Janine Roubik on wed 30 aug 06
I was kinda following the posts on the "artist" label and I started
thinking about the art/craft issue.
A while back my friend lived upstairs from a newer art gallery. I met the
guy who ran the gallery and he seemed nice and everything so we got to
talking. My friend piped up that I was a "pottery-maker" and the gallery
fellow bristled and said "Oh...we don't do crafts. Just art"
I slowly backed away. I counted to 10. I did breathing exersises.
But then I just left, because I felt arguing with this horn-rimmed art-
snob would not be worth my time. I'm assuming all of the clayarters on
here would think that pots are fine art, as I do. But what happens in
situations like that? What is the "art-world" definition of craft? What
is the "art-world" definition of art? Does a piece have to be non-
functional to be "art"? Do I need to draw a picture of some
politician/religious figure/pop star doing something stupid/profane on a
teapot for it to be art? Does the relative quality of one's work give it
the push over the art line? We can look at a teapot and consider all the
formal aspects (line, color, negative space, blah blah) as one can do in a
painting or sculpture. In fact, that where a good pot design would come
from. Is there no "meaning" is a beautiful yunomi? Social relevance? So
is a bowl fired for 7 days in an anagama the same thing as a teddy bear
wearing an american-flag sweater to these people?
So when faced with a gallery owner that refuses to see that a functional
piece is art, what do you do or say or not do? I know this is a
complicated issue, but I'm just throwing the issue out there for "fun" and
to see what happens.
Janine
Janine Roubik on wed 30 aug 06
Well, I wasn't "hurt" that this guy didn't want to look at my stuff - I just thought it was pretty small minded that he would dismiss it so quickly because of the media and perhaps his own connotations of what pottery would mean.
I guess I wasn't looking for a critique on how I worded things - I just was looking for a discussion from other people who work in clay their personal definitions of art or craft. I included my story just to relate to why I was thinking about such matters...
Thanks for your input!
J
Snail Scott wrote:
At 03:43 AM 8/30/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>...My friend piped up that I was a "pottery-maker" and the gallery
>fellow bristled and said "Oh...we don't do crafts. Just art"
>
>I slowly backed away. I counted to 10. I did breathing exersises...
We've been around this topic before, but at
great risk of flame wars or boredom, here it
goes again:
First: There are also galleries that would say
to (for instance) a painter, "Sorry, we don't
do art, just crafts." It's not necessarily a
putdown for a gallery to limit its focus and
parameters for exhibition. All good galleries
have an emphasis of some sort - medium, price
range, style, or whatever. Somebody is going to
be excluded, and not just on the basis of some
perceived external definition. In fact, seldom
on that basis. They picked their emphasis, and
pottery apparently wasn't part of it.
>...I'm assuming all of the clayarters on
>here would think that pots are fine art, as I do...
I, for one, think otherwise. The term 'fine art'
has a range of possible definitions, but pottery
falls outside most (though not all) of them, just
as most fine art falls outside most definitions
of craft.
There IS a difference, and although the line
between them might be better described as a very
blurry smear rather than a line as such, it's
still there. Some objects could be argued to one
side or the other depending on the critera chosen,
but others are clearly one or the other, and any
definition which included all would be fairly
useless as a term.
Now, 'art' is a much broader term than 'fine art,
and much pottery (though probably not all) would
fall within it. So what was your gallery proprietor
trying to say with his remark? "Your work is crap"?
Probably not; he hadn't even seen it, after all.
He was however, evidently saying that "the range
of stuff we show does not include pottery", and
the implication is that his definition of 'Art'
put most pottery on the far side of his personal
blurry line.
No need to see it as a value judgement.
>...What is the "art-world" definition of craft? What
>is the "art-world" definition of art? Does a piece have to be non-
>functional to be "art"?
People have written widely on this issue, and
I won't rehash the full range of opinions here,
but you've put your finger on one of the fairly
constant elements of that definition: function.
It's possible to say that all art has a function
(even if it's solely psychologial, or capitalist,
or some such), but the close link between most
crafts and many basic practical functions is
pretty firm. So, while there may be craft that's
non-functional, and art that is, I'd say that
it's a pretty good bellwether for which side of
the line that object lives on.
Another aspect of these definitions which recurs
often is 'medium'. More so than fine art, craft-
based art has an intrinsic link to the material
it's made of, and the processes for manipulating
that material. Again, 'mostly' is an essential
qualifier.
Yet another is the notion of 'content'. This one
is a little more ambiguous, but broadly speaking,
most craft is not trying to carry a message or
a statement that is widely separate from function,
while fine art often does intend to carry a
statement or a philosphical stance. This is
perhaps the least truly 'defining' aspect, but
there is a very general sort of truth to it.
Some folks also consider that most 'crafts' have
a historical lineage which is relevant to its
practice, while 'art' is more likely to disregard
its antecedents, or to think that it is.
Another aspect is just conventional. By this, I
mean that certain practices have been called
'craft' for a long time, and others called 'art',
and it's become accepted terminology. Much
so-called 'art' is as rooted in materials and
in ongoing, handed-down craft methods as pottery
is, and there is also work that is claimed by
the 'craft' world as its own, but fills maybe
one of the previous criteria at most, while
resembling 'art' in many other respects. When a
gallery considers such work, the final test may
simply be, what does it remind them of the most?
Is the functinal aspect seemingly dominant? Then
it's probably craft. Is it in a frame? Let's call
it art. Most of the time, the finer nuances of
definition probably come down to something
similarly superficial.
You seem to have been really hurt by being
excluded from that guy's parameter for 'art'. Why?
What do you value that's on the other side of that
definition line? Representation by that particular
gallery? The cachet often associated with 'fine
art'? The siren song of higher prices? What?
In conclusion:
The guy doesn't want to show pottery. So what?
Who cares what category he puts it in? It's just
not his stock in trade. Find a gallery where it
is.
-Snail
______________________________________________________________________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
Carl Finch on wed 30 aug 06
At 01:51 PM 8/30/2006, Robert Edney wrote:
>Or, one cannot call oneself an artist until one meets with commercial
>success. By this measure, Thomas Kinkaid is about as good as an artist can
>get.
Bzzzt! Logic Fault! Easy there, Robert! Your first statement declares
commercial success to be Necessary (implied by your "until"). But that's
not the same as its being Sufficient to deem Kinkade a good-as-can-get-artist!
And if you haven't seen the latest on everybody's favorite "Painter of
Light," do click here:
Ah! Anyone care to join me in a cup of Schadenfreude! ;-)
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
Snail Scott on wed 30 aug 06
At 03:43 AM 8/30/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>...My friend piped up that I was a "pottery-maker" and the gallery
>fellow bristled and said "Oh...we don't do crafts. Just art"
>
>I slowly backed away. I counted to 10. I did breathing exersises...
We've been around this topic before, but at
great risk of flame wars or boredom, here it
goes again:
First: There are also galleries that would say
to (for instance) a painter, "Sorry, we don't
do art, just crafts." It's not necessarily a
putdown for a gallery to limit its focus and
parameters for exhibition. All good galleries
have an emphasis of some sort - medium, price
range, style, or whatever. Somebody is going to
be excluded, and not just on the basis of some
perceived external definition. In fact, seldom
on that basis. They picked their emphasis, and
pottery apparently wasn't part of it.
>...I'm assuming all of the clayarters on
>here would think that pots are fine art, as I do...
I, for one, think otherwise. The term 'fine art'
has a range of possible definitions, but pottery
falls outside most (though not all) of them, just
as most fine art falls outside most definitions
of craft.
There IS a difference, and although the line
between them might be better described as a very
blurry smear rather than a line as such, it's
still there. Some objects could be argued to one
side or the other depending on the critera chosen,
but others are clearly one or the other, and any
definition which included all would be fairly
useless as a term.
Now, 'art' is a much broader term than 'fine art,
and much pottery (though probably not all) would
fall within it. So what was your gallery proprietor
trying to say with his remark? "Your work is crap"?
Probably not; he hadn't even seen it, after all.
He was however, evidently saying that "the range
of stuff we show does not include pottery", and
the implication is that his definition of 'Art'
put most pottery on the far side of his personal
blurry line.
No need to see it as a value judgement.
>...What is the "art-world" definition of craft? What
>is the "art-world" definition of art? Does a piece have to be non-
>functional to be "art"?
People have written widely on this issue, and
I won't rehash the full range of opinions here,
but you've put your finger on one of the fairly
constant elements of that definition: function.
It's possible to say that all art has a function
(even if it's solely psychologial, or capitalist,
or some such), but the close link between most
crafts and many basic practical functions is
pretty firm. So, while there may be craft that's
non-functional, and art that is, I'd say that
it's a pretty good bellwether for which side of
the line that object lives on.
Another aspect of these definitions which recurs
often is 'medium'. More so than fine art, craft-
based art has an intrinsic link to the material
it's made of, and the processes for manipulating
that material. Again, 'mostly' is an essential
qualifier.
Yet another is the notion of 'content'. This one
is a little more ambiguous, but broadly speaking,
most craft is not trying to carry a message or
a statement that is widely separate from function,
while fine art often does intend to carry a
statement or a philosphical stance. This is
perhaps the least truly 'defining' aspect, but
there is a very general sort of truth to it.
Some folks also consider that most 'crafts' have
a historical lineage which is relevant to its
practice, while 'art' is more likely to disregard
its antecedents, or to think that it is.
Another aspect is just conventional. By this, I
mean that certain practices have been called
'craft' for a long time, and others called 'art',
and it's become accepted terminology. Much
so-called 'art' is as rooted in materials and
in ongoing, handed-down craft methods as pottery
is, and there is also work that is claimed by
the 'craft' world as its own, but fills maybe
one of the previous criteria at most, while
resembling 'art' in many other respects. When a
gallery considers such work, the final test may
simply be, what does it remind them of the most?
Is the functinal aspect seemingly dominant? Then
it's probably craft. Is it in a frame? Let's call
it art. Most of the time, the finer nuances of
definition probably come down to something
similarly superficial.
You seem to have been really hurt by being
excluded from that guy's parameter for 'art'. Why?
What do you value that's on the other side of that
definition line? Representation by that particular
gallery? The cachet often associated with 'fine
art'? The siren song of higher prices? What?
In conclusion:
The guy doesn't want to show pottery. So what?
Who cares what category he puts it in? It's just
not his stock in trade. Find a gallery where it
is.
-Snail
Robert Edney on wed 30 aug 06
For those who don't want to be bothered reading this, I'll summarize here:
Claiming the title is to take significant responsibility for how one lives,
sees things and works. Despite what others may say, accepting oneself as an
artist makes no assumption of superiority to others -- such a concept is
antithetical to the process of art.
Now for the rest of it:
Here is a probably vain attempt to summarize the current argument, albeit
simplistically and with bias:
We hear that one cannot call oneself an artist unless and until one is
acknowledged to be an artist by others. To put it another way, I suppose,
rising to the level of "artist" means rising to a level of craft and visual
appeal that pleases those people (whoever they are) who bestow such titles.
I am extremely grateful that there appears to be no such easily identifiable
group of judges.
Or, one cannot call oneself an artist until one meets with commercial
success. By this measure, Thomas Kinkaid is about as good as an artist can
get. Like it or not, what is valued as art has pretty much always been
determined -- at least in part -- by the marketplace. Those whose vision
and work defied the marketplace sometimes are acknowledged not just as
artists but equally as visionaries by a later marketplace -- frequently
after death.
Or, and I think this is what I'm hearing, art is not a "thing" but a
process. In other words, if one gets up in the morning invested with the
desire to explore, create, take risks and express a certain vision to
others, one arises as an artist -- providing one actually makes something.
Success is not the measure; commitment is. If all artists were easily
dissuaded by lack of approval, much of what we highly value as art today
would not exist.
Clearly and unabashedly I sympathize with the third view. Artists are -- in
my experience -- people who accept the challenge and make the commitment to
learn, grow, sense, empathize and risk. Equally, one must tolerate at times
a high rate of things that don't quite work. To say that one is not an
artist while in that process of making things that don't quite work is to
dissuade one from living the life. A commitment to this process is both
exciting and troublesome -- acknowledgment may never come, or may come long
after the work. To me, if one is living a committed life as an artist, one
is and deserves to be called one. Claiming the title is to take significant
responsibility for how one lives, sees things and works. Despite what
others may say, accepting oneself as an artist makes no assumption of
superiority to others -- such a concept is antithetical to the process of
art.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on thu 31 aug 06
Dear Janine Roubik,
You ask << So when faced with a gallery owner that refuses to see that a =
functional piece is art, what do you do or say or not do? ? >>
The next time you meet up with your antagonist treat it as a learning =
experience. Start by asking him to define his terms to that you can =
better understand his "philosophy". I'm sure you can thing up a myriad =
of questions or prompts that would lead him into exposing the weakness =
of his position. Don't mount a full frontal attack, be subversive.
Have fun. Remember, all "Art" is functional.=20
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
curtis adkins on thu 31 aug 06
V Van Gogh sold 1 Painting While he was alive....terrible hack, right? I must think a commercial success is just that money to make more Art...by that artist, right?
Carl Finch wrote: At 01:51 PM 8/30/2006, Robert Edney wrote:
>Or, one cannot call oneself an artist until one meets with commercial
>success. By this measure, Thomas Kinkaid is about as good as an artist can
>get.
Bzzzt! Logic Fault! Easy there, Robert! Your first statement declares
commercial success to be Necessary (implied by your "until"). But that's
not the same as its being Sufficient to deem Kinkade a good-as-can-get-artist!
And if you haven't seen the latest on everybody's favorite "Painter of
Light," do click here:
Ah! Anyone care to join me in a cup of Schadenfreude! ;-)
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
______________________________________________________________________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Robert Edney on fri 1 sep 06
Sorry if that was confusing. I was restating an argument that I don't agree
with, and perhaps my sarcasm got lost in the process. I was implying that
the quality of art is NOT defined by commercial success, and I thought that
Kinkaid was a pretty good example of commercial success devoid of real
quality. It is amazing, however, to ponder the success this guy has had
with second-rate, insipid painting. It does seem that his empire may be
falling apart, however.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl Finch
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:34 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: craft vs. art
At 01:51 PM 8/30/2006, Robert Edney wrote:
>Or, one cannot call oneself an artist until one meets with commercial
>success. By this measure, Thomas Kinkaid is about as good as an artist can
>get.
Bzzzt! Logic Fault! Easy there, Robert! Your first statement declares
commercial success to be Necessary (implied by your "until"). But that's
not the same as its being Sufficient to deem Kinkade a
good-as-can-get-artist!
And if you haven't seen the latest on everybody's favorite "Painter of
Light," do click here:
a-home-headlines>
Ah! Anyone care to join me in a cup of Schadenfreude! ;-)
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Janine Roubik on fri 1 sep 06
I agree that commercial success does not imply an artistic quality of work. Sometimes it seems like the worse some stuff is artistically the better it sells - I'm writing this from the perspective of the "wierdo" in the family where everyone else decorates their homes with Miller wildlife mirrors and Nascar murals. Scarrrrry stuff.
And BTW I read the article on Kincade's "Christian" enterprise and how he jerked a bunch of people over. There's another company of that sort - It's called Miracle Homes and in their commercials they proudly boast "We're a Christian-based company" HA! Don't believe it! My sister in law used to work for them and she says she saw them pull stuff over on people that would make you sick!
Religion is supposed to be such a beautiful thing - but so many people use it for bad things......politicians, business people and, well, terrorists.
Robert Edney wrote:
Sorry if that was confusing. I was restating an argument that I don't agree
with, and perhaps my sarcasm got lost in the process. I was implying that
the quality of art is NOT defined by commercial success, and I thought that
Kinkaid was a pretty good example of commercial success devoid of real
quality. It is amazing, however, to ponder the success this guy has had
with second-rate, insipid painting. It does seem that his empire may be
falling apart, however.
melpots@pclink.com.
______________________________________________________________________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
| |
|
