Clayart Friends on mon 31 oct 11
Clayart; is shape and form the same thing or are there different
interpretations of each one? In my mind they are essentially the same
thing, except that form has 3 dimensions while shape can be a circle on
paper ( 2 dimensions)............right? Please correct me if I am
wrong............
This seems to be a silly question, but I always struggle with these two
words and dictionaries translate them to be the same thing. When I use
"vorm en lyn" the Afrikaans words, it translates as "form and Line"
Thanks.
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.porcelainbyAntoinette.com
Randall Moody on tue 1 nov 11
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Clayart Friends
wrote:
> Clayart; is shape and form the same thing or are there different
> interpretations of each one? In my mind they are essentially the same
> thing, except that form has 3 dimensions while shape can be a circle on
> paper ( 2 dimensions)............right? Please correct me if I am
> wrong............
> This seems to be a silly question, but I always struggle with these two
> words and dictionaries translate them to be the same thing. When I use
> "vorm en lyn" the Afrikaans words, it translates as "form and Line"
> Thanks.
> Antoinette Badenhorst
> www.porcelainbyAntoinette.com
>
You have it correct. While they are both related they are different*. *Form=
,
at least in art, is the term used to describe a 3 dimensional object..
Shape is used to describe a 2 dimensional one.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
William & Susan Schran User on tue 1 nov 11
On 10/31/11 6:54 PM, "Clayart Friends" wrote:
> Clayart; is shape and form the same thing or are there different
> interpretations of each one? In my mind they are essentially the same
> thing, except that form has 3 dimensions while shape can be a circle on
> paper ( 2 dimensions)............right? Please correct me if I am
> wrong............
> This seems to be a silly question, but I always struggle with these two
> words and dictionaries translate them to be the same thing. When I use
> "vorm en lyn" the Afrikaans words, it translates as "form and Line"
Shape and form are often terms used interchangeably.
I think of shape as something with a clearly defined edge/outline.
I do think form is usually applied to 3 dimensional things.
I found this definition that I believe captures the essence of what form
means:
"In a broader sense, form, in art, means the whole of a piece's visible
elements and the way those elements are united. In this context, form allow=
s
us, as viewers, to mentally capture the work and understand it."
In my work I am combining shapes of cones and spheres to create a new form.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
Snail Scott on tue 1 nov 11
On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Antoinette wrote:
> Clayart; is shape and form the same thing or are there different
> interpretations of each one?
They mean the same thing in regular English, but not
in specialist art terminology.
In the most typical terminology used in design theory,
'form' is an broadly encompassing concept including
every physical/visual aspect of the artwork, but not
the technical aspects or the meaning and concept.
So, things like line, color, pattern, scale, and so on
are referred to as the 'formal' elements of the artwork,
and artwork which is mainly rooted in those visual/
physical aspects of the composition with little or no
intended content, meaning or message, is often called
'formalist' work. This can include everything from the
Abstract Expressionists like Rothko to Art Nouveau
wallpaper. Most artwork, of course, has more than
just formal aspects; the point of having a term for it
is to allow discussion of separate traits of the work.
'Shape' is just one of the many formal elements of
composition and design, and applies to both 2-D and
3-D artwork. Shape that is depicted in two dimensions
is occasionally called 'implied shape' when there is a
need to distinguish it from 'actual' (3-D) shape, but this
doesn't come up often. Most painting is all implied
shapes, and most sculpture has actual shapes, so no
need to specify. (An example where the distinction
might be used is Sergei Isupov's work, where the surface
designs and actual contours sometimes coincide but
sometimes contradict one another.) The precise usage,
and even the terms, vary a bit from writer to writer, but
the gist is pretty similar.
(I get a little verbose and pedantic from here onward...)
So, for instance, if we discuss (how about something
most of us are familiar with), say, the Statue of Liberty:
The 'formal' elements of the artwork would include
things like scale (really, really big, and thus visible
from a distance, and also implying importance of the
idea being conveyed). Color would be another element,
(greenish oxidized copper) and although it's a natural
by-product of the material choice, it's something that
the artist would have not failed to consider. The line
of the overall composition created by the back-and-
forth folds of drapery leading the eye up to the upraised
torch is a factor, as is the vertical linear texture and
pattern of those folds contributing to the perception of
even greater height. Shape, in this case, can refer to
those folds and contours within the composition, and
also to the overall silhouette: solid, blocky, creating an
impression of permanence and strength even though
the copper is only a thin shell over an entirely hollow
structure. Shape is one of the many aspects of form.
These formal aspects are intrinsically linked, of course,
to the meaning and purpose of the sculpture. The formal
choices are HOW the meaning of any artwork gets
conveyed. Even the most sincere sentiment needs a
visual/physical expression ('form') to convey anything
at all. Otherwise, it's not an artwork, it's a wall tag and
an essay.
In functional work, form is seldom separate from
function, as the one influences the other. This is the
root of the Modernist dictum, "Form follows function."
Remember, it was stated first by an architect, and
architecture. like pottery, is a collaboration between
the needs for practical use and the expectations of
aesthetics.
Form, meaning, process, function: all work together if
the artwork is successful. One or another may be
dominant, but none can be working at cross-purposes.
-Snail
Philip Poburka on wed 2 nov 11
...always a good time for a little Musical interlude -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZn2JFlteeJ0
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
> On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Antoinette wrote:
>> Clayart; is shape and form the same thing or are there different
>> interpretations of each one?
>
>
> They mean the same thing in regular English, but not
> in specialist art terminology.
>
> In the most typical terminology used in design theory,
> 'form' is an broadly encompassing concept including
> every physical/visual aspect of the artwork, but not
> the technical aspects or the meaning and concept.
> So, things like line, color, pattern, scale, and so on
> are referred to as the 'formal' elements of the artwork,
> and artwork which is mainly rooted in those visual/
> physical aspects of the composition with little or no
> intended content, meaning or message, is often called
> 'formalist' work. This can include everything from the
> Abstract Expressionists like Rothko to Art Nouveau
> wallpaper. Most artwork, of course, has more than
> just formal aspects; the point of having a term for it
> is to allow discussion of separate traits of the work.
>
> 'Shape' is just one of the many formal elements of
> composition and design, and applies to both 2-D and
> 3-D artwork. Shape that is depicted in two dimensions
> is occasionally called 'implied shape' when there is a
> need to distinguish it from 'actual' (3-D) shape, but this
> doesn't come up often. Most painting is all implied
> shapes, and most sculpture has actual shapes, so no
> need to specify. (An example where the distinction
> might be used is Sergei Isupov's work, where the surface
> designs and actual contours sometimes coincide but
> sometimes contradict one another.) The precise usage,
> and even the terms, vary a bit from writer to writer, but
> the gist is pretty similar.
>
> (I get a little verbose and pedantic from here onward...)
>
> So, for instance, if we discuss (how about something
> most of us are familiar with), say, the Statue of Liberty:
> The 'formal' elements of the artwork would include
> things like scale (really, really big, and thus visible
> from a distance, and also implying importance of the
> idea being conveyed). Color would be another element,
> (greenish oxidized copper) and although it's a natural
> by-product of the material choice, it's something that
> the artist would have not failed to consider. The line
> of the overall composition created by the back-and-
> forth folds of drapery leading the eye up to the upraised
> torch is a factor, as is the vertical linear texture and
> pattern of those folds contributing to the perception of
> even greater height. Shape, in this case, can refer to
> those folds and contours within the composition, and
> also to the overall silhouette: solid, blocky, creating an
> impression of permanence and strength even though
> the copper is only a thin shell over an entirely hollow
> structure. Shape is one of the many aspects of form.
>
> These formal aspects are intrinsically linked, of course,
> to the meaning and purpose of the sculpture. The formal
> choices are HOW the meaning of any artwork gets
> conveyed. Even the most sincere sentiment needs a
> visual/physical expression ('form') to convey anything
> at all. Otherwise, it's not an artwork, it's a wall tag and
> an essay.
>
> In functional work, form is seldom separate from
> function, as the one influences the other. This is the
> root of the Modernist dictum, "Form follows function."
> Remember, it was stated first by an architect, and
> architecture. like pottery, is a collaboration between
> the needs for practical use and the expectations of
> aesthetics.
>
> Form, meaning, process, function: all work together if
> the artwork is successful. One or another may be
> dominant, but none can be working at cross-purposes.
>
> -Snail
Clay art on wed 2 nov 11
Thank you guys, that is what I thought. Thanks also for the extra
information Snail.
Is there any art dictionary or defining website or book resource that can
help me overcome more of these kind of problems in future. I am often
running into difficulties with it when I want to explain certain things in
writing or when I do workshops. I find google translator a very valuable
tool these days, but there are times that it just cannot come by. That is
when I start juggling between the 2 languages. It is time consuming.
There is a saying that if one can explain something to others, you really
understand it. I want to add...........if you can translate your
thoughts.............
Have a fun day.
Antoinette Badenhorst
www.porcelainbyAntoinette.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Snail Scott
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 9:39 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Define shape and form.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Antoinette wrote:
> Clayart; is shape and form the same thing or are there different
> interpretations of each one?
They mean the same thing in regular English, but not in specialist art
terminology.
In the most typical terminology used in design theory, 'form' is an broadly
encompassing concept including every physical/visual aspect of the artwork,
but not the technical aspects or the meaning and concept.
So, things like line, color, pattern, scale, and so on are referred to as
the 'formal' elements of the artwork, and artwork which is mainly rooted in
those visual/ physical aspects of the composition with little or no intende=
d
content, meaning or message, is often called 'formalist' work. This can
include everything from the Abstract Expressionists like Rothko to Art
Nouveau wallpaper. Most artwork, of course, has more than just formal
aspects; the point of having a term for it is to allow discussion of
separate traits of the work.
'Shape' is just one of the many formal elements of composition and design,
and applies to both 2-D and 3-D artwork. Shape that is depicted in two
dimensions is occasionally called 'implied shape' when there is a need to
distinguish it from 'actual' (3-D) shape, but this doesn't come up often.
Most painting is all implied shapes, and most sculpture has actual shapes,
so no need to specify. (An example where the distinction might be used is
Sergei Isupov's work, where the surface designs and actual contours
sometimes coincide but sometimes contradict one another.) The precise usage=
,
and even the terms, vary a bit from writer to writer, but the gist is prett=
y
similar.
(I get a little verbose and pedantic from here onward...)
So, for instance, if we discuss (how about something most of us are familia=
r
with), say, the Statue of Liberty:
The 'formal' elements of the artwork would include things like scale
(really, really big, and thus visible from a distance, and also implying
importance of the idea being conveyed). Color would be another element,
(greenish oxidized copper) and although it's a natural by-product of the
material choice, it's something that the artist would have not failed to
consider. The line of the overall composition created by the back-and- fort=
h
folds of drapery leading the eye up to the upraised torch is a factor, as i=
s
the vertical linear texture and pattern of those folds contributing to the
perception of even greater height. Shape, in this case, can refer to those
folds and contours within the composition, and also to the overall
silhouette: solid, blocky, creating an impression of permanence and strengt=
h
even though the copper is only a thin shell over an entirely hollow
structure. Shape is one of the many aspects of form.
These formal aspects are intrinsically linked, of course, to the meaning an=
d
purpose of the sculpture. The formal choices are HOW the meaning of any
artwork gets conveyed. Even the most sincere sentiment needs a
visual/physical expression ('form') to convey anything at all. Otherwise,
it's not an artwork, it's a wall tag and an essay.
In functional work, form is seldom separate from function, as the one
influences the other. This is the root of the Modernist dictum, "Form
follows function."
Remember, it was stated first by an architect, and architecture. like
pottery, is a collaboration between the needs for practical use and the
expectations of aesthetics.
Form, meaning, process, function: all work together if the artwork is
successful. One or another may be dominant, but none can be working at
cross-purposes.
-Snail
John Hesselberth on wed 2 nov 11
On Nov 2, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Clay art wrote:
> Is there any art dictionary or defining website or book resource that =3D
can
> help me overcome more of these kind of problems in future.
Design Language by Tim McCreight ISBN: 0-9615984-6-8 is worth owning. =3D
It is a tiny book that has definitions of lots of words used in design.
Regards,
John
The dumbest people I know are those that know it all. Malcolm Forbes
John Hesselberth
john@frogpondpottery.com
John Post on thu 3 nov 11
Elementary school art definition of shape and form...
Shapes are flat, forms are fat.
(Shapes =3D 2D Forms =3D 3D)
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
http://www.johnpost.us
Follow me on Twitter
https://twitter.com/UCSArtTeacher
| |
|
