" I am essentially, a non-collaborator". This was met with a slightly surprised reply suggesting that this was an unusual position to take. Not unusual in the 1550's when Vasari published "The Lives of Artists" and postulated that artists were the singular conduit of a God given vision of the world. Not a position to take in the 21st Century, granted, but certainly an expression of a view that artists have a singular vision of the world they inhabit. What Vasari put forward I think, was a notion of the solitary artist. The picture of the artist, alone, in his cold sparsely furnished garret began there.
My co-respondent was a product of a noughties art education, where collaboration, either with fellow art students or external cultural bodies is encouraged, de rigueur... and often a pre-requisite of modules or projects within the course of study. To my mind, this forced collaboration is often counterproductive and false ; many students come to believe that having a 'group show' or being in contact with a gallery is 'collaborative'. Frequently it leads to a dilution of strong ideas and any real driving individuals are subsumed within the group.
And I'm not sure that collaboration is the most useful term to use when groups of artists come together to produce work. Co-operation, maybe. I am of an age where the term itself still conjures up distasteful connotations associated with the Second World War and many more recent conflicts: when the punishment for collaboration was often brutal and swift.
And Fine Art may not be the ideal arena to collaborate within. Certain areas within the arts offer the possibility of many truer collaborations than Fine Art does; Film-making often brings together directors and cinematographers, Dance and Ballet; choreographers and dancers, Music production; song writers and producers. All these, I think, are true collaborative forms. I have no doubt that Picasso's printer, Aldo Crommelynk, did not see himself as a collaborator. Yet he formed a co-operative team which facilitated some of the world's most important graphic imagery.
In a recent series of essays extolling the collaborative form of making work, the author David Patten (crucially, dealing with collaborations between Artists and Architects - an area where I think true collaboration is possible) states that on one occasion, when a colleague was challenged on collaboration, he states ; " Well, Jack looked the guy in the eye and said, 'Not every artist can do this sort of work - and maybe you are one of them ".
This repost suggests that if you are unwilling to collaborate you are a somehow less successful as an artist, and by insinuation, not as talented as you could be. Well, the opposite is most certainly true; not every artist has the capacity for self criticism and self reliance...and unswerving self belief. All of which are crucial to creating art which is any good.
Referring back to my statement on the term 'collaboration' itself, of course if it all goes pear shaped, a collaborator can always say "I was only following orders"...