Grayson Perry on Late Review BBC2 last night

[Orang Utan]

It's supposed to be dissected. It's art ffs. I'm writing an essay on him as well so I guess I'll need to do a bit more then just go 'I like Perry Grayson, he's pretty' You can't compare Torchwood with this

yeah you can - torchwood is art too

 

[Cid]

Artists make things themselves, designers get other people to do it for them. If he was open and transparent about having the tapestries done somewhere else I wouldn't have an issue with it. The tapestries are described as being made by him but they almost certainly aren't. He's done the drawings for them, nothing else. Why is he so reticent to say where they're done? Is it becasue they're done in he developing world I wonder? He's very vocal about that, about our consumerism in the West so you'd think if he has the tapestries made somewhere ese he'd be oppenly stating that he pays a fair wage and be clebrating the weavers for their skill. He doesn't though, he takes credit for the tapestries as they are.

From a Grauniad article on The walthamstow Tapestry:

To create the tapestry Perry made a quarter-size drawing which was then sized up on a vast computer file and woven by a specialist firm in Belgium.

 

[madzone]

From a Grauniad article on The walthamstow Tapestry:

Yeah - I wrote out a lengthy piece four times at college but the shit computer kept deleting them.

The walthamstow tapestry was made by machine in Brussles as you say. The Alan Measles needlpoint was handmade by people in China. It took them 4 months. Where is the credit? Weaving is one of the most badly paid jobs in the developing world. He apparently described the craftspeople as a 'jolly band of women who finished work in the factory then did his needlepoint for a bit of overtime'. That's really fucking patronising for a start.

What irks me is he claims it as his own piece of art. It isn't. It's his design yes, but he hasn't made them. So in this respect is he an artist or a desgner? It also irks me that he doesn't credit the people who really do the work, especially the Chinese women. Without them it would remain a drawing. They're the ones who make it a tapestry so why aren't they mentioned?

I had a long discussion with my lecturer about it today - she's a tapestry weaver as it happens and she's picked up the same thing. She went to the library and found me an article about it too. It seems it's not just me who finds a kind of dissonance between what he's saying and what he's doing with regard to the tapestries.

In the book it states that he's different to the Emin, Hirst et al because he slaves over his work himself and doesn't farm it out to other people to make. That may be true of his pots but it certainly isn't true of 'his' tapestries.

I am going to write to him and ask him about it However, judging by his response to a simple, polite question I wonder if I'll get an answer.

 

[madzone]

madzone, would you ask an architect the name of his bricklayer? Art fabricators have always existed. Although I totally understand your curiosity.

Is the architect allowing peple to believe he/she laid the bricks him/herself? Is the architect taking credit for the fabric of the building or just the design?

Try harder

 

[London_Calling]

Very valid points, both about the process itself and the artist making their own art. I'd imagine he's sensitive about it as well, especially if it's something he's just started to get into.

 

[Diamond]

In all of it there's just something 'missing' and I wonder if he'd be quite so popular if he didn't wear a frock.

That's more my line of thinking now, especially after the talk.

In the book it states that he's different to the Emin, Hirst et al because he slaves over his work himself and doesn't farm it out to other people to make. That may be true of his pots but it certainly isn't true of 'his' tapestries.

I have less of an issue with the exporting of the work to people in China or wherever. I'm sure that they it's not completed in sweatshops and would be highly paid and respected...in other words there wouldn't be any element of direct exploitation from that perspective.

But I do agree with your point about the undertow of hypocrisy behind his public persona of being a sort of strange crafty artist type where in actual fact he is just as much of a pseudo-artist/designer, if not more so considering he pretends to be otherwise, than any other of the YBAs (or should that be MBAs now?...always would have been a more apt acronym in the first place anyway).

 

[madzone]

I have less of an issue with the exporting of the work to people in China or wherever. I'm sure that they it's not completed in sweatshops and would be highly paid and respected...in other words there wouldn't be any element of direct exploitation from that perspective.

But how can you be so sure of the working conditions and the fact they were respected and paid well? There's no mention of it and as I say weaving is one of the most exploitative (is that a real word?) crafts job that we farm out. Surely if they were respected they would have merited a mention. In reality it's a collaborative work so why aren't they co-credited?

But I do agree with your point about the undertow of hypocrisy behind his public persona of being a sort of strange crafty artist type where in actual fact he is just as much of a pseudo-artist/designer, if not more so considering he pretends to be otherwise, than any other of the YBAs (or should that be MBAs now?...always would have been a more apt acronym in the first place anyway).

Exactly. I don't really have a problem with the blurring of artist/designer/maker that's been going on aside from the fact it makes it easier to categorise but that's neither here nor there really. However, the fact is he's pretty vocal about artists who do that whilst apparently being just as guilty of it himself. When he alluded to his idea of people not buying mass priduced stuff any more but having stuff made to their own design I had a feeling there was a bit of subtext, something he wasn't fully saying. Why doesn't he just come out and say it?

Personally I think he's just a bit lazy and perhaps a bit arrogant. Not for getting other people to make the tapestries but it's like he can't be bothered explaining them. It's like we shouldn't question him. That along with his self confessed habit of post rationalising his work makes me think he's just a bit slack

The book is beautiful by the way, did you get one? I'd urge anyone who admires hs work or him to get it. I still like his work, I still like him but I have to admit I'm wary of him now.

 

[madzone]

Very valid points, both about the process itself and the artist making their own art. I'd imagine he's sensitive about it as well, especially if it's something he's just started to get into.

Just started to get into what?

 

[Diamond]

But how can you be so sure of the working conditions and the fact they were respected and paid well? There's no mention of it and as I say weaving is one of the most exploitative (is that a real word?) crafts job that we farm out. Surely if they were respected they would have merited a mention. In reality it's a collaborative work so why aren't they co-credited?

I can't be certain but I very much doubt that it's the case that we're looking at a tapestry produced by a bunch of people, say, working 18 hour days in some Chinese free trade zone. Though I could certainly be wrong in that assumption.

But, yeah, I agree that this lack of credit to the producers is totally wrong.

I'm not art expert but doesn't that go against the grain of art as a commodity (Warhol et al) if one man gets all the applause while the producers get no credit.

Exactly. I don't really have a problem with the blurring of artist/designer/maker that's been going on aside from the fact it makes it easier to categorise but that's neither here nor there really. However, the fact is he's pretty vocal about artists who do that whilst apparently being just as guilty of it himself. When he alluded to his idea of people not buying mass priduced stuff any more but having stuff made to their own design I had a feeling there was a bit of subtext, something he wasn't fully saying. Why doesn't he just come out and say it?

Personally I think he's just a bit lazy and perhaps a bit arrogant. Not for getting other people to make the tapestries but it's like he can't be bothered explaining them. It's like we shouldn't question him. That along with his self confessed habit of post rationalising his work makes me think he's just a bit slack

The book is beautiful by the way, did you get one? I'd urge anyone who admires hs work or him to get it. I still like his work, I still like him but I have to admit I'm wary of him now.

I didn't get the book, was more interested in the talk to be honest, but I've also come away from the whole thing with same slight sense of unease that you have.

 

[madzone]

I'm not art expert but doesn't that go against the grain of art as a commodity (Warhol et al) if one man gets all the applause while the producers get no credit.

I don't know what the art world has to say about it, I just think it's rude and hypocritical to not be transparent about it and give co-credit for the finished piece.

There are textiles artists out there who do make massive pieces of work by hand. They must be mighty pissed off at something like this tbh.

 

[miss minnie]

The old masters had their apprentices.

Andy Warhol had his factory.

I thought there was a long history of the artist taking the credit for the work of the minions. As long as it was the artist's concept.

 

[madzone]

The old masters had their apprentices.

Andy Warhol had his factory.

I thought there was a long history of the artist taking the credit for the work of the minions. As long as it was the artist's concept.

Pre industialisation it was probably a bit different. Post industrialisation I'd argue it's assumed an artist carries out his own work and a designer gets others to make it for him. Like I say I don't have a problem with the practice as long as it's transparent and the artist/designer isn't slagging off other artist/designers for doing the same thing

 

[miss minnie]

Pre industialisation it was probably a bit different. Post industrialisation I'd argue it's assumed an artist carries out his own work and a designer gets others to make it for him.

What does the industrial revolution have to do with it?

 

[madzone]

What does the industrial revolution have to do with it?

The ability to have things mass produced. It made the boundaries between art and design a bit clearer IMO. Artists have been expected (and still are) to be the makers of their own work unless otherwise stated.

 

[miss minnie]

The ability to have things mass produced. It made the boundaries between art and design a bit clearer IMO.

So, being prior to the industrial revolution, everyone would have expected Raphael to personally weave the tapestries that Pope Leo X commissioned him to design?

 

[madzone]

So, being prior to the industrial revolution, everyone would have expected Raphael to personally weave the tapestries that Pope Leo X commissioned him to design?

As you've just said, he was commissioned to design them.

Would a Lucian Freud still be a Lucian Freud if someone else had done the painting bit?

 

[miss minnie]

You've just said he was commissioned to design them.

True, then again the tapestries come to be known as 'by Raphael', not by a workshop of weavers.

 

[madzone]

True, then again the tapestries come to be known as 'by Raphael', not by a workshop of weavers.

So the design is the only bit that warrants respect?

 

[miss minnie]

I just googled the Walthamstow tapestry and the first result from the Guardian quite clearly states that it wasn't woven by him.

"To create the tapestry Perry made a quarter-size drawing which was then sized up on a vast computer file and woven by a specialist firm in Belgium."

I don't understand, how is he deceiving us? Has he actually claimed that he wove it? Or threw and fired the pots personally?

I would never expect that any one artist could conceptualise, weave, paint, sculpt, throw pots and be excellent at all of them. I guess I just take it for granted that artists, since art began, will have made use of any technical assistance that they needed or wanted.

 

[miss minnie]

So the design is the only bit that warrants respect?

I didn't say that. Of course followers of the technical aspects of tapestry will no doubt be familiar with the workshop of Pieter van Aelst. The tapestries may well be credited when they are displayed for all I know.

A skillful weave without a masterly design wouldn't be hanging in the Sistine Chapel however.

 

[madzone]

I just googled the Walthamstow tapestry and the first result from the Guardian quite clearly states that it wasn't woven by him.

"To create the tapestry Perry made a quarter-size drawing which was then sized up on a vast computer file and woven by a specialist firm in Belgium."

I don't understand, how is he deceiving us? Has he actually claimed that he wove it? Or threw and fired the pots personally?

I would never expect that any one artist could conceptualise, weave, paint, sculpt, throw pots and be excellent at all of them. I guess I just take it for granted that artists, since art began, will have made use of any technical assistance that they needed or wanted.

There's nothing at the exhibition that states the tapestries have been made somewhere else. When he was asked about the tapestries at the lecture he just looked blank and waffled. He didn't say 'actually I don't know as they weren't actually woven/stitched by me.' There are textiles artists who do make large tapestries themselves so it's not unrealistic to assume he'd done it and not just sent off a drawing.

He makes a big deal of making his stuff himself. So, yes, there could be an element of deception. More likely is (as I've already said) that he's either lazy and can't be bothered explaining or he's arrogant enough to assume we shouldn't ask.

I'll ask again - if you go and see a painting by a particular artist and you find out it wasn't actually painted by them, they just drerw it, would you feel that it was still their own work?

 

[madzone]

I didn't say that. Of course followers of the technical aspects of tapestry will no doubt be familiar with the workshop of Pieter van Aelst. The tapestries may well be credited when they are displayed for all I know.

A skillful weave without a masterly design wouldn't be hanging in the Sistine Chapel however.

So you admit it's collaborative? In which case, what's the problem with crediting the craftsman?

 

[miss minnie]

I'll ask again - if you go and see a painting by a particular artist and you find out it wasn't actually painted by them, they just drerw it, would you feel that it was still their own work?

I have seen plenty of exhibitions where the credited artist sometimes did no more than take a photograph or draw a sketch and then instructed technicians for the completion, and yes I did regard the work as being that of the artist.

 

[miss minnie]

So you admit it's collaborative? In which case, what's the problem with crediting the craftsman?

Collaboration is when equal partners come together to produce something. It sounds to me that the weavers were commissioned and paid. Why would a technician be credited?

 

[miss minnie]

Would you expect the firm that makes the canvas on which the paint lies to be credited?

 

[madzone]

Collaboration is when equal partners come together to produce something. It sounds to me that the weavers were commissioned and paid. Why would a technician be credited?

You don't see weaving as an art form?

 

[madzone]

Would you expect the firm that makes the canvas on which the paint lies to be credited?

And this is why craftspeople have been at the shitty end of the pile for fucking decades. You lump weaving in with making canvas. You're either an arrogant snob or thick as pig shit.

 

[miss minnie]

You don't see weaving as an art form?

Sure, if a weaver executes their own designs. If they get paid to make somebody else's designs then they are acting as 'builders' or technicians.

 

[miss minnie]

And this is why craftspeople have been at the shitty end of the pile for fucking decades. You lump weaving in with making canvas. You're either an arrogant snob or thick as pig shit.

Well thats charming I must say. Apology please.

 

[madzone]

Sure, if a weaver executes their own designs. If they get paid to make somebody else's designs then they are acting as 'builders' or technicians.

So you DO value the design above the making