Dave Woody
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,425
'Where does the Art in a work of Art lie?' Stlukesguild asked .....
Where's the "Art"?
- Thread starter stlukesguild
- Start date
john
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,112
What's the difference between art and craft? I think that's essential to the answer. Is a photo-real painting more art than a custom motorcycle?
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,163
Ah, yes, but he was not merely a sexist. He was part of the White Male Patriarchy, which is today's enemy no. 1 in some circles, and thus all great achievers of the past must first be weighed on that scale, and if found too light, they are removed from their pedestals. Rule of thumb: if they were white and male, they forfeit their position in history.
Judging people (well, only White Males, actually) from the past based on today's mores has become a new hobby for the pseudo-intellectual classes. Apparently they don't realize that they are exposing themselves to judgement two centuries from now.
"Good journalism" is something of a contradiction in terms.
And here's the disturbing thing: if this is the standard of journalism in arts, can we expect any better in any other field? Ever heard of "Gell-Mann amnesia"? I ran into the term yesterday; it was coined by Michael Crichton:
Which is why I never read the papers for anything other than entertainment value.
Aryczar, thanks for posting the link, they are very beautiful portraits and watercolor is a medium that always strikes me.
Nufocus grazier for posting a work by Paula Modersohn-Becker, he's another artist I didn't know and his work looks fantastic.
Thank you all for the amazing pictures and all the information, Stlukesguild thank you so much for what you wrote and illustrated about Degas, phenomenal, wonderful artist.
as drawings I had seen one to an opera singer while she sang, or a violin player, the music was perhaps something he loved and represented in many ways. (and represented really difficult and dynamic things).
Brianvds,
more and more often I have sensational articles or articles that seem to deal with topics that seem important in order not to try to find out more, or new regulations or curious or morbid things ... ok. , however you find titles and at the end of the article you discover that it was just to say the opposite of that in the title (even on the state of health of people,), they are things for clicks, and serious journalists should not do it, (and probably they don't, but what were exceptions or for certain situations seems almost a practice now)
it happens more often that they play with even tested words that you believed to be more reliable, as if the standard has almost reversed and not for goliardia or anything else, but the news always everywhere even reversing words or without ambiguity, then they tell you directly that it is the opposite than that in the title but it happens more and more, or in any case I often fall back on it ... in redoing the click even if now the idea is that in the end they will say the opposite or they will not illustrate a fact or they will not prove it.
Nufocus grazier for posting a work by Paula Modersohn-Becker, he's another artist I didn't know and his work looks fantastic.
Thank you all for the amazing pictures and all the information, Stlukesguild thank you so much for what you wrote and illustrated about Degas, phenomenal, wonderful artist.
as drawings I had seen one to an opera singer while she sang, or a violin player, the music was perhaps something he loved and represented in many ways. (and represented really difficult and dynamic things).
Brianvds,
more and more often I have sensational articles or articles that seem to deal with topics that seem important in order not to try to find out more, or new regulations or curious or morbid things ... ok. , however you find titles and at the end of the article you discover that it was just to say the opposite of that in the title (even on the state of health of people,), they are things for clicks, and serious journalists should not do it, (and probably they don't, but what were exceptions or for certain situations seems almost a practice now)
it happens more often that they play with even tested words that you believed to be more reliable, as if the standard has almost reversed and not for goliardia or anything else, but the news always everywhere even reversing words or without ambiguity, then they tell you directly that it is the opposite than that in the title but it happens more and more, or in any case I often fall back on it ... in redoing the click even if now the idea is that in the end they will say the opposite or they will not illustrate a fact or they will not prove it.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
What's the difference between art and craft? I think that's essential to the answer. Is a photo-real painting more art than a custom motorcycle?
That would depend on who you ask. Many painters and sculptors also produced what many today would deem craft objects. For example,, Benvenuto Cellini, the sculptor of this:
Also produced this salt cellar:
The artists of the "Arts and Crafts Movement" which included Louis Comfort Tiffany, William Morris, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and the Preraphaelites, produced paintings. illustrated books, wallpaper, furniture, architecture, etc... They were part of the art pour l'art movement upon which Modernism is founded. They argued that one should not make judgments on the merits of works of art based upon non-art elements such as religious expression, socio/political content, ethics, etc... Oscar Wilde famously pointed out that the worst poetry was often of the most sincere emotional expression. We, as the audience of art, can be moved by good, bad, and mediocre art. Art pour l'art... later Formalism... is one of the major theories of art criticism and argues that judgment of a work of art should be based solely upon how well the artist utilized and employed the abstract art elements. This theory would carry on into the Bauhaus and later Clement Greenberg. We may perceive an expression of emotions, ideas, spiritual and/or physical sensations but these are not the basis of judgment as to whether a work of art is good or bad. Under this theory, yes, a stunning car design, a brilliant work of jewelry, a fine work of fashion are all worthy of being deemed as works of fine art. Those who embrace an Expressionist theory of art criticism in which the merit of a work of art is based upon the ability of a work to inspire strong emotional responses would reject such a theory.
That would depend on who you ask. Many painters and sculptors also produced what many today would deem craft objects. For example,, Benvenuto Cellini, the sculptor of this:
Also produced this salt cellar:
The artists of the "Arts and Crafts Movement" which included Louis Comfort Tiffany, William Morris, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and the Preraphaelites, produced paintings. illustrated books, wallpaper, furniture, architecture, etc... They were part of the art pour l'art movement upon which Modernism is founded. They argued that one should not make judgments on the merits of works of art based upon non-art elements such as religious expression, socio/political content, ethics, etc... Oscar Wilde famously pointed out that the worst poetry was often of the most sincere emotional expression. We, as the audience of art, can be moved by good, bad, and mediocre art. Art pour l'art... later Formalism... is one of the major theories of art criticism and argues that judgment of a work of art should be based solely upon how well the artist utilized and employed the abstract art elements. This theory would carry on into the Bauhaus and later Clement Greenberg. We may perceive an expression of emotions, ideas, spiritual and/or physical sensations but these are not the basis of judgment as to whether a work of art is good or bad. Under this theory, yes, a stunning car design, a brilliant work of jewelry, a fine work of fashion are all worthy of being deemed as works of fine art. Those who embrace an Expressionist theory of art criticism in which the merit of a work of art is based upon the ability of a work to inspire strong emotional responses would reject such a theory.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
Ah, yes, but he was not merely a sexist. He was part of the White Male Patriarchy, which is today's enemy no. 1 in some circles, and thus all great achievers of the past must first be weighed on that scale, and if found too light, they are removed from their pedestals. Rule of thumb: if they were white and male, they forfeit their position in history.
I lived through a period when political correctness was at its peak. Terms like "the male gaze" and DWEMs (Dead White European Males) were flung about in academic papers and art criticism without the least sense of recognition of the irony involved while bemoaning sexism, and racism in others. But these things are cyclical and reactionary. A lot of it at the time (in the US and UK) was in response to the rise of right-wing politicians such as Reagan and Thatcher and Senator Jesse Helms. Of course artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe, Chris Offili, and Andres Serrano didn't help matters much. Now with the swing again to the Right with Trump and Johnson, and Hungary and Israel, we shouldn't be surprised at the reaction from the left. I agree that there is a danger in taking a holier-than-thou attitude when looking at the beliefs and standards of the past. The assumption that we would never have believed the things and done the things our predecessors did had we lived in the same time is nonsense. I certainly agree that historical figures and works of art should be open to criticism based upon our current thinking... but I have no use for censorship with few exceptions.
I lived through a period when political correctness was at its peak. Terms like "the male gaze" and DWEMs (Dead White European Males) were flung about in academic papers and art criticism without the least sense of recognition of the irony involved while bemoaning sexism, and racism in others. But these things are cyclical and reactionary. A lot of it at the time (in the US and UK) was in response to the rise of right-wing politicians such as Reagan and Thatcher and Senator Jesse Helms. Of course artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe, Chris Offili, and Andres Serrano didn't help matters much. Now with the swing again to the Right with Trump and Johnson, and Hungary and Israel, we shouldn't be surprised at the reaction from the left. I agree that there is a danger in taking a holier-than-thou attitude when looking at the beliefs and standards of the past. The assumption that we would never have believed the things and done the things our predecessors did had we lived in the same time is nonsense. I certainly agree that historical figures and works of art should be open to criticism based upon our current thinking... but I have no use for censorship with few exceptions.
Last edited:
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
Paula Modersohn-Becker is a "her".
john
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,112
Well some people may think that there is no difference between art and craft, but they are different words, with different meanings so there must be a difference. What is it? Are we to just throw up our hands and say it's too confusing ? The difference between them is what makes art art. As artists that is a difference that is important to us, or should be.
I would argue that, for instance, a custom fabricated motorcycle is art. A photoreal portrait is craft. The fact that it's a painting doesn't necessarily mean it's art nor being a motorcycle mean it's craft. However, a photoreal painting of something created with imagination by the artist, is art.
Daniel Sprick
Art requires creativity and imagination. Creativity, not copying.
I would argue that, for instance, a custom fabricated motorcycle is art. A photoreal portrait is craft. The fact that it's a painting doesn't necessarily mean it's art nor being a motorcycle mean it's craft. However, a photoreal painting of something created with imagination by the artist, is art.
Daniel Sprick
Art requires creativity and imagination. Creativity, not copying.
Last edited:
john
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,112
But I just realized that by my definition, my attempt at a photoreal landscape would have to called craft.
The only way it might escape being called such is perhaps because of my imperfect craftsmanship. I used no imagination here at all. I have to ask myself....."Where is the art?"
The only way it might escape being called such is perhaps because of my imperfect craftsmanship. I used no imagination here at all. I have to ask myself....."Where is the art?"
Last edited:
E.J.H.
Well-known member
- Messages
- 821
Kinda funny, I started a reply about plein air art, copying nature if you will, being a craft by that definition, and not art, and I saw you posted that, John.
I have seen art by people who clearly attempted a realistic image, justifying their lack of skill with "artistic license".
(I am not talking about your painting btw, I think it's great)
I have seen art by people who clearly attempted a realistic image, justifying their lack of skill with "artistic license".
(I am not talking about your painting btw, I think it's great)
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
OK... let's look at a definition of Art:
Art is a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
This does not differentiate skill or craft from "art". In fact, until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts. A medieval "artist" would not have even thought of himself as an original creative "artist" as creation was something reserved solely for God. To imagine otherwise was akin to blaspheme. It wasn't until the Renaissance that craftsmen began to think of themselves as artists and sign their works. After the 17th century, aesthetic considerations became paramount and the fine arts were separated and distinguished from acquired skills in general, such as the decorative or applied arts. In many ways, this is not unlike the theory of art pour l'art and Formalism... which emphasize aesthetics or the judgment of how well the artist employed and organized the abstract elements of art. It is really in the late 18th and 19th centuries that we find the modern notions of art theory, art criticism, and art history which attempted to place artists and works of arts into neat categories and define some of these as superior to others.
Non-Western cultures do not necessarily follow Western notions of "Art". Japanese, Chinese, and Islamic cultures value calligraphy as highly as the West values painting. The same is true of pattern in Islamic and Native American cultures (among others). Architecture has long been valued in the West as equal to painting and sculpture. Is it not interesting that such an artwork that serves a practical utilitarian function first and foremost is valued so highly and judged on terms of aesthetics... but not ceramics, furniture design, fashion, etc...
As I noted above, these ideas were challenged by some of the major art movements and theories of the 19th & 20th centuries including art pour l'art, Formalism, the "Arts and Crafts Movement", Art Deco, Art Nouveau, and the Bauhaus. The notion that "art" is limited to painting, sculpture, prints, and drawings that are deemed "self-expressive" is simply an outdated form of snobbery.
Art requires creativity and imagination. Creativity, not copying.
I would argue that any human creation involves creativity and imagination. The aesthetic merits of every artistic endeavor are always open to debate. As for "copying"... every realistic painting or sculpture or drawing involves a degree of illusion of visual reality. And what of the novel, or photography, or film? All are equally valid as art form. You may adhere to your biases as to what qualifies as "ART" but don't be surprised if others do not share your point of view.
Art is a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
This does not differentiate skill or craft from "art". In fact, until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts. A medieval "artist" would not have even thought of himself as an original creative "artist" as creation was something reserved solely for God. To imagine otherwise was akin to blaspheme. It wasn't until the Renaissance that craftsmen began to think of themselves as artists and sign their works. After the 17th century, aesthetic considerations became paramount and the fine arts were separated and distinguished from acquired skills in general, such as the decorative or applied arts. In many ways, this is not unlike the theory of art pour l'art and Formalism... which emphasize aesthetics or the judgment of how well the artist employed and organized the abstract elements of art. It is really in the late 18th and 19th centuries that we find the modern notions of art theory, art criticism, and art history which attempted to place artists and works of arts into neat categories and define some of these as superior to others.
Non-Western cultures do not necessarily follow Western notions of "Art". Japanese, Chinese, and Islamic cultures value calligraphy as highly as the West values painting. The same is true of pattern in Islamic and Native American cultures (among others). Architecture has long been valued in the West as equal to painting and sculpture. Is it not interesting that such an artwork that serves a practical utilitarian function first and foremost is valued so highly and judged on terms of aesthetics... but not ceramics, furniture design, fashion, etc...
As I noted above, these ideas were challenged by some of the major art movements and theories of the 19th & 20th centuries including art pour l'art, Formalism, the "Arts and Crafts Movement", Art Deco, Art Nouveau, and the Bauhaus. The notion that "art" is limited to painting, sculpture, prints, and drawings that are deemed "self-expressive" is simply an outdated form of snobbery.
Art requires creativity and imagination. Creativity, not copying.
I would argue that any human creation involves creativity and imagination. The aesthetic merits of every artistic endeavor are always open to debate. As for "copying"... every realistic painting or sculpture or drawing involves a degree of illusion of visual reality. And what of the novel, or photography, or film? All are equally valid as art form. You may adhere to your biases as to what qualifies as "ART" but don't be surprised if others do not share your point of view.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
Honestly, no painting can copy visual reality as we perceive it. We have stereoscopic vision while the painting on a flat surface does not. Our perception of a given object or scene is ever-changing. Our focus shifts from one point to another. Even the most photorealistic painter makes creative decisions as to how to crop the scene, where to focus, what elements to play down, what edges to "lose", and what to focus upon. This doesn't even touch upon the choices of color, line, balance, texture, composition, etc...
john
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,112
Thanks for that SLG. I think the key phrase here is in the definition above....."intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
This neatly encompasses all of our art while excluding objects intended primarily for their utility. Those objects are craft.
I suppose this means that the custom motorcycle straddles art and craft, as it should. And, ok I'll concede, the photoreal paintings are indeed art. So I lost the argument. The consolation is that even my "art" is actually art.
I swear we've had this discussion before.
This neatly encompasses all of our art while excluding objects intended primarily for their utility. Those objects are craft.
I suppose this means that the custom motorcycle straddles art and craft, as it should. And, ok I'll concede, the photoreal paintings are indeed art. So I lost the argument. The consolation is that even my "art" is actually art.
I swear we've had this discussion before.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
I suppose the question is where is the line between work that is primarily intended to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power and work that is intended primarily for its utility. Where does that place any/all of these works:
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
Iain
2 eyes.
- Messages
- 2,847
I would say, in the mind at the moment of conception. It is experiential. While craft is a model in a glossy magazine, Art is your spouse. At least, this is what my mind is instructing me to say at this moment in time.
Bongo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,544
The motorcycle imo is not an art object. Art is not a value judgement but a category reserved for objects that have no utility or purpose other than to be considered for their aesthetic qualities. If any-and-every thing of utility that also has aesthetic worth is said to be art, then the word becomes so ubiquitous as to have little to no meaning.
"Art" is not a measure of quality, but a definition of category. So Thomas Kinkade's paintings are art, and the motorcycle is not. The paintings of Bob Ross are art and the buildings of Lloyd Wright are not. We should be debating what is good art and what is bad art, not what IS art.
Now, no doubt this definition will be froth with exceptions, qualifiers, fuzzy lines, some "what abouts" and "what ifs" but it does go a great way imo to clearing fog over "what is art".
Sa in public, that something made with great skill and beauty is not art is considered heathenness. But let us speak clarity to ambiguity.
J
