Landscape: David "I make my own work" Hockney

David Hockney, 'Woldgate Woods, 21, 23 & 29 November 2006', 2006. Oil on 6 canvases. 182 x 366 cm. Courtesy of the Artist. © David Hockney. Photo credit: Richard Schmidt
Source: Royal Academy of Art

David Hockney takes some digs at Damien Hirst in his exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts, stating prominently that he has made all his own work.  Meanwhile, Hirst is over at Tate Modern, featuring works conceived by Hirst, but made by studio assistants.  This article cites the historical practice of workshops/studio assistants: The Independent .

As I understand workshops, they were the primary educational venue for artists.  An apprentice would study, work with a master, and once a certain degree of skill had been achieved, he would strike out on his own.  I use the masculine here because with only a few exceptions, it was all men.  Those who didn't rise to the level of their own workshop toiled away at a master's shop. The article compares the use of workshops throughout history, but what it doesn't mention is that Hirst, when he did show examples of his own paintings see Wallace Collection, they were not at all "masterly". I would say he would be relegated to preparing canvases, sweeping floors and underpainting in a master's workshop.

I don't deny that Hirst is sometimes interesting conceptually.  Nor do I respond to Hockney's work in general.  The debate is not about the art, but about what is more important: the concept, the execution or the finished "product".  The obvious answer is that all three are important.  Works that are more than passing fads have all three; the concept is interesting and relevant, the execution is reflective of the time created, or indicative of progress, and the finished work finds that sweet spot in between.

Here's a link to David Hockney's show at the Royal Academy of Arts.

Here's a link to Damien Hirst's show at Tate Modern.