I have written before about my feelings on people using others to make their work and today the subject comes up again both with a trip to see an exhibition of Damien Hirst's work at the Tate Modern and the death yesterday of Thomas Kinkade.

I mainly wanted to go to the Tate to see an exhibiton by Yayoi Kusama which I have been waiting to see for about a year. The artist is known for her work with dots and being a bit of a dot obsessive myself I had really looked forward to it. Unfortunately a lot of the work in the show was distinctly dotless so as we walked around I was losing faith there would be any at all, but the last two rooms were worth the wait. Both 'Propogating Room' and 'Infinity Mirror Room' were mesmerising and I hope to go again before the exhibition ends to stand in them again and absorb the light and colours.

Next up was the Hirst exhibition. Damien Hirst is an artist I have very mixed feeling about and one whose name stirs much emotion in people. It seems people either think he is a great artist, a poor artist, a great business man or a con-man. To be honest I think my opinon on him sits somewhere covering all those descriptions and I'm not sure why they have to be mutually exclusive. I know people like the idea of artists starving away driven by internal demons and happy to work for nothing, but we all have bills to pay and isn't it great if someone can do that doing work they love? Is there anything wrong with designing work to appeal to people? Most of the work I produce is based on what I think will appeal to people, what can be reproduced and what I know I can write up and diagram. This commercial side to it greatly influences a lot of what I produce and whilst at time it has been criticised, often by myself, and I have struggled with it (I talked about it in these blogs here and here from last year) I really recognise now that I truly enjoy the process of creating work to set criteria and enabling others to reproduce it. I love teaching and writing combined with beadwork and enjoy being able to mix all of them in what I do.

Of course Hirst is on a whole different level to me, but I think it's an interesting subject. At what point does art become craft or just objects designed to appeal? Is there anything wrong with art which doesn't 'say anything' but is just visually appealing?

Another criticism frequently levelled at Hirst is that he doesn't make all his own work. Once again, is that so wrong? This criticsm is often thrown at Hirst, and Kinkade, but what about Reubens, Dale Chihuly or Leonardo Da Vinci? Many artists didn't, or don't, physically make their own work, for a variety of reasons, but some seem to never be criticised for it. Is there a fine line between having people help you and the work being someone else's? When does that line become blurred? Does it even matter at all? I know beadwork designers who use beaders to make up finished pieces and I completely understand why they have need for this. We all know beading takes a long time and if you're trying to promote say a range of kits in different colours it could take months to get all the work done by yourself so this is where others helping you would come in very handy. Personally I hope I will always fall down on the side of being delighted for anyone who can make a living doing what they love and if they need assistance with this in any way, so be it. Isn't it great that a designer is so busy and their work is so in demand that they need help?

Personally I love nothing more about beading than starting a new project. All that experimentation, test ideas, ripped apart beadwork and frustrating times until the idea works and then you have... umpteen hours of plain old beading. Sometimes that beading is fun, entrancing and contemplative, but other times it's just plain boring. Yet I have met other beaders who only like that part. They hate starting and finishing and just want the bit inbetween. I need to meet some more of those and get them on board!

But although I encourage others to do this I haven't yet, not because I think it's wrong in any way, but because I'm just not sure how I would feel using a piece of work that I hadn't personally beaded as an example of my work. Maybe I need to try it and find out- sure would get those new kits out faster!

To learn more about the subject, and explore my feelings on it a bit more, I have ordered 'The Art of Not Making: The New Artist/ Artisan Relationship' which I hope will expand on the idea and educate me.

Anyway, enough ponderance and back to the exhibition. Casting aside all thoughts of Hirst's motives, politics, or even bank balance, I viewed the exhibition through a purely visual and visceral eye and... loved it. The colours, shapes, scales and drama of his work is very visually appealing and I found myself wanting to reach out and touch it - a sure sign I like something. With a mix of dots, cigarette butts, mirrors, dead cows and even live butterflies it is an interesting exhibition. I even discovered one of the most beautiful pieces I have ever seen: 'Anatomy of an Angel.' Do I think he carved it with his own hands? Not for a second. Is it an amazing work of art by him? Absolutely.