Albert Weinhardt on wed 4 may 11
Why don't people seem to ever get tired of arguing over whether art is art =
=3D
or a pile of bricks? Same with art vs. craft. The simplest explanation of t=
=3D
he two (art vs craft) that I've been able to come up with is that craft is =
=3D
making something for someone else to use (you need to think about form and =
=3D
function and how that other person will use what you're making (that other =
=3D
person could be you)) and art is making something for yourself (to help cla=
=3D
rify your own understanding of the "great matters"). So that pile of bricks=
=3D
could be art or it could be a pile of bricks.... does it matter?
=3D20
James Freeman on wed 4 may 11
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Albert Weinhardt wrote=
:
Why don't people seem to ever get tired of arguing over whether art is art
or a pile of bricks? Same with art vs. craft. The simplest explanation of
the two (art vs craft) that I've been able to come up with is that craft is
making something for someone else to use (you need to think about form and
function and how that other person will use what you're making (that other
person could be you)) and art is making something for yourself (to help
clarify your own understanding of the "great matters"). So that pile of
bricks could be art or it could be a pile of bricks.... does it matter?
Albert...
Doesn't the fact that many seem never to tire of such discussion point to
it's wide import? Does it not also indicate that it matters a great deal to
those who like to think about the why rather than just the how? Such
discussions have continued for centuries. Our current art weltanschauung,
that art resides in the thoughts rather than the objects, with the
concomitant near dismissal of technique and skill (and even original
authorship) can be traced to an aesthetic argument put forth by Immanuel
Kant over 200 years ago, expanded by Hegel, and pushed to our present state
by a bevy of influential critics who spent a lot of time in similar
discussion and argument.
Also, though some do seem to be pushing the current discussion toward "what
is art", the main thrust was whether or not two specific pieces were truly
"ceramic art", or whether they were some other type of art (installation,
sculpture, painting). As the party guilty of asking the question that
sparked this discussion, I stipulated from the beginning that the author of
the works was an artist and that the works were art. I never questioned
either, not because I agree or disagree, but because it is not relevant to
this discussion.
You are correct in your implication; these discussions do not matter a whit
to those who have no interest in them, and that likely includes a very grea=
t
many people. It does not, however, follow that they are universally
unimportant or irrelevant. I tune out, for example, all discussion of
potters' injuries, NCECA, commercial glazes, coil building, and many others=
,
because they are not important or relevant to me. I assumed, perhaps
incorrectly, that those uninterested in aesthetics and similar philosophica=
l
topics similarly simply tuned them out. Robert Heinlein said in one of his
books (Time enough for love, if I am not mistaken), "One man's religion is
another man's belly laugh." It should perhaps be recognized that a
discussion that is poison to one person may well be manna to another.
Why would one enjoy such intense thinking devoted to a topic that may never
be universally resolved? I liken it to working out in the gym. The more I
lift, the stronger I get and the better I feel. I recognize fully that I
can never "win", even when I conquer a weight target, because no matter how
strong I get, 5 or 10 more pounds on the bar puts me right back where I was=
,
to struggle and fight once more. So why do I do it? Why do I keep pushing
against heavier and heavier weights? Because though I will never conquer
gravity, will never win the argument with the weights, the byproduct of my
efforts is a stronger, fitter body which is now able to conquer forces and
tasks which were once insurmountable. Likewise, the more you exercise your
mind, the more powerful it becomes, and once insoluble problems lose their
power over you, even if you never did solve the original equation. Einstei=
n
never managed to formulate his Grand Unifying Theory, but he sure solved a
lot of lesser problems as a result of his "fruitless" endeavor.
I like your thoughts re: art versus craft. I think, however, that the
differences are very real and very profound, and that the answer, or at
least one answer, can be derived from the previously mentioned Kantian
paradigm. Having said that (huge collective sigh of relief!), I haven't th=
e
time nor mental energy today to attempt to flesh out my ideas.
Break time is over, and I must return to the salt mines. Thank you for the
very enjoyable diversion.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
| |
|
