On 30/07/2007, at 5:46 AM, Moose wrote:
> A nice, practical definition for the world of commerce. Codswallop for
> any other purpose.
Not really - as I said, they are the only universal criteria - didn't
suggest that they were good ones.
> Art and craft are often shown as synonyms in dictionaries. As regular
> crossword puzzle worker, I find the clue "craft" and the answer "art"
> quite often. I'm not at all sure I agree with this personally, but
> it is
> clearly pretty common usage.
Obviously I don't agree with that at all.
>
> My personal definition is something on the order of "something
> made/modified/framed by a person or people that moves me"
> **
Then you fall into the "...but I know what I like." trap of the
uninformed reaction.
>> But - Mahler was not writing Musak for lifts.
>>
> Brian Eno was, and I am of the firm opinion that he is an artist.
Of course he is, when he's working in plastics. :-)
Otherwise, it's musak all right.
Hmmmm #1 son interviewed Peter Gabriel the other day - must ask how
he got on.
>> Van Gogh was not illustrating bicycle advertisements.
>>
> *Toulouse Latrec did illustrated ads, that are widely regarded as art.
Got me there. As I said, there is a whopping great big grey area
between art and craft but I suspect that Lautrec set out to do art
but had to make a living...
>>
> Is art glass art, because it says so, or craft because I can put
> flowers
> in it? I say it's art if it moves me in the way that other examples of
> art move me. If it doesn't move you, it isn't art to you. Are
> Tiffany's
> windows and lamps art or craft?
Most art glass I've seen couldn't hold a bunch of flowers. I regard
Tiffany as a kind of ultimate craft - there was an art too the
production of the unique glass itself but essentially it is a
product. Having built a full size Dragonfly lampshade myself I feel
expert enough to comment. :-)
That bugger took me six weeks!
>
> I recently went to an exhibit of quilts from a tiny rural backwater of
> the American South. They were, and have traditionally been, made
> for the
> practical purpose of keeping people warm. And, because of their
> poverty,
> are often made from scraps of worn clothing, curtains, torn bits of
> cloth found on the roadside, etc. Craft. And yet, I saw them in the
> fine
> arts museum of San Francisco in a special traveling exhibit of fine
> arts
> museums around the US.
That's a curatorial decision I reject. Beautiful craft, yes, but not
'fine art.'
>> I wrote my Honour's Thesis
> And I wrote a high school paper on definitions of art as espoused by
> Coleridge and Joyce.
Come on mate - I'm talking 25,000 words here and long nights in the
shed!
> No honour's ( nor honor's), but I did get the
> highest mark in the class. Actually an amazing class for HS. The
> teacher
> would often have a couple of prints of painting or sculpture or a
> couple
> of pieces of prose or poetry up on the board and ask for an essay on
> which was better and why. 15 minutes to write, 15 more for him to
> grade
> them, then half an hour of discussion.
15 minutes to grade?! How many of you were there - or did you mean 15
minutes each?
>
>> ..on an Australian poet and journalist who drew a distinction
>> between his 'real' poetry and the popular stuff he
>> wrote for the big distribution weekly that he edited between the
>> wars.
> Generally, IMO, the creators of arts and crafts haven't a clue about
> whether what they create is art or not. Opinions, yes - in plenty.
The person I referred to (Kenneth Slessor) was a seriously erudite
individual who knew exactly what he was doing.
> I've seen, and heard, stuff that was less interesting to me than the
> wall on which it was hung or the silence it replaced, clearly art by
> your commercial definition, but not even worthy of the name craft
> to me.
Ah I see the problem. I do not think that 'craft' is a lesser thing,
a kind of inferior art. It is a different thing and equally worthy.
But craft has a clear and mundane function whereas art has no purpose
except its own intrinsic value.
> As an aside, I'm not sure what to do about those things that don't
> raise
> essentially no response in me, but which I actively dislike. They have
> affected me, so are they then art? Or do I then need yet another term?
No, it's raised a response. Art can be crude, rough, unpleasant and
deeply disturbing. But you wouldn't sleep under a quilt which was
those things.
> As can I draw a distinction, but I don't believe that my distinctions,
> yours, or those of the "recognised and influential experts" actually
> "make" anything art or not, except in a commercial sense in a
> particular
> time and place.
>
> To put it another way, I suppose I'm saying that art is not in the
> object, but in the viewer. As such, it is not possible to define in
> objective terms.
Nasty post-modernist nonsense! :-)
I am quite happy to accept the informed opinion of well-educated
individuals who immerse themselves in exactly this conundrum and a
brave enough to nail their colours to a mast. I can then decide
whether I like that particular piece of art for myself, which is a
whole other thing.
> Not bad, but on the whole, no. I find my critical facility coming up
> immediately, evaluating it, rather than experiencing some internal
> shift, gut feeling, recognition of something there that affects me
> beyond the "craft", for want of a better word. Pleasing, in some ways,
> but not art for me.
>
> I have the same problem. I think this is art, but most others who
> see it
> don't have an emotional response to it and just flip quickly on to the
> next print.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Home/Ghost.htm
By the definition I suggested, it is art if we insist that it is art,
was done deliberately and can get someone (i.e. a gallery) to hang
it. That may require a statement of intention and a plausible
explanation. I'm sure that we can both manage that. We as the
producer can make the decision that we have produced a work of art -
bugger this nonsense that the viewer's opinion has equal value. So
what if most people don't get it - most people can't recognise a
decent poem and don't like Picasso.
> And this is in most respects just another competent picture of a piece
> of nature, like uncountable pics by me and others. Yet every time it
> shows up on my random screensaver, it has an effect on me. So for me,
> it's art, and I plan to do a big, framed print of it. For me, if no
> one
> else. http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Flowers/pages/FL01.htm
It is art in that you selected it and composed it - and got a sharp
and well saturated image. That's really nice.
I counter with -
http://www.pbase.com/afildes/image/54742822
- which also gets a reaction for entirely different reasons. But it
is art because I recognised the natural allusion and my purpose is
quite clear.
>> - and if so, who do I sleep with to get that simple reality
>> recognised?
>>
> Obviously not me.
That was not a request!
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|