NathanA wrote:Ridiculousness. No shape is art. Ask Gotoh if he makes pipes or art. If he intends his creations to be art he therefore isn't a pipemaker.
Firstly, a maker of anything doesn't get to decide if he/she is creating art. The consumer does.
Secondly, if Michelangelo intended the David to be art, is he not a sculptor? If he intended the David to be a lawn ornament, is he not an artist?
NathanA wrote:Pipes can have artistic value and they can be artistically crafted but that is far different than art.
How is that?
Is your argument that in order for anything to be art it must have no use what-so-ever?
The Smoking Yeti wrote:You might say the artist leaves a bit of themselves with the work, something the forger never can.
While I'm not sure that's 100% true, I think it's close. Even copies and forgeries are likely to have subtle differences, even if they aren't easy to perceive.
Allow me to step on George's toes and clarify. I'm suggesting that maybe in the act of conception and creation, the artist is in fact leaving something purely spirit with his work. I'm not suggesting minor differences, as a forgery might have, I'm suggesting that in the act of creation, the intent and will of the artist leaves an imprint upon the work. Something no forgery can replicate, and something people may or may not be able to sense.
Obviously I don't know you to prove/ disprove this idea.
The Smoking Yeti wrote: I'm suggesting that maybe in the act of conception and creation, the artist is in fact leaving something purely spirit with his work.
I think you're right on with this! One of my favorite quotes:
St. Francis of Assisi wrote:A laborer uses his hands. A craftsman uses his hands and heart. An artist uses his hands, heart, and soul.
This quote has been in my E-mail signature line for several years now. It's certainly not going to hold up in defining if our pipes are art or not, but it's an encouragement to me. I aspire to poor my heart and soul into my pipes, as well as my time and energy. I don't think we are the ones to decide if have achieved Art or not. I think that happens over time as our body of work develops and is critiqued by our pipe making peers and knowledgeable collectors.
The Smoking Yeti wrote:You might say the artist leaves a bit of themselves with the work, something the forger never can.
While I'm not sure that's 100% true, I think it's close. Even copies and forgeries are likely to have subtle differences, even if they aren't easy to perceive.
Allow me to step on George's toes and clarify. I'm suggesting that maybe in the act of conception and creation, the artist is in fact leaving something purely spirit with his work. I'm not suggesting minor differences, as a forgery might have, I'm suggesting that in the act of creation, the intent and will of the artist leaves an imprint upon the work. Something no forgery can replicate, and something people may or may not be able to sense.
Obviously I don't know you to prove/ disprove this idea.
Let me let you in on a little secret.......I am really just busting everyone's balls. I don't have a true stand one way or the other. Today I am the "devil" in the phrase "arguing with the devil himself". I hope I have helped
My personal definition of art is this: If a piece (no matter what the medium) provokes thought or some type of emotional reaction in the viewer then it is art. Just that simple for me.
My favorite artist is CJ Bradford. He does amazing pen and ink drawings. I have seen more than one of his original drawings. They are amazing and truly breathtaking....which is the same reaction I have when I look at the prints on my walls.
Am I Calamity Jane or Annie Oakley??...depends on the day. www.ladybriar.com
I agree with Scottie in that I don't believe an original has more art or meaning than a print of that art. That depends entirely on the viewer.
Speaking of which, that's a big part of (post)modern art philosophy...it doesn't matter what the artist intended, only how it's perceived by the viewer.
Originals don't cost more because they are more "art" than copies. They cost more because of an economic system that assigns value based on rarity.
My comments so far may imply otherwise, but I don't think the line between art and craft is easy to define, nor do I have an answer that I'm comfortable with. I've thought about it a lot. Whatever the answer is, I will say that I'm not comfortable or satisfied by what amounts to mysticism. We all have spiritual belief systems, but this idea that if you put soul into it then it becomes art...well, the conversation is basically over at that point because you dropped the spiritual trump card that nobody can actually defend or refute.
scotties22 wrote:My personal definition of art is this: If a piece (no matter what the medium) provokes thought or some type of emotional reaction in the viewer then it is art. Just that simple for me.
So if what you're saying is correct, your "ball-busting" on this thread is just a form of art?
---
Fail early, fail often. Your success depends on it.
That's not to say one can't logically defend a spiritual belief. One of my best friends is a PhD student in a dual Philosophy / Religious Studies program. He loves nothing more than engaging in Christian apologetics and applying philosophical and logical systems to try and prove the existence of God. He understands, though, that saying "well that's just what I believe" doesn't successfully defend a stance...it just ends the conversation.
mredmond wrote:Speaking of which, that's a big part of (post)modern art philosophy...it doesn't matter what the artist intended, only how it's perceived by the viewer.
I think you have touched on something important here as well. There is a difference in philosophy that changes the definition of art. If you're coming at it from a postmodern view, art is in the eye of the beholder. Debating that point is probably a good idea for a different thread when Ernie gets bored next time.
From the artist's point of view, however, if he does not put his soul into the work (whatever that entails), the piece, instead of provoking thoughts of admiration, provokes thoughts of "Now why did he do that?! That was dumb!" I'm speaking from personal experience here.
---
Fail early, fail often. Your success depends on it.
How can one know if an artist put his soul into it or not? Maybe it's all soul and the art sucks because the artist lacks technical proficiency. Maybe it's all in the viewer's head? If you think art is bad because you think the artist didn't put enough soul into it, isn't that your problem? I don't think you can underestimate how much personal preference affects this. I love some artwork that others think is dumb. Does that make me dumb? Does that make them dumb? Does that make the art dumb? No.
mredmond wrote:How can one know if an artist put his soul into it or not?
The artist knows.
Soul isn't the only factor to art, but it is a necessary factor. Just like you've got to have love in marriage, but you've got to have more than love to make a marriage work.
---
Fail early, fail often. Your success depends on it.
I don't think it matters what the artist knows. What does the viewer feel and think? Love is not a prerequisite for marriage. It's needed to have a good marriage and I'll concede that good art comes from an artist putting their soul into their work, but the presence of the artist's soul doesn't define if an object is art or not. What a thing is and what that thing's relative value is are not the same thing. Bad art is still art. A loveless marriage is still a marriage. I think your comment gets to the heart of the debate here, though. It seems that some of us are saying art exists separately from our personal beliefs and value judgements and some of us are saying that art is dependent upon our beliefs and value judgements to exist.
mredmond wrote:I don't think it matters what the artist knows. What does the viewer feel and think? Love is not a prerequisite for marriage. It's needed to have a good marriage and I'll concede that good art comes from an artist putting their soul into their work, but the presence of the artist's soul doesn't define if an object is art or not. What a thing is and what that thing's relative value is are not the same thing. Bad art is still art. A loveless marriage is still a marriage. I think your comment gets to the heart of the debate here, though. It seems that some of us are saying art exists separately from our personal beliefs and value judgements and some of us are saying that art is dependent upon our beliefs and value judgements to exist.
I think we're at least coming to an understanding here. There are, in my understanding four categories of art.
1. Good art done well
2. Good art done poorly
3. Bad art done well
4. Bad art done poorly.
What I'm addressing is category 1, because I don't presume anyone here wants to pursue bad art or pursue good art with only minimal effort.
And you're right on by saying that I believe that good art is art regardless of whether it is ever seen by anyone. Then again, I also believe that a sunset no one sees can still be beautiful. I believe there is at least a component of objectivity to beauty, even though the appreciation of beauty is subjective. You may make pipes that are objectively beautiful and I may not appreciate them. You may also make pipes that are ugly and someone else appreciates them. There's no argument possible over taste. But I do think there are some objective things about beauty and art that we can discuss. Otherwise our comments on the gallery would consist of "I like it" or "I dislike it" after we get past the technical execution. David's recent critique of assymetry vs. symmetry is a worthless discussion if there is nothing objective about beauty.
---
Fail early, fail often. Your success depends on it.
Jeremiah, I agree that there are rules by which we determine something is beautiful or done well and I strongly dislike hearing artists say there are no rules in art. That said, we aren't discussing how we determine if art is good, we are discussing what fundamentally makes a thing art. Two different topics.
Micah, I think it's been a pretty darn civil discussion. I feel like we might be growing as a community. I'm just waiting for Todd or Ryan to appear and blow the whole thing up in hilarious fashion.
You're totally right Micah- I just enjoyed Scottie's strong responses! I think we should move on to a new discussion though- I vote Bill Waterson gets the last words!
Many years ago when I was a young teenager I was working a part time job. One of My co-workers was an art student that was doing his masters thesis on perfect circles. Me, being a smart ass teenager, asked Him if He had drawn any donuts that day. He looked at Me with a bored look and replied, I don't draw I create. I think He was an artist, Norm.
NathanA wrote:
Ridiculousness. No shape is art. Ask Gotoh if he makes pipes or art. If he intends his creations to be art he therefore isn't a pipemaker.
Pipes can have artistic value and they can be artistically crafted but that is far different than art.
Why?
If an artist has created what they feel to be art then it can be up for discussion as to whether it is good art or bad art. If a craftsman makes a practical object with the intention that it be used for its prescribed purpose and someone decides that to them it is art that is entirely subjective. If Scottie feels that billiards transcend that boundary that is her opinion and she is entitled to it. If you feel that Gotoh's work transcends that boundary that is your opinion and you are entitled to it but that doesn't make your opinion more valuable because both are just opinions. And this is where I will disagree with David
d.huber wrote:
NathanA wrote:Ridiculousness. No shape is art. Ask Gotoh if he makes pipes or art. If he intends his creations to be art he therefore isn't a pipemaker.
Firstly, a maker of anything doesn't get to decide if he/she is creating art. The consumer does.
Secondly, if Michelangelo intended the David to be art, is he not a sculptor? If he intended the David to be a lawn ornament, is he not an artist?
NathanA wrote:Pipes can have artistic value and they can be artistically crafted but that is far different than art.
How is that?
Is your argument that in order for anything to be art it must have no use what-so-ever?
It is art if it is intended to be art by the creator and can then be judged as such. It is a pipe if it has been created to be a pipe and can then be judged as such. When arbitrary lines are drawn as to which shapes are and are not art then it illustrates the pointlessness of the conversation because every single person will have a different opinion, all of which would be equally correct (or incorrect, more likely).
The better conversation to have is to put aside all pretension and judge pipes as pipes and discuss what makes Gotoh's or Revyagin's or TJ's pipes transcendant not from a good pipe to art but rather from a good pipe to a great or an outstanding pipe. To me it is just way too self-congratulatory to start calling things art because if pipes are art then all pipes are art, including all the really crappy ones out there. The discussion then has to change to good pipe art vs. bad pipe art when the discussion should just be good pipe vs. bad pipe.
