Art contrasted with Craft

[fritchie]

redrajah and Jarrod - This reply can do for both, and I thank you for your contributions to a stimulating discussion. I agree with Jarrod that this kind of forum can be very stimulating, educational, and sculpturally rewarding.

What we may be discussing here is often described as the distinction between art and craft. Artists, at least according to endowed opinion, think more about their work and make more of a conscious attempt at communication; craftspersons are more concerned with direct expression of a sculptural concept (sculptural in deference to this forum), without necessarily wanting to say more than the work itself contains. Always remember that any sculptural work is symbolic and open to many readings, according to the viewer’s background and perceptiveness.:cool:

[obseq]

Originally posted by fritchie
redrajah and Jarrod - This reply can do for both, and I thank you for your contributions to a stimulating discussion. I agree with Jarrod that this kind of forum can be very stimulating, educational, and sculpturally rewarding.

What we may be discussing here is often described as the distinction between art and craft. Artists, at least according to endowed opinion, think more about their work and make more of a conscious attempt at communication; craftspersons are more concerned with direct expression of a sculptural concept (sculptural in deference to this forum), without necessarily wanting to say more than the work itself contains. Always remember that any sculptural work is symbolic and open to many readings, according to the viewer’s background and perceptiveness.:cool:


while there are clear differences between practioners of a process and that of the art, the question becomes blurred when the focus of making art rests soley within the process itself.

specifically, what results will occur given certain factors guided by the practitioner.

[redrajah]

the artists i know are more prone to experimentation. they are more likely to break things and less likely to know the end object before it has arrived. the craftsmen i know are usually the ones to turn accidents into "techniques" and to perfect them. they are more likely to fix things and to know exactly what the object will look like before it arrives.

i think it takes fair bits of both to be great at either and the difference between the two is in the proportions.

[gordonrogers]

Its a shame we have so few words to describe these practices, and the ones we do mislead. As makers of either art or craft we tend to look at ourselves, our intentions and the things we make too much, the distinction perhaps has more to do with the world or market these objects are launched into.

Art is arguably an enquiring, questioning, communicating tool. Different fields of arts practice engage in dialogue with different individuals or groups. It can play to a crowd (like public art) to your peers or to just one person.

I feel that one thing that unifies a lot of craft practice is seduction. Craft objects want you to want them, take them home and treasure them, live with them. It think there can still be elements of communication, but interestingly I think these lived with objects have a fantastically long time to let that dialogue run.

Art objects perhaps aim firstly to move you, they might do that through being fearful, dark, even offensive. They might do that by being lovely, beautiful and seductive in just the same way as craft.

This seduction sells and and the two fields move closest together, and become confused, at the most successfully commercial end of each field.

But if only we had better words to define all this, destinguishing between sugar craft, trades and crafts such as bricklaying and traditional and contemporary fine craft. I've never been keen on the term 'applied art', I think Craft is un-applied design (in a good way). I think most Public Art practice would be an example of applying art

[sculptorsam]

At the highest level, is it not possible for a work to be both craft and art at the same time? I think both sides like to separate themselves from the other due more to their own fear and/or misunderstanding than is necessary.

Perhaps some craftists do not stretch themselves and their work becauce they fear they are unqualified; that creativity is the provence of the true artist. They fear their work being judged to the highest standards of human creation, and the failure that is inevitable. So they remain where it is comfortable and people "like" and understand them more.

Perhaps some artists do not devote enough time to the technical execution of their work because they prefer to bask in the "artiness" of sloppy work; believing carelessness is next to godliness, a form of professional jargon used to exclude those not cool enough to "get it". Why would they want to put time into forming an object well? They are not a mere laboror, they are a great and insightful Artist!


Sam

[gordonrogers]

I suppose craft skills are a tool you can either choose to use or not, it depends on what or who your are art is targeted at, as above, if you are making art for someone to own, possibly for the rest of their life, a highly skilled execusion of the work will help the work endure and be enjoyed. In the public realm the tools you need ate often more closely allied with engineering. However if your making work for an audeince of peers and critics the work doesn't need to endure for much longer than they are looking at it. Its the idea, not the object they will take away with them. I suppose in these cases you don't want their awe at your skillfull execution of the work to obscure their reading of the ideas.

Its a case of selecting an appropriate tool for the job

[sculptorsam]

You are assuming that "art" is simply about ideas. I disagree. That is called philosophy, which is also a fine and noble pursuit, but it is not a visual art.

Sam

[gordonrogers]

'idea' was probably the wrong word, I suppose with art you are either looking for empathy with or from your viewer, or perhaps change them and their view a little.

[Araich]

Forgive me. I have just skimmed the above posts... but I wanted to reply.

I think - and it was restated by a friend today - that where art and craft diverge is mainly in the intent, and the element of risk or exploration taken.

In craft, you start with a firm idea of the outcome. You take proven steps.

In art, you dive in. Sink or swim. It's a personal journey.

They overlap. And maybe neither betters the other.
But I'm an artist, and it is my practice, and not my craft.

http://www.artwise.com.au/images/upsidedown.gif

[sculptorsam]

I think craft is more about a set of traditional skills/techniques than outcomes. Craft tends to be very creative within a very small range, but it does not step out of those self-imposed boundaries. While technique influences the outcome, it does not determine it. The same skills that led to Eames-like wall-art was used by Roszak and Lipton to create great sculptures. Therefore, there are aesthetic choices being made by the craftist.

I think the separation of art and craft is a recent notion. Since he keeps popping up here, I will point to Michelangelo's David as an example of a work done with impeccable craft yet simultaneously a work of high art. Yes, there is incredibly dreary, pitiful craft done in the world. But bad work is not exlusive to craft. Much "art" I see is wretched as well. It is entirely possible for the craftist to undertake a work without full knowledge of the outcome (reacting to the wood grain, the sag of the clay) while the artist may know exactly what effect they are after. Perhaps this self-counciousness of work is analogous to clumsy, ponderous craft.

I think both sides could improve the quality of their work by seeing what they could learn from the other.


Sam

[sculptorsam]

They overlap. And maybe neither betters the other.
But I'm an artist, and it is my practice, and not my craft.


I know of an incredible potter who refers to his work as his "practice." I happen to take pride in the "craft" of my work. Perhaps the muddled nature of our language regarding this distinction points to their fundamental relation.

Sam

[benny]

So glad someone else used the word 'muddled'!
The Clear as Mud philosophy about all this is that you can craft a life to make art, but can you art a life to make craft?
The crafting of my 'life' has led to the production of these objects that others consider Art.
I guess the question is also one of utility, but 'use' can also refer to the practicality of using form to communicate visual information that cannot easily be translated into words or other mediums.
When a sculpture stops someone in their tracks - I know it's not craft.
Regards
Benny

[sculptorsam]

I think you must have infultrated my subconscious Benny, I didn't even realize I used it!

I like that:
When a sculpture stops someone in their tracks - I know it's not craft.

Perhaps that clarifies a bit my thoughts on Ron Mueck's sculpture. His photo-realistic sculpture displays a high level of craft, yet most would agree he is an artist, not a craftist. I was wondering why that is. Perhaps it is because a 16' crouching boy stops us in our tracks? It still isn't perfectly clear to me, but that helps a bit.

Still, some that is considered "craft" stops me dead while some that is considered "art" makes me want to pass by even quicker.

Sam

[redrajah]

one of these is art the other is craft. hmmmm....

[obseq]

Originally posted by benny



When a sculpture stops someone in their tracks - I know it's not craft.
Regards
Benny




i have to respectfully disagree here....

perhaps this might emerge to be more of an issue with the semantics of the spectator but i can recall several instances where i have been more enamored with the exectuion of matter; specifially, the "why" of the object rather than the consequence of the object itself....



great thread...!

[obseq]

"it is never enough to simply make a well crafted representation of the human form, no matter your love for it. your gift is one of communication and there is always so much to say, consciously or otherwise. great work, whether it is figurative or not speaks for it's time and place, it lends new insights into old mysteries, captures a time's collective conscience and opens the doors of discovery. art is simply a record of your experiences and if your experiences are slim then you can expect no more from your work. the greeks did love the human form they said it so well in the sculpture they made. the renaissance man fancied himself as the absolute epicenter of the universe and michelangelo said it succinctly in his david, there stands man in all his beauty, in all his ugliness. the agony of human pathos was never better expressed than by rodin and it is painfully obvious in every thumbstroke. good craft, anatomy and techniques can never be more than points of departure. from there you have to give of yourself and of what you think and how you feel. you have to take risks, to push further than you think possible and to fail mightily. but to be so turned on and so open to what drives you that it doesn't even matter."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a "note to self" from redrajah's website...


well said :)

[fritchie]

I have to apologize for not being on this forum for awhile. I somehow got sidetracked with others. The following comments are a little out of place at this particular point, but that’s inevitable with a linear format. Please bear with me.

I started one of the first conversations because of a post by Jarrod which I took as critical of figurative sculptors in which he said, as I understood, that many are unoriginal, repeating the same forms over and over. Of course, I agree that that is true, but it’s also true of nonrepresentational sculptors. It’s just harder to divine in nonrepresentational work, because a person can rearrange elements endlessly and call each piece “new”. If you rearrange the limbs, say, on a figure, you will be considered either misanthropic or avant garde, but there’s a limit to how far even that can go.

I converted his comment into the artist vs. craftsperson debate to focus on the place of originality in sculpture. I do think most people view the division as hierarchic, with artist on top, but these conversations show that that is too narrow a view. I particularly like gordonrogers’ insight that the goal of craft is seduction. That needs a place in almost all art.

Many may not know that Michelangelo is given credit, at least among some art historians, for defining sculpture as an art. A biography I read long ago says that in his childhood, sculptors were considered “mere” stonecutters, but that he was recognized immediately as one of the world’s great geniuses, and his work as among the highest art. This biography also said something along the lines that he was the world’s first art “personality”, the “divine” Michelangelo.

[benny]

The whole debate about art and craft is so indefinite, it will go on around us forever simply because those two words exist. The polarity of these fields leaves them so alienated from each other we may as well rename them 'stuff' and 'bother' It all leads to those of us who can't see any real distinction in our own lives between the two - deciding to be neither 'artist' or 'craftpersons' but professional muddlers. Theoretically it's in the wording: - that if you do craft, you're a craft person - If you do art, you're an ist. It's a choice of being an average Joe or an ism unto yourself I guess. Mind the gap, it could be infinity itself.

[fritchie]

I think you and I are on similar tracks. See my new thread, Ex nihila.

[parkartist]

Methinks the answer is in the beholder.

If they see craft, then it is craft. If art, then it is art. After all, many look at a sculptor's hard work and shrug; then, is it anything? To that viwer, no.

On the other hand, a perfectly executed bowl might move a person to tears ... stop them in their tracks, to quote a post above. Is that bowl craft, as traditionally defined? Or is it more? To that viewer, it might be art.

Defining our own work is risky. To paraphrash DuChamp ... the viewer completes the work.

PA

[Aurora]

I find it odd that great artistic painters need to learn their colour craft and writers need to learn their literary craft.

Why then do sculptors not need to learn their medium's craft?

You don't need to be an expert craftsman to creat art, but some competancy should play a part. How many of us have seen a "stick in the mud" sculpture beat out a masterfully manipulated medium worked into creative insight?

Sometimes a stick in the mud is just a stick in the mud. Sometimes we and others don't know what we are looking at.

[fritchie]

Where did William Faulkner and James Joyce learn to write, or for that matter, where did William Shakespeare get his vocabulary? The first two invented new writing styles, and W. S. came close to doubling the existing English vocabulary. These people created something essentially from nothing, through their personal gifts.

That’s the danger in emphasizing craft over creativity. Few can see greatness at first sight, so we judge at our own risk, and risk to the future.

[obseq]

Originally posted by fritchie


That’s the danger in emphasizing craft over creativity. Few can see greatness at first sight, so we judge at our own risk, and risk to the future.



I was at the LA County Museum of Art this past weekend and came across an installation roughly entitled, "blue dot painted on masonite."


Yes, this was a blue dot painted on a white masonite background.
I do not recall the artist statement verbatim but it alluded to being respresentative of some, "pre-adolescent, emotional struggle."

Needless to say, I moved past this piece quickly.


Why does art that exhibits an exeedingly lower level of craft recieve accolades and museum space upon the point that the artist deems it as an "emotional outpouring."


It seems to me, looking at this blue dot, that both craft and dynamics were/are not a priority to the artist, rather, a more expedient means of conveying whatever the message(s) might be.

This sounds harsh, I but I find difficulty in looming over a piece that in essence says to me as a spectator,

"I created this in 4.25 minutes and it represents my sadness/struggle/happiness/saving the trees/etc., ad naseum."


Thoughts?

[Aurora]

Fritchie Hi!

All writers must first learn to pick up a pen and write. As a writer myself, I learn the language first and then manipulated the words. A wrong word leads to a wrong mental picture. Rules can and do get broken, but first you need the ABC's.

Obseq Hi, too!

It makes you wonder if the artist statement is the artwork. Seems unfair to call out sculptors and painters and then judge it on literary effectiveness. I've been burned by this practice. (Someone baked a cake, iced it orange and presented it) Has anyone else?

[fritchie]

Aurora - I've done a bit of writing too, but probably not the same as you. For 30+ years I was a university faculty member and researcher, and published scientific papers. Talk about critical reviewers and editors!

Actually, I also was a section associate editor for a chemistry journal fora couple of years, but that proved too much of a conflict with other activities, so it went by the wayside. I do love to play with language.

I agree that you need to learn basic language to express yourself, and you then can move on to better things, but I’m afraid many artists, and the public at large, see craft first and originality second. I think that cheapens art and is a societal danger.

[sculptorsam]

I agree that you need to learn basic language to express yourself, and you then can move on to better things, but I?m afraid many artists, and the public at large, see craft first and originality second. I think that cheapens art and is a societal danger.

The greater threat is art becoming irrelevant to the vast majority of people because it consists of blue dots on white masonite.

Who can seriously be against something being well-made? Do you think Falkner is poorly written? Joyce? One of the greatest books ever written is Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. The union of structure and language boggles the mind.

A great concept in Zen is that of the "beginner's mind." It means to approach the world freshly, as if for the first time. It cautions against the mind of the expert, because they can be too locked into their specialty and accepted knowledge. This can blind them to the world. Trying to approach one's work with a "beginner's mind" is to be aspired to.

But there is a difference between a beginner's mind and an ignorant mind. Falkner and Joyce approached the world with a love of language, the desire to see with their own eyes, and to describe authentically what they saw. They sought to improve their own work and the craft of their work. Witness the astounding progression of Joyce for example. The "artist" that paints a blue dot has no concern for any of that. They insult the memory of true artists with their willful ignorance.

Sam

[Araich]

There is a middle ground (the most fertile) in which neither the technical skill nor the idea has complete dominance, but rather share the burden.
In good art, both perhaps need exist.

A single minute may well be more than enough time to create a great work of art. A visually poor or limited concept is never saved by craft. And a weak idea is laid bare by willful disregard for technique, even if the idea is disregard for technique :rolleyes:

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Araich
A single minute may well be more than enough time to create a great work of art. A visually poor or limited concept is never saved by craft. And a weak idea is laid bare by willful disregard for technique, even if the idea is disregard for technique :rolleyes: [/B]




This says it all.

Here is to the blue dots from a master craftsman.

[redrajah]

jeff koons's sculpture, michael jackson and bubbles, was bought in 1991 for $250,000 by a chicago collector, who then sold it two years ago for $5.6 million at sotheby's. does it matter that he never touched mud but hired a crack team of italian ceramicists to realize his idea?

[Araich]

Originally posted by Aurora
Here is to the blue dots from a master craftsman.

ROFLMAO!

Originally posted by Aurora
...does it matter that he never touched mud but hired a crack team of italian ceramicists to realize his idea?

Yes, and paradoxically, no.
I think great art can come from either the artists own hands, the hands of assistants or the hands of a whole team - even from a machine.
But removing the hand of the artist from the work forces a re-assesment of the artist in relation to the work.
A close working realtionship with an assistant may well overcome the technical limitations of the artist, but his work looses an aspect.
This may or may not have any impact on the quality of the art.

IMHO

[RuBert]

A great place to see craft that is really art is the Metals Museum in Memphis. In my mind the highest of a craft becomes art, but perhaps sometimes in a different way than originally intended.

It is fairly easy to look at some highly crafted objects such as a hand-made teapot for instance and see it as pure craft. However there are those that have pushed that definition such as Ken Ferguson (http://www.garthclark.com/Artists/FergusonKen/shortbio.htm). I have one of his teapots he gave me while at KCAI, similar to the one in the Nelson Museum, and folks, we aren't going to be using it to pour tea. :)

But I have to say it is a good example of the blurred line, still firmly rooted in the functional, and in medium that has a tremendous craft tradition.

[Georges]

Whew - three pages and counting ...
My background is not as a sculptor but an artisan. And, for me, therein lies the "crux of the biscuit" (Frank Zappa).

"Art" without "Craft" is like a poem in gibberish. "Craft" without "Art" is a waste of time, skill and material.

We have learned the most about ancient cultures from their poetry and pottery. Poorly made pottery did not usually survive for us to find. Nor did artless poetry.

Conversely, pottery without Art tells us little of the potter and poetry without Craft is bound to be wildly misinterpreted.

Note: Most thesauri list both as synonyms.

[ALH]

It's probably not best to enter a disscussion by quoting someone else but Georges invoked Zappa and I thought this appropriate; from The Real Frank Zappa Book, Touchstone - Simon and Shuster...."

The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively - because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins.

You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?

If john Cage, for instance, says, "I'm putting a contact microphone on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot juice, and that's my compostition, " then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put a frame around it and said so. "Take it or leave it, I now will this to be music." After that it's a matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it's a guy swallowing carrot juice.

"....This quote should actually uses bold and itallic emphisis, which , unfortunately, I can't replicate here.

I've been straddling this question of craft and art with a new series of sculptures called 'The Sunshine Series'. Shown is SP1, copyright 2000. If I show this in a lighting shop it's craft 'a functional object with emphisis on the function', if I show it in a gallery it's ART.

[cletusugoabunwa]

It is interestingly unfortunate that professional sculptors,are not able to have a unianimous conclusion on this issue of contrast between art/craft.
Cgl,(creative gentlemen and ladies), May l know the relationship between art /craft?
It is interesting because, most of the contribution given are individual ideas,it is also unfortunate because these ideas ,though intelligent are not accepted by some of us.

Craft gave birth to modern art,while art as an expression of ones thought could be represented in, sound, performed or visualised.the relationship between them is that , both are expressions of inner feelings, whichever way it is represented, notwithstanding.The contrast therefore is based on the uniqueness of these individual expressions.
While the original expression remains ,the imitation becomes the craft.

Again, like my fellow sculptors, this is what l think.

Cletus.:)

[ExNihiloStudio]

Throughout this thread "craft" seems to be used in two different ways.
One way is a category of work, which is how this thread got started, i.e., "art versus craft".
The other is technique, the skills and methods to create something, e.g. "craftsmanship".

Regarding technique, Araich put it best: "There is a middle ground (the most fertile) in which neither the technical skill nor the idea has complete dominance, but rather share the burden."

In otherwords, the technique is in perfect support and harmony with the intent of the piece. It could be possible for technique considered sloppy or poor in some contexts to be in perfect support of the intent of a work of art.

As for "Art vs. Craft" -

A piece will be part of a tradition.
Any given living tradition is heading somewhere, usually to some kind of perfection as defined by the tradition. A Master of that tradition knows where it's going and can advance the state of the art a little closer to perfection, i.e. the telos of the tradition. Art (specifically a masterpiece) is out front advancing a tradition closer to its telos, craft is somewhere in the back tracing well beaten paths.

Again Araich states it nicely "In craft, you start with a firm idea of the outcome. You take proven steps.

In art, you dive in. Sink or swim. It's a personal journey"

[fritchie]

You're right on essentially all counts. Craft as a category or field aims lower conceptually than Art. Craft as technique is equally important in most fields, including Art. After this many posts, we are beginning to go round in circles, but it’s still good to get new input. One observation missing to date, I think, is the fact that Art itself as concept seems to be uniquely Western, and relatively modern, if circa 1500 counts as modern.

I posted somewhere, in this thread, I think, a paraphrase of some author to the effect that Michelangelo was the first sculptor who also was an Artist. Prior to him, sculptors were “mere stoneworkers”, in the same category presumably as farmers or herders. His talent was so exceptional that he was called, in his own day, “The Divine” or "Il Divino”.

Art historians, to my knowledge, observe that all objects made in relatively primitive cultures are simply utilitarian, with the possible exception of religious creations. Simple cultures have no category of “Art” - creation for its own sake. Am I wrong on this? I’ve never had a course in art history, so I’ll appreciate a broader view if anyone is willing to present one.

[ExNihiloStudio]

Artmaking has always been close to systems that seek to wrestle with the big questions about life. Cave painting (http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/) would be a good place to start. No one doubts that these paintings were done for ritual purposes.

Michelangelo had a teacher - Pheidias. "Athenian sculptor, the artistic director of the construction of the Parthenon, who created its most important religious images and supervised and probably designed its overall sculptural decoration. It is said of Phidias that he alone had seen the exact image of the gods and that he revealed it to man. He established forever general conceptions of Zeus and Athena." See the quote source here. (http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~filippou/Research/Fedeas/pheidias.htm)
It sounds like Pheidias was like Moses bringing down the Ten Commandments.

Note that both Pheidias and Michelangelo had major patrons interested in more than decoration. Both created images of the divine - Pheidias gave a likeness to Zeus, Michelangelo painted a muscular grey bearded man on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel meant to represent God. My point here is that they were not creating art for art's sake, they had major institutional clients to serve but they garnered very high praise anyway.

Modern philosophy leaves artists with very little to do, so in order to survive we have to invent the concept of "art for art's sake". Thin gruel, as far as I'm concerned, but I suppose we have to make due.

[ALH]

"Modern philosophy leaves artists with very little to do"

I don't think our age is the first to claim the last word on art and philosophy and I very much doubt that it will be the last age to do so. The statement above seems true, and it does seem true, due to our inability to see 'what comes next'.

Whenever I hear someone expounding on the nature of 'real art' I get the sense I'm being sold something.

There is nothing wrong with chasing innovation or, conversely, rubbing an already polished concept further - we've all seen success within each of these directions. Success measured in the momentary or prolonged and profound acknowledgement

"now isn't that clever".

[West]

This debate seems to rage on in my mind anytime I begin a piece. I have to wonder what will be the more fulfilling creative experience for me, the idea behind a work or the actual crafting of that work.
For me, I have to struggle with both. Sometimes I will lose my original ideas in the crafting of an object and that resulting object becomes pointless as art. On the other hand I can become so awed by an idea that it can never be made because it is already finished in my mind. Either way, using the ideas of art and craft to create a work becomes a balance of imagination and technique.
Most important to a sculpture is the crafting of it. There is a very physical process with sculpting an object and it feels very different from other artistic forms. I do not see the main difference between an artist and a crafts people as their difference of creativity. I am sure that crafts people may run into problems with creating an object that requires a new and creative approach; or, they may need a creative idea to begin working on an object. In regards to creativity, artists to crafts people is like comparing apples to oranges. They might look different, but they both taste good.
However, there is still a very significant difference between the two. Crafts people are only out to create the object, while artists then to have a theory or intent above sales for a work. In this case, an artist will be willing to destroy their work for art's sake, while a crafts person would certainly not because they see the object as the finished product. Artists cannot be afraid to make a statement even if it means destruction of an amazing object. Artists should be in this for the feelings and ideas behind what they visually represent through sculpture, not their wood, marble, steel, plaster, plastic, or whatever is used to convey the message. The medium is always expendable to an artist, but never to a craftsperson.

[jwebb]

Lots of heavy stuff above, and I hesitate to try to add to it. This duality is of course itself the focus of lots of art: DuChamps' urinal; Picasso's bicycle-seat Bull; maybe most of Warhol's work and whole "schools" that follwed those folks, seem to pose this issue very directly. It may be as un-resolvable as the Chicken / egg duality, and no more important. In general I greatly prefer the looking at Art to the talking about it. But, I've had the opportunity to see a good many ancient Inuit and Upik artifacts. Most of these are "utilitarian" objects: harpoon points, "sinkers", tools and games pieces; done in stone and bone mostly, by some people who sat around a grease fire and, I'm sure, never heard of "Art". Yet I'm damned if they're not among the highest caliber abstract sculptures I've ever seen. Some do have purely "decorative" elements, but if so they are very subtle and fitting. If they were simply larger, their scale and proportions and "form" are simply beautiful to my eye. Maybe they are only "Craft" and the "Art" resides only in my eye, but I can't believe it was not also in theirs, though maybe unnamed.

[rderr.com]

“First we eat then we think on it”, Seneca. Perhaps the expendable in the equation material\artists\craftsperson is EAT,. FIRST IN BED, and A CLEAN PIECE OF TISSUE.

Ardor

[rderr.com]

Jwebb

It is not the "chicken/egg duality" but the chegg/egken duality. I've this piece of green nylon that someone discarded to clear a weed eater. When it unfolds it is a chickenthatbecomesanegg
or aneggthatbecomesachicken.

Ardor

Art is provocation. Go forth and provoke.

[jwebb]

Well, as noted above, "They might look different, but they both taste good."

[drthulium]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. A couple of things have set me off.
1) Talking to a "art" dealer in front of an office supply store. She was selling hand painted oil painting for $5-$30. I had to ask her were she got the paintings from, thinking how the hell can anyone afford to paint at such a price. She informed me that they were from a distributer, who gets them from China!!! I was shocked. The paintings were signed with english names even! Later discussions with a friend in the art business revealed that the paintings are not even the work of one person, rather they are done in an assembly line fashion.

2) A trip to a craft store (Michael's for those here in the States) in which everything there was made in China. Christmas decorations, little decorative objects etc... not one thing actually made locally.

I guess the difference between art and craft when both are done locally at a high level of skill doesn't matter to me. I KNOW the difference when it is people hot gluing together bits of chinese made crap according to a patteran, or looking at assembly line made paintings.

Craft is your tool to make good art. art is original.

PS I have a slight fear that "Made in China" has had a serious effect on the market for decorative items which artists have traditionally been able to sell to support themselves.

[fritchie]

Your remarks remind me of some experiences here in New Orleans from as many as ten years ago, which I had completely set aside. I visited a water-garden shop to see and buy some water irises, which are native to this area and very attractive in the landscape. I was a bit surprised to see bronze fountain sculptures, typically about 3 - 5 feet high, of both human and animal figures, priced in a range where they couldn’t be cast locally. I had known for a long time that some area Mexican-American artists or others from Central America had work cast there at quite low costs, but these mainly were from several countries in southeast Asia.

Most of these were “original” forms, not copies of famous works, but about the same time I visited a Royal Street gallery (N. O’s most famous shopping street) and spent some time in a gallery which had many copies of well-known pieces. Typically, these were Frederick Remington, Charles Russell, or other American Western artists, or pieces by Rodin, Carpeaux, and other ca. 1900 French artists. These also were cast in southeast Asia, or in India, I believe.

Costs there are very low by Western standards, and people seem to have no reservations about violating copyrights. In contrast, copies from “Michelangelo”, “Rodin”, and so on made and sold in the U. S. commonly are from newly-made models, but very poor in conception or execution. I don’t view any work in this vein as either art or craft. To me, it simply is “furnishing” or “decoration”, and presumably is valued by the purchaser as just that.

[rderr.com]

Fritchie

Art is provocation. All else is decoration.

Robert

[waveshop]

As a green horn here I see in this thread alot of fine points. The talk comes across as what I percieve as graduated "art speak". I prob. will seam a bit below the level here but it does seem that "craft" and "art" are now seperate due to fearfull security. If you take the David statue and its "artistic" grandor scale it down and place it in the local small town conty fair, A farmers wife may recognize it as the david, BUT! It will be more "crafty" in the fact that the woman is thinking of what possible function it could have in her home. Mmmmm. On the same note,.... The farmer looks at a bizzare configuration of familiar farm euipment parts, may raise an eyebrow, smile and say "how crafty". Take the piece to a gallery in NY and people stare in artistic wonder pondering its meaning.
Ill bet money,... the times I told someone I was an artist and there reply was "oh,.. my daughter does art" isn't about relating as artists. Its about security from an unknown. We all know the saying " the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Art is for the rich and craft is for the poor. It is quite depressing to think that financial status sort of dictates who is artist and who is craftsman

[Araich]

Art is for the rich and craft is for the poor. It is quite depressing to think that financial status sort of dictates who is artist and who is craftsmanIf your looking for a correlation between wealth and art, easy, be a working artist and remain poor... Indeed, as for public perception, you have only two choices; be hugely successful, or live in rags. Whereas craftsmen are probably seen as being middle income.

Interestingly, I imagine the country wife would keep her 'David' pride of place on the mantle, and the hip New Yorker their's in the bathroom as a peace of kitch.

What makes art, for me, is the experience of art.
Powerfully, it makes little difference what you have in your pockets at the time.

[fritchie]

As waveshop just said, many things are going on in this thread. The whole subject, and the words themselves, artist and crafts(wo)man, are complex. Araich has it exactly right in saying that real art is about communication and not cost; real artists say things of value to people who understand, and the message is free to all within range.

At the same time, most or all art requires physical means of expression, and resources are needed for it to be brought into being. The artist has to eat, be housed, clothed, and receive all the other necessities of life. That is, (s)he must participate in the marketplace to some extent.

Most artists, maybe 95% or more, can’t support themselves on their art alone; they generate needed resources in another manner and use anything available to produce art. Should these people be called artists or craftsmen? This thread seems mainly to say that the degree and novelty of communication should determine the answer. Artists produce more intensive and more novel ideas, and generally do so intentionally. Craftsmen certainly communicate, but the beauty of a job well done often is the goal and reward.

None of this has any bearing on the market for craft or art. Market forces transform communication into product and value it according to typical rules for product.

[waveshop]

I agree with both of you, Ariach and Fritchie. Like you said Fritchie,... this thread as gone far into the stratosphere and around again to indeed confirm the complexity in the "craft" and "Art" as a discussion.

I apoligize at my elementary analogy at truely just wanting to say that I find that even in the USA, topography and setting seems to decide whether a piece of work is classified as "Art" or "Craft" (High end Inner City gallery show compared to small town 10'x10' both space at the local festival). And even now I am putting my foot in it once again. So I widen my "tag" here to percentile of all people in attendance and which word they would say at either venue, and should do as an old profesor would say " take a poll to back your claim".

I totally retract my statements on wealth and class. I in No way meant to blurb up to what came across as a segregated comment. And Ariach, you are so right about the David example.

But,.... I personally feel that A big financial investment into a inner City one man show is "Artsy" and the low investment both space at a fair is "crafty" no matter what kind of work is being shown within either. I can not ignore that part, Fritchie, due to the required "Art as a Career" course I took my jounior year in University. Professionalism seems to allow an Artist the ability to upgrade his rags, Yet playing by the rules and saying things of artistic value can get a yellow round spot into a major museum. It sounds like crafty-ness in that case and seems like such an un-natural duality. I hope I can come to understand it as you stated above.

And when it all comes down to the Craftsperson/Artist individual the line becomes very vague for me. I am Grinder by trade and consider it my craft. How I apply my technique I consider Art. Cutting,shaping,and sanding surfboards I was taught as "craft". Yet, I have heard it called an art form. My Yang seems to be the craftsman and my Yin the Artist. If the two are swirling smoothly together,.... Its all good! as far as Im concerned,... and I am content. And I am new. And I am learning,... being here.

[fritchie]

You don't need to apologize at all. We're both saying more or less the same thing in different words. Art is a business as well as a searching of your own soul. Most regular artists, including me, see the business angle as fairly arbitrary.

I do have enough perspective to suppose that high end art dealers look for young, energetic, assertive producers of artworks, to insure a return on the cost of publicity and exhibit space. How others will perceive the art that results from these producers may be in the process less important than the investment and the need to receive a return.

This may sound exceedingly cynical, but it genuinely is the way I see the art market. When something has both spiritual and material sides, or creative and practical, if you prefer, conflict is bound to occur. You’re not the first to associate the “high art” versus “craft” discussion with “rich” versus “poor”, or “high social status” versus “commonplace”. All these things do run in parallel.

One of the things that keeps coming through in this thread is that real artists work for themselves, not for anyone else. How society views their work affects them, but they have to stay true to their inner selves or fail as artists.

[ExNihiloStudio]

Well said fritchie

I would characterize working for yourself in the best sense as being a pursuit of excellence in a particular field or tradition. So, in the case of surfboards it would be a worthy mission to create the perfect surfboard, or at least make a surfboard more perfect than the best known so far. That alone is a worthy goal and it has its rewards, but practical things intrude, distort, and create conflict. See fritchie's last post for examples.

[Kimpak]

Just my 2 cents on this subject......

I create paper mache objects, animals, & figures
Whether it's called art or craft makes no difference to me.

My husband summed it up well....
You crafted a dog and turned it into a work of art! :)
Nuff said!

[Stephen Casey]

I sold a how-to book that was all craft and only dreesed up in key spots with art, "individuality in expression of experience and perception."

Success or failure was important. But as time passed I reaized its insignificance materially, and that I would never re-publish that work for it's vacuity of art in it's major volume.

But ironicly of the art I have sold it was an effort of craftsmanship that I am most proud of.

It was an effort to mirror the state of the sitters fractured mind. Charcoal and pencil. To provide a mirror that would not morph when he looked at it, to speak clearly to him when he was alone. His name was David; he had lost a lot of his scrupples and ability to experience calm to street drugs. I had intended to give it to him. But instead demanded $20 from him and would not release it until almost a month later he managed to scrap up $15. At that point I saw that he felt he needed the portrait to move on with his life and poor as he was he suffered a great price in his world. I accepted the payment, much of it in wrinkled bills and coin. I pasted it to some rigid cardboard like matter and sealed it with a matte finish. I could of framed it nicely or done it up in several ways. But I didn't want to intrude on what this one piece already said to this one individual.

I am working now on a project that had marketability in mind from the offset, but at the same time I am saying something valuable about my subjects plight. That is my goal.

As long as your art is important to someone-even just one person-even if its the artist, now or in another time, it it valid and valuable.

[fritchie]

Well said, Stephen. Thanks for sharing.

[sculptor]

I feel that one should not contrast art and craft.
Art should be built on a firm foundation in craft.
If we delineate craft as the mastery of the tools and materials and art as using those skills to take the next step, the step that enlightens and delights, the step that blends beauty and imagination and offers them to others eyes.

[anne (bxl)]

My Yang seems to be the craftsman and my Yin the Artist. If the two are swirling smoothly together,.... Its all good!

Well said !
Yang is action, technic, pragmatism. tradition?
Yin is reflection, analysis, emotion. breaks new ground?

[Stephen Casey]

Sculptor said:
I feel that one should not contrast art and craft.
Art should be built on a firm foundation in craft.
If we delineate craft as the mastery of the tools and materials and art as using those skills to take the next step, the step that enlightens and delights, the step that blends beauty and imagination and offers them to others eyes.

Stephen argues:
Well said Rod. But I would argue that asthetic is found in the ugly as well. In fact I would say that art via figuritive sculpture is often and rightly so an expression of the negative stresses in societies. Enlightening but not delighting. I repect some art that I find painful to look upon. As in Van Gogh's late paintings.

I regret that my current project demands so much pain but at the same time it gives me the oppurtunity to communicate the subjects strength in times of adversity. (I am doing a medievel chess set.) If anyone finds beauty in this set it will have to come from their own empathy toward the charactors. So I suppose the beauty will have to come from the viewer and not the artist.

[Stephen Casey]

But of course beauty has an importance in of it's self.

Such as Sculptors work below;

http://sculpture.net/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=288

[fritchie]

... etc. ... But I would argue that asthetic is found in the ugly as well. ... etc. ...

I agree, Stephen. Rodin may have been the first sculptor to express this (I’m not sure), in his figure of an aged woman with a complicated title such as “She who was the helmetmaker’s beautiful wife”. The model had posed over many years for Parisian sculptors, and I agree that she shows personal beauty. My figure of another older, very experience model, Ann, which Stephen found on my ISC Portfolio page, has been my most popular figure to date, but in a somewhat truncated wall interpretation.

And I want to emphasize, I certainly do not consider either of these pieces, or the people behind them, anything but beautiful. Superficial beauty is not real beauty, and serious people see this.

[sculptorsam]

Superficial beauty is not real beauty, and serious people see this.

Oddly enough, I was just having this conversation with my father-in-law regarding the aesthetic choices of Playboy magazine...

Sam

[sculptor]

I agree, Stephen. Rodin may have been the first sculptor to express this (I’m not sure), in his figure of an aged woman with a complicated title such as “She who was the helmetmaker’s beautiful wife”. The model had posed over many years for Parisian sculptors, and I agree that she shows personal beauty. My figure of another older, very experience model, Ann, which Stephen found on my ISC Portfolio page, has been my most popular figure to date, but in a somewhat truncated wall interpretation.

And I want to emphasize, I certainly do not consider either of these pieces, or the people behind them, anything but beautiful. Superficial beauty is not real beauty, and serious people see this.

Agreed: Beauty transcends a "buff young bod" That's just the way I like to do some of the pieces.
<br>
And Rodin wasn't the first---we have examples from the classical Greeks and from the Romans of "old peasant woman at market"
Also: one of my favorite classic pieces, "the Laocoon group" would not normally be considered to be beautiful, but as re a previous posting it is most arresting.

[fritchie]

Agreed: Beauty transcends a "buff young bod" That's just the way I like to do some of the pieces.
<br>
And Rodin wasn't the first---we have examples from the classical Greeks and from the Romans of "old peasant woman at market"
Also: one of my favorite classic pieces, "the Laocoon group" would not normally be considered to be beautiful, but as re a previous posting it is most arresting.

You're right about the early Greeks and Romans. I don't think I am familiar with this one, but there are examples of grotesqueries in that early art. Those pieces, however, seem to my eye at least to show irony or self-satisfaction on the part of the commissioner.

As far as Laocoon, (see attachment), I always have considered it awkward and strained, though I find your comment about it not being considered beautiful odd. Most commentary I have seen is highly laudatory. The difference may be in the way various people define “beauty”, just as we are discussing.

And, of course, it was incomplete when dug up near Rome about the time of Michelangelo. I believe some people consider that the raised arm of the main figure originally might have been bent overhead. To my mind, such a more circular motion rather than the straight line presently in the figure offers chance of a better composition.

Generally speaking, I find Hellenistic art (such as Laocoon) and Baroque art, which followed Classical Greek and High Renaissance respectively, to be weaker derivative forms. In my eye, later sculptors couldn’t meet the earlier standards of composition and modeling, and they turned to exaggeration, which always is easier.

[Stephen Casey]

Thank you Fritchie for posting that image of Laocoon! I was just the other day regretting not marking down the peices name and possibly who did it. It was referanced as a very inspirational influence on Michelangelo in a DVD on him. And as I will be studying all of his work in particular the Sistene Chapel. I wanted to study the Laocoon. I find this work quite instructive. I wasn't aware of contriversy perttaining to the raised arm. But given the idea I agree that it would add a great deal to the tension of the whole piece if it was bent back. The hand of the raised fugure on the left seems dispreportionatly long to my eyes. And this makes me wonder if the arm had not been changed at the same time as the central figure?

[sculptor]

Thank you Fritchie for posting that image of Laocoon! I was just the other day regretting not marking down the peices name and possibly who did it. It was referanced as a very inspirational influence on Michelangelo in a DVD on him. And as I will be studying all of his work in particular the Sistene Chapel. I wanted to study the Laocoon. I find this work quite instructive. I wasn't aware of contriversy perttaining to the raised arm. But given the idea I agree that it would add a great deal to the tension of the whole piece if it was bent back. The hand of the raised fugure on the left seems dispreportionatly long to my eyes. And this makes me wonder if the arm had not been changed at the same time as the central figure?

Artists of Laocoon group= Aegisander, Athenadoris, and Polydoris.
(wild guess) the younger son is reaching up to his father's arm for comfort and help, so the arm should be placed accordingly, while the older son is attempting to distance himself from his father and the punishment which they are suffering due to his actions. Who has raised children and not seen these phases in their developement? The Greeks portrayed psychology through the visual arts and storytelling.

And: I believe that the picture posted is not of the original, but of a poorly executed copy------most likely the one currently in Florence.

Here is an old pix-o the original---again the positioning of the right arm remains ambiguous.

[fritchie]

Artists of Laocoon group= Aegisander, Athenadoris, and Polydoris.
..... etc. .....
And: I believe that the picture posted is not of the original, but of a poorly executed copy------most likely the one currently in Florence.

Here is an old pix-o the original---again the positioning of the right arm remains ambiguous.

Thanks for posting this image. I'm not sure I've ever seen it, and it IS much better that the one I found in an older book. I have a memory of one in which the snake near the father's head flairs into the air before arcing back. Possibly that is another copy, with a different restored pose.

And, Stephen was right about the younger son’s arm being a replacement also. It DOES help to pool resources like this.

[sculptor]

digging through the files-----I found another Laocoon --different angle

This view more clearly shows the right arm. I think the controversy of the arm started when the arm was "found" several years after the main piece----there seems to have been a rumor that the arm needed a bit of chiseling to attach it to the shoulder. From my perusal of the pix, I'm not even shure that the webbing left between the wrist and shoulder muscle(deltoidus) could really be part of the serpent------(anyone wanna pop for a trip to rome? We could check it out together)---------all is idle speculation.

It is easy to see the cleaner and better proportioned modeling on these pix-o the original as compared with the "copy"----------sloppy copyist have neither craft nor art------(as though I was actually gonna stay on topic)

as/re FRitchie's
"I believe some people consider that the raised arm of the main figure originally might have been bent overhead. To my mind, such a more circular motion rather than the straight line presently in the figure offers chance of a better composition."

gotta be bent
Also : This piece was likely designed to be viewed from the front, and likely originally sat in a recess between 2 collumns --viewed from overhead the 2 boys are frontal to the priest(Laocoon) giving the sculpture an overall semicircular structure-----ergo----the farther and son's missing right arms could as readily have been tending more forward than shown---(justaguess)

OK?
What's your eye say?

This is one of my early favorites
It is an important part of my autodidactic figurative sculpture developement.
The age differentiated modeling, the strength in the torso, the varied facial expressions, the theme, spacing, and interaction all sing for me.
Laocoon's facial expression is almost identical to one from a (?)parthenon freize, depicting a battle between the (?) giants and amazons---so either one was borrowed from the other, or it is a stylized emotion(not surprising considering the use of such masks in their theatre)
I have slightly higher res pix than I can load here------if you ask, I'll email them.
rod(sculptor)

[fritchie]

digging through the files-----I found another Laocoon --different angle
Various deletions .....
This view more clearly shows the right arm. I think the controversy of the arm started when the arm was "found" several years after the main piece----there seems to have been a rumor that the arm needed a bit of chiseling to attach it to the shoulder.
OK?
What's your eye say?

rod(sculptor)

Unfortunately, I have bad news for all these analyses, and my apologies to everyone. According to the book which was my source, my B/W picture IS of the Rome (Vatican ) original. I looked very carefully at the two images, side by side on my screen before deciding that they were different, and the rather oddly shaped (pointed) nose on the older son was one of the deciding factors, in addition to the apparently more exaggerated musculature in the main figure.

It appears that the differences are due to the harsher lighting in the earlier image(both in time, before restorations were removed, and in the thread), plus a rotation of about twenty or so degrees in the B/W image relative to the first color post. (Notice the base to compare.) I now realize that the details in nose shape of the B/W image may have been caused by painting of the dark background in my image (just guessing, but that may have been done, it is so uniform.)

It is amazing what changes harsh or gentle lighting will make in perception, not to mention the difference between B/W and color. That’s one reason beauty photographers use soft, warm light, and commonly also soft focus. But, photographs of sculpture should try to be faithful. Unfortunately, art books commonly engage in retouching, and not only of background.

On the arm, it looked and still looks to me as though the B/W image shows less flesh, as though, in other words, that it really is different. This, too, must be a result of the different angle.

And, I stick by my first evaluation, made on the spot when I first visited about 45 years ago. This piece is crude in comparison with Michelangelo both in modeling and in design, and to my eye it also is inferior to the Classical pieces.

As far as possible influence, the Parthenon should be about 200 years older than Laocoon, but I’m not sure of Laocoon’s date.

[sculptor]

Unfortunately, I have bad news for all these analyses, and my apologies to everyone. According to the book which was my source, my B/W picture IS of the Rome (Vatican ) original.
.............
As far as possible influence, the Parthenon should be about 200 years older than Laocoon, but I’m not sure of Laocoon’s date.


OK--i went to the bookshelves and--The head I was refering to was actually on a frieze at the alter of ZEUS at pergamon circa 200-120 bc, while the Laocoon group is nominally dated 175-150 bc----ergo Laocoon's anguished expression could have been the original or a copy--the more questions one asks the more questions one has

Here is a linkto more laocoon pix:

and laocoon (http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/CGPrograms/Dict/image/Laocoon.jpg)

at vatican (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/laocoon/laocoon.html) at vatican museums

the 1st link shows modeling closer to the b&w---------
this is confusing

[Stephen Casey]

Thank you very much gentlemen. All these images and perspectives will be most helpful when I give this work the attention I feel it needs. Passion is tightly linked to the usefulness in art as I experience it. This is not neccasarily so for others. But exclusively so in my needs for expression. And seeing as my education and language skills or limited I am glad I find the human form is most present in the images I wish to share. For there is an endless vocabulary available to us there.

[Stephen Casey]

Sculptor if you have any higher res images than you have pointed to here please feel free to e-mail them to me.
stephen_tacoma_wa@msn.com

[ExNihiloStudio]

Today’s NY Times has an article by Michael Kimmelman about Chuck Close’s printmaking process that includes a few notes that support my perspective on Art vs. Craft (posted a few pages back). You can read it for free online today January 16 at http://www.nytimes.com. The paragraphs in quotes are taken directly from the article.

“Big-time printmaking today is a collaborative business. The lone artist in a garret with a woodblock, ink and spoon is a quaint notion that bears no resemblance to Mr. Close's modus operandi. His partners have included master printers like Joe Wilfer and Kathan Brown and Tadashi Toda, experts, variously, at the ins and outs of spitbite aquatints, reduction linoleum cuts, screen prints, handmade paper pulp multiples and other arcane techniques seemingly impenetrable to the uninitiated.”
So here we have Mr. Close working with a master artisan, one who possesses full command of the craft of printmaking up to its current state of development, i.e., “the initiated”.

“Mr. Close, whose work has always had so much to do with elaborate systems and processes of operation, has needed these printers as they have needed him. Achieving a balance of authority is itself part of the art of printmaking.”

Apparently Mr. Close does possess not all of the technical skills because if he did, he would probably do the printmaking himself. That’s my guess. The important point here is the balance of authority. The artist has a vision of the highest point of perfection that the tradition is leading to. The artisan simply knows what he knows, and he can help the artist but not lead the artist.

“A generous colleague but not the passive type — good artists aren't passive, generally — Mr. Close has typically erected constructive obstacles for himself and his collaborators, the conquest of which can bring about something special or new. [In my mind, advance the tradition closer to its telos, its perfect state.] To make "Keith" (1972), Mr. Close chose to take his established painting style of copying photographs via a grid and adapt it to the antique engraving technique of mezzotint, at first confounding Ms. Brown, his printer on that project. Then to make matters more difficult, he decided to make the mezzotint very large.

‘I didn't want to go to a print shop where they would have all the expertise and would act as if I didn't have any, and where they would tell me that something had to be done a certain way, just because that was the way they did it," he explained to the curator, Ms. Sultan, in a conversation in the show's catalog. "I wanted to do something that would require both Kathan and me to figure out how to do it at the same time. I love that kind of problem solving.’

Their work resulted in a milestone of contemporary printmaking, which in turn led Mr. Close to new ideas for drawings and paintings. It was the first work that explicitly displayed the incremental building blocks of the picture, the grid of marks. People sometimes assume prints are just art's poor cousins, copies of paintings or drawings, afterthoughts, but Mr. Close's prints are at the heart of his achievement.”So there it is, it’s a question of leadership within a tradition. Establishing or denying a hierarchy of materials (e.g., bronze vs. wood vs. steel) or practices (e.g. painting vs. printmaking vs. photography) is a separate issue.

[fritchie]

Today’s NY Times has an article by Michael Kimmelman about Chuck Close’s printmaking process that includes a few notes that support my perspective on Art vs. Craft (posted a few pages back). You can read it for free online today January 16 at http://www.nytimes.com. .. deletions ..

Mark - I saw that in NYT yesterday, and I’m afraid I have to say that the prints didn’t come over to me very well at all in the newspaper. Probably they work much better in person; that’s the nature of art. Newspapers, like television, are dying, even this one. We need a much better process to get across what that article is trying to say. The photograph of the lead print, said to be done with something like 137 overlays, gave me the impression it was simply a waste of time.

I was highly impressed when I first saw Chuck Close’s work. I believe I saw the paintings in life at first acquaintance, and the size alone created a fresh world. His transition into faces made of grid marks also was interesting and about equally impressive, but not really new. The first people doing computer graphics, as soon as these tools were created, circa 1970, had done essentially the same, but in black and white, of course. Lillian Schwartz, who worked as an artist-in-residence with Bell Telephone Labs in New Jersey, may have been the first.

The lesson I took from the article you quote is that Mr. Close is more into process at this point than into art, as I see it. That is, the technology seems more important than the result. Pushing technology is very important, as it opens doors for others, but honestly, I found the art in this article disappointing.

As I said earlier, that may be the result of a newspaper overstepping its own technology. Newspapers always have been about giving an impression of something that has happened or is happening, but this piece, for example, attempts to mimic the work itself, and as I see it, it falls flat. This work of Close’s in person may be breathtaking, but I won’t take the paper’s word for it, and I think they are unconvincing.

By contrast, I found a long article on current revivals of Franz Schubert’s music in the same issue very instructive. The difference, I think, is that the paper let words do the work of presentation.

(Much longer note than usual, but weighty topics. Bottom line is, I think this article makes Close look more like a technician than an artist.)

[fritchie]

Here I am replying to my own post again, but I wanted to check what earlier stated perspective Mark, aka ExNihiloStudio, was referring to just now. I found it: the artist has a vision of a field’s goal, and the craftsman looks more at the process; but I found something even more interesting as well: Modern philosophy leaves artists with very little to do, so in order to survive we have to invent the concept of "art for art's sake". Thin gruel, as far as I'm concerned, but I suppose we have to make due..

Mark, would you elaborate on this? (We may have five more pages here, or even a separate thread.)

[ExNihiloStudio]

fritchie –

I like some of Mr. Close’s work when I’ve seen it occasionally at galleries and museums, but I haven’t followed his career with any special interest. What prompted me to post my comments about the article is the narrow discussion of his collaboration with master printmakers. The quality Mr. Close’s work is a question of taste, and I don’t doubt yours, but my interest has been the distinction between artist and artisan in a collaborative process, and I think the article shows it succinctly. That’s what makes it relevant to this conversation. I do agree that the online reproductions are so bad that they do more harm than good.

The tradition of printmaking is a finite practice that has rules internal to it. It also has ideals specific to it. Both Mr. Close and his printmaker collaborators are initiates, but while one is limited to what he’s been taught, hence the status of artisan, the other can propel the project forward with a more imaginative vision, hence the status of artist. This article actually makes the case that Mr. Close is an artist and not simply a technician because the artist is laying out the problem that goes beyond current known practice and works alongside the artisan to find a solution. Together, their collaboration pulls the tradition along to a higher state of perfection. I think that today this attitude survives most strongly in the sciences.

Perhaps what is overlooked in this discussion is the content of the prints in question, and how that contributes to the significance of the project. I would hope the content would be worthy of the process. In my opinion, it would be beautiful in subtle and surprising ways, and it would provide delight. It would also be sophisticated enough to place demands on us above appeals to our basest instincts and to reward us in the end with some kind of reward.

The problem with modern philosophy is that it is so rabidly agnostic and iconoclastic that the only art that could adequately reflect such a system is a blank wall. The other option is advertising culture, i.e., hustling products and appeal to the lowest common denominator. I’m inspired by sculpture that reminds me of the divine within us and around us, and the amazing grace of sacrifice made for interests beyond the immediately personal. And I really want it to please me with more than a quick one liner.

[fritchie]

Mark - Thanks for this amplification of two topics. I've been greatly disappointed with NYT for about the last 3 - 4 years especially and that undoubtedly colored my reply above. It was and may still be the best U. S. paper for current affairs in general, but over this period I find that I have had to strain each article with a filter of some sort more than ever - political, religious, or commercial, usually. In other words, all their biases or the pressures they feel are becoming more extreme.

Both print and traditional television media are feeling the economic pressure of developing cable and internet media. This clearly reduces the classic revenue stream, and all of the above have responded either by trivializing content or making it appeal more strongly to one special interest group or another.

In my view, this Close article falls in the category of unpaid advertizing, to promote another artist affiliated with a gallery or galleries which do advertise heavily in the paper. Overall, that’s probably how major media have worked for many years, but the relationship seems to be increasingly transparent, and I find that a disturbing trend.

I find your discussion of the overall artist - artisan relationship basically sound, and, yes, you are correct in at least two ways that this is very common in science today. Graduate school, especially in the sciences, closely resembles the atelier or guild system of centuries past. This knowledge generally is very specialized, and the guild or atelier model is an excellent way to transmit it.

The other way in which I find your statements reflect contemporary scientific practice is in the need for close collaboration among many workers, typically because of extreme expense of data collection. Papers in high-energy physics, for example, may have several hundred authors distributed among dozens of institutions. Each author must be assumed to have had a significant role in the work, though for many it may have been as apprentice.

On your comments about today’s relationship between philosophy and art, I’m afraid I’m still puzzled. A century and half or so ago, philosophy, as I understand it at least, considered science a search for truth, but relativity, advances in mathematics and quantum mechanics especially have demoted it to a way of making limited predictions about impending behavior. I supposed you were saying something similar about the contemporary view of art. Maybe you are?? Its only role is decoration, titillation or commerce. Maybe sometimes it's best to sidestep philosophy.