Re: Sculptors using others to carve for them
I don't know how welcome this would be. The anonymous carvers aren't working for the glory of it all; they basically want a paycheck. They might also want their name on whatever you hire them to produce, but it's just as possible that they wouldn't want to be associated with it, if it doesn't fit in with their own aesthetics. Often an artist (and we can assume that at least some of these folks are artists in their own rights) wants to present a coherent body of work to the world, not have his/her signature on all sorts of miscellaneous things they may have put their hands on.
The purchasers of the work are paying for the "name" artist, not for the names of various assistants. If a piece is signed "Picasso and Joe Blow" would it be more or less valuable than if it was just signed Picasso? Damian Hirst famously hires people to produce his Dot paintings whom he's ascertained have no talent at painting (evidently, he feels they'll interfere less with his conception); if you'd paid the big bucks for a Damian Hirst (TM) painting of dots, would you want it signed by him, or by the actual person who painted it? If that was you, would you be happy to be thus certified as talentless?