Except that's not even remotely the issue being discussed here.
This is about artists going to people who are already experts in their field and having them construct the art, but taking (or being given) all of the credit for it.
It's exactly what's being discussed here. Historically, this kind of operation is the norm rather than the exception. If you walk around the Louvre or the Met, a large proportion of what you see will have been painted largely or wholly by an apprentice or assistant. Many Renaissance and Baroque masters ran something akin to a factory, with each painting being the product of several artists specialising in a particular task. The idea of art as the personal product of a singular genius is largely a work of romantic mythology, continued into the present day as marketing puffery for the art industry.
Are you morally outraged that Marc Jacobs does not personally cut and sew every garment bearing his name? Are you shocked to learn that many pop stars are entirely unable to write, produce or play music?
No, it's not. There is no training being given. These are not apprentices learning how to create art, they are skilled professionals carrying out work that the artist themselves is often incapable of. An apprentice learns their skills from their master and could be seen as a creation of the master, art technicians are simply there to do the work.
> Are you morally outraged that Marc Jacobs does not personally cut and sew every garment bearing his name? Are you shocked to learn that many pop stars are entirely unable to write, produce or play music?
No, and I never said I was outraged at the art technicians not getting credit, since they themselves are certainly don't seem to be. However there the public perception is that the artist who gets the credit is the one who did the majority of the work when this if often not the case.
This seems to be the reverse, the apprentice with financial resources asks the artist to build the work and then take the credit. They most likely give some headaches to the technicians when they don't know what they want or are unhappy with the results of the specifications
This happens all through society. I take credit for all sorts of things I couldn't have done without my shirt. My shirt was made by shirtmaking experts who were paid, peanuts probably, and that's good enough. So where do you draw the line? The thing about the shirt maker is that they are interchangeable, whereas I, with the things I take credit for while wearing the shirt, am not. I have authorship. The shirtmaker doesn't.
This is about artists going to people who are already experts in their field and having them construct the art, but taking (or being given) all of the credit for it.