Art or Craft?

[scotties22]

Have I wound you all up enough yet???

NOOOOOO! It was JUST GETTING FUN!

I do admit I think it's more fun to approach these discussions with a strong opinion- lots of good material to think on in the wreckage!

I agree. It makes both sides really think about the conversation and gets rid of all the knee jerk answers little fuckers like you give

I hope that comment can get this thread back on track!

[scotties22]

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?

And I am THE grand fucking master of said art form, so watch yourself Mr. Sandcastle!

[scotties22]

So if what you're saying is correct, your "ball-busting" on this thread is just a form of art?

Scottie is the Michelangelo da Vinci of pipe making forum ball-busting.

This.....is going to be the new PMF t-shirt......order now

[scotties22]

PS......bad art IS STILL ART!!

[d.huber]

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.

I hear you, but I think we may have to continue to disagree. The the creator gets absolutely no say what-so-ever in how their work is perceived. I can call my pipes whatever I want, but unless they are perceived that way, I'm wrong. I can display my work a certain way or talk about it a certain way, but the perception is up to the audience, not the creator. It's up to the creator to create something that communicates their intent to their audience. That's one of the hardest things to do as an artist and many (if not most) fail.

If pipes can't be art and there is no justification for discussing pipes as art, then anything other than a billiard is a failure as a pipe. I think this is wrong. When we discuss whether a pipe is good or not and we discuss line, flow, balance, execution we are using the vocabulary of artistic criticism. We are talking about art.

[d.huber]

I agree with Scottie in that I don't believe an original has more art or meaning than a print of that art. ... 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.

I have to admit, reading this makes me wonder if you've had the opportunity to see a print of a painting as well as the painting itself. If you're talking about a forgery I could understand, but if we are talking about prints I don't. There is little to compare between an original and a print of that original other than a seeming likeness to each other. A print is like a really shitty forgery.

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.

A fair point! I think that we can translate "spirit" to "fingerprint" or "signature" and still talk about the same thing. It's this thing that separates originals from forgeries and leaves prints completely lacking.

[mredmond]

David, I've spent most of my life interacting with art and have a bit of fine art college education under my belt. My pipe shop is in a converted warehouse that is 99% occupied by fine artists and I get the opportunity to see some of their work at almost every stage of progress. I've been to a number of very good art museums and stood feet from modern and classic master works. I know that there is a difference between an original and a print. My point was that to the viewer the print CAN have the the same or a similar impact. There is a wide variety of quality and methods of printing and I was making the point that to the viewer it doesn't necessarily matter. It certainly does matter to some. I own a fine art print that is a hand pulled eight or nine color screen print. The print almost becomes more impressive than the original because of the difficulty of production. I always prefer to see an original, especially if it employs a lot of texture, but that doesn't mean a print can't have the same impact to the viewer. I think it's important to not assume that one's own preferences are universal.

[d.huber]

I wonder if I'm thinking of something different than you. Hand pulled is outside of my realm of knowledge.

While I agree that assuming one's preferences are universal is poor reasoning, I find it hard to believe that a print and the original would have the same effect or impact. In my experience there is no comparison between the two.

That being said, a hand pulled print sounds intriguing. Even so, it would still be different from the original and so being should elicit a different response, even if it's subtle.

[e Markle]

Since I have a degree in philosophy, I feel completely qualified to say this: you guys give me a headache.

[The Smoking Yeti]

I'm beginning to feel the same way Ernie. I thought this is what you wanted!!!

[scotties22]

Since I have a degree in philosophy, I feel completely qualified to say this: you guys give me a headache.

My work here is done

[mredmond]

Ernie, Micah - be careful what you wish for. : )

David, my main point was that depending on the medium of the original and the quality of the print/facsimile, I think a print can replicate the response in the viewer. That's not a guarantee, but I reject the idea that a print is inherently unable to produce the same level of response, which then means that the print possesses an equal amount of art as the original, based on the suggestion that emotional/academic/spiritual resonance is what determines if a thing is art.

Consider, too, the fine art forms that are always prints like photography and printmaking. Often the "print" is significantly more evocative than the "original" because the original is a metal plate or block of wood with a bunch of scratches and gouges in it.

[sandahlpipe]

I wonder if I'm thinking of something different than you. Hand pulled is outside of my realm of knowledge.

While I agree that assuming one's preferences are universal is poor reasoning, I find it hard to believe that a print and the original would have the same effect or impact. In my experience there is no comparison between the two.

That being said, a hand pulled print sounds intriguing. Even so, it would still be different from the original and so being should elicit a different response, even if it's subtle.

There is most definitely a difference between a print and the original. I never thought there was until I went to some of the world's best art galleries (including the Louvre, which has many paintings far more impressive than the Mona Lisa). The texture on the paintings and the age of the canvas, the texture of the paint brush, and the realization that someone hundreds of years ago actually used his hands to create a masterpiece puts you in awe in a way no print ever could. Sure, the message intended to be conveyed by a painting can be conveyed by a print, but a print, no matter how impressive, is not an adequate substitute. There may be art forgers who can make a painting indistinguishable from the original. Those may elicit the same response from uninformed viewers, but a print does not. Otherwise, why go through the trouble of going to an art gallery when you can see all the paintings on your computer screen or in an art book?

[N.Burnsworth]

My personal opinion is that making the pipe is "craft" designing it is "engineering and design" and the emotion it bestows upon you or another is "art". Art is emotion, not the act or ability to create it. The act or ability to create is called skill. Take music for example, the musician learns a skill to create music, and the music stimulates emotion. They are also called artists because they create music that stimulates emotion. Bada bing bada boom
Forgive me if I sound like and ass LOL

[mredmond]

Not all art is old oil paintings. You shouldn't make a general argument about art and try to prove it with limited, specific examples that don't account for the vast breadth of art styles and materials. It's not fair to say that all prints are less artistically impactful because a print of the Mona Lisa is less impactful. The existence of impactful photography, printmaking, and reproductions proves this.

[sandahlpipe]

My personal opinion is that making the pipe is "craft" designing it is "engineering and design" and the emotion it bestows upon you or another is "art". Art is emotion, not the act or ability to create it. The act or ability to create is called skill. Take music for example, the musician learns a skill to create music, and the music stimulates emotion. They are also called artists because they create music that stimulates emotion. Bada bing bada boom
Forgive me if I sound like and ass LOL

I don't know where you're getting your opinion from, but there are certain elements that you're missing from your equation. The ability to create art does indeed require skill, but it requires more than raw skill. It requires (as stated above) the soul of the artist to be imparted in some way. Properly speaking, a musical "artist" is not as much an artist as an interpreter of a composition, unless the composition was written by the performer. The freedom of a musical "artist" is limited by the composition itself.

Music differs from the plastic arts in that it unfolds over time. A painting or sculpture is taken in all at once, even if many hours can be spent looking at its individual details. Music (and theater) can be analyzed only by a combination of memory and repetition.

As for art being an emotion, I think you may have overstated your point. There is an emotional component to art, but it is more than mere emotion. And it requires a good artist to put elements in the art with which the beholder of the piece can connect with. A good artist can make the beholder of the piece feel a certain way. And that requires something more than mere skill.

[sandahlpipe]

Not all art is old oil paintings. You shouldn't make a general argument about art and try to prove it with limited, specific examples that don't account for the vast breadth of art styles and materials. It's not fair to say that all prints are less artistically impactful because a print of the Mona Lisa is less impactful. The existence of impactful photography, printmaking, and reproductions proves this.

I thought we were talking about prints of oil paintings. Sorry. Prints of oil paintings don't do exactly the same thing as the original. Prints of original photographs can.

[N.Burnsworth]

Yes Jeremiah, my mistake. You are absolutely right, I did not mention that art is also a product of the creators own emotion, and is one of, if not the most important element. That is what makes it original. You are also right about interpretation. A cover band is just a cover band, and reproducing the composition through their own interpretation.

[scotties22]

Yes Jeremiah, my mistake. You are absolutely right, I did not mention that art is also a product of the creators own emotion, and is one of, if not the most important element. You are also right about interpretation. A cover band is just a cover band, and reproducing the composition through their own interpretation.

With this we are right back to the original artist/forger debate. Does the cover band, playing the song just as the original artist, not elicit the same emotions in the listener?

But, I think Jeremiah was speaking more to the "writer" of the music being the true "artist" and not the one performing it. With this, I do not agree. It takes just as much of an artist to create (write) the music as it does someone to play it. Albeit a bit different skillset they are both "artists".

[sandahlpipe]

Yes Jeremiah, my mistake. You are absolutely right, I did not mention that art is also a product of the creators own emotion, and is one of, if not the most important element. You are also right about interpretation. A cover band is just a cover band, and reproducing the composition through their own interpretation.

With this we are right back to the original artist/forger debate. Does the cover band, playing the song just as the original artist, not elicit the same emotions in the listener?

But, I think Jeremiah was speaking more to the "writer" of the music being the true "artist" and not the one performing it. With this, I do not agree. It takes just as much of an artist to create (write) the music as it does someone to play it. Albeit a bit different skillset they are both "artists".

Again I'm going off of the notion that art starts with the originator of an idea. A musician is not an artist in that he has first to put the idea into his head before he can perform it. The idea is not original to the performer. The performer has certain liberties within the composition which can be artful, but not as much in the creative sense as in the interpretive. (I feel I can say this since I've been trained to play piano classically since I was 5.) There are differences, of course in pop and jazz, where the interpretation is more of the art than the composition itself.

As to the cover band playing the original song, I would say it's not the same. At least not exactly the same. Every performer has their own nuances that they infuse into the piece. Those nuances don't make it better or worse necessarily, or even in a different category. They're just different. (Like different hues of a color).

There is a reason I have 5 different recordings of Handel's Messiah at home, each with their own nuances. And there's also a huge difference between one of those recordings and hearing a live performance. You won't hear a difference from copy of a recording to copy of the same recording, but you hear a massive difference from concert hall to concert hall.

And, as you say, that lands us right back at the artist/forger debate.