the Old Masters used art assistants. I assume that is a major factor in David Hockney's opinion concerning the use of art assistants in general.

One of the comments/replies there points out that "if artwork created 100 percent by assistants is still viewed as the work of the person who hired them... that means anyone with the resources to hire a team of highly skilled artists could theoretically become an art world sensation and museum magnet having never held a tool of art in his or her own hand. True, many don't care either way -- but many, many, many artists and art lovers would experience a kick in the gut."