Woodturning being defined as "art"

[John Ames]

The discussion thread on "embellishment" is the impetus for this post. I did not want to take over that discussion and I thought some people might be interested in this perspective.

Some 15 years ago (or more?) I got into a serendipitous and fascinating discussion with a group of art scholars. These were PhD degree holders and experts in both modern art and art history. I was well out of my comfort zone and they were kind enough to tolerate my mundane and simplistic questions about what makes something "Art." What got me started talking with these folks was an article I had read about an "artist" who had a piece on display at a local gallery that caused a bit of a brouhaha. The art piece in question was an old, glass mayonnaise jar with a figurine of Jesus mounted on a cross made from popsicle sticks then placed inside the jar. The artist then urinated in the jar with the figurine, put the lid on it and displayed it. I knew "art" could get weird, but this one took the cake. I had to ask these art professors about how something like this could be considered "art." I got quite an education that day that has stuck with me. Here are the most important take aways I got from our conversation.

First and foremost, the definition of "art" is fairly straightforward in their world. In order to be defined as "art," that object (and/or performance i.e. dance/music or literature) must solely exist for its own aesthetic. By definition, "art" can have no function or utility. No matter how beautiful, finely crafted, original or breathtaking an object (or performance) might be, it cannot be art if it serves (or even CAN serve) an intended purpose. This kind of blew my mind.... A Jaguar XKE, or Ferrari cannot ever be considered "art." A Rolex watch or fancy clock can never be art. Furniture can never be considered art. And therefore, woodturned bowls/plates/pens or whatever, can never be considered art.

Now for some nuance... If you take that Jaguar XKE, crumple it up, stick it on top of a flag pole... it's art. If you make a chair and put spikes on the seat or otherwise make it unusable as a chair, it is art. If you make a bowl with massive voids so it loses its ability as a vessel, its art.

Jackson Pollock's work is art. The Mona Lisa is art. A drawing in a medical text book defining anatomical areas, is NOT art. A novel or poem is art. An instruction manual is not art. A random tune that someone whistles is art. If you whistle to get someone's attention, that's NOT art. Art can have no function or utility or serve ANY purpose other than to exist for it's own aesthetic.

The term "functional art" has been thrown around for a long time but, technically speaking, there's no such thing. Functional art would be like calling something a square circle.

And so to come around back to woodturning... If you make a bowl and want to call it art, you have to make it useless, or mount it vertically so it can't hold anything. Or put it inside a sealed box somehow (you don't have to pee in it... that's extreme). By definition, the only woodturnings that could be considered "art" are the sculptural types, the ones mounted vertically, the ones with voids and/or piercings, and possibly the hollow forms. No matter how many beads, coves, colors, dyes, resins, or stones we embellish a bowl with, it will never be art.

I've always believed this definition of art is a part what keeps woodturners under appreciated and undervalued. Still, I always smile when someone calls one of my bowls "a work of art" even though I know it isn't.

Please don't shoot the messenger.... I just thought I'd provide some food for thought as it came to me from the people who actually know what art is. These art experts I spoke with also had interesting thoughts on what makes art "good" or "bad" but that's a discussion for another forum on another day.

 

[Odie]

The discussion thread on "embellishment" is the impetus for this post. I did not want to take over that discussion and I thought some people might be interested in this perspective.

Some 15 years ago (or more?) I got into a serendipitous and fascinating discussion with a group of art scholars. These were PhD degree holders and experts in both modern art and art history. I was well out of my comfort zone and they were kind enough to tolerate my mundane and simplistic questions about what makes something "Art." What got me started talking with these folks was an article I had read about an "artist" who had a piece on display at a local gallery that caused a bit of a brouhaha. The art piece in question was an old, glass mayonnaise jar with a figurine of Jesus mounted on a cross made from popsicle sticks then placed inside the jar. The artist then urinated in the jar with the figurine, put the lid on it and displayed it. I knew "art" could get weird, but this one took the cake. I had to ask these art professors about how something like this could be considered "art." I got quite an education that day that has stuck with me. Here are the most important take aways I got from our conversation.

First and foremost, the definition of "art" is fairly straightforward in their world. In order to be defined as "art," that object (and/or performance i.e. dance/music or literature) must solely exist for its own aesthetic. By definition, "art" can have no function or utility. No matter how beautiful, finely crafted, original or breathtaking an object (or performance) might be, it cannot be art if it serves (or even CAN serve) an intended purpose. This kind of blew my mind.... A Jaguar XKE, or Ferrari cannot ever be considered "art." A Rolex watch or fancy clock can never be art. Furniture can never be considered art. And therefore, woodturned bowls/plates/pens or whatever, can never be considered art.

Now for some nuance... If you take that Jaguar XKE, crumple it up, stick it on top of a flag pole... it's art. If you make a chair and put spikes on the seat or otherwise make it unusable as a chair, it is art. If you make a bowl with massive voids so it loses its ability as a vessel, its art.

Jackson Pollock's work is art. The Mona Lisa is art. A drawing in a medical text book defining anatomical areas, is NOT art. A novel or poem is art. An instruction manual is not art. A random tune that someone whistles is art. If you whistle to get someone's attention, that's NOT art. Art can have no function or utility or serve ANY purpose other than to exist for it's own aesthetic.

The term "functional art" has been thrown around for a long time but, technically speaking, there's no such thing. Functional art would be like calling something a square circle.

And so to come around back to woodturning... If you make a bowl and want to call it art, you have to make it useless, or mount it vertically so it can't hold anything. Or put it inside a sealed box somehow (you don't have to pee in it... that's extreme). By definition, the only woodturnings that could be considered "art" are the sculptural types, the ones mounted vertically, the ones with voids and/or piercings, and possibly the hollow forms. No matter how many beads, coves, colors, dyes, resins, or stones we embellish a bowl with, it will never be art.

I've always believed this definition of art is a part what keeps woodturners under appreciated and undervalued. Still, I always smile when someone calls one of my bowls "a work of art" even though I know it isn't.

Please don't shoot the messenger.... I just thought I'd provide some food for thought as it came to me from the people who actually know what art is. These art experts I spoke with also had interesting thoughts on what makes art "good" or "bad" but that's a discussion for another forum on another day.

Here is another point of view, concerning what is art......or, more definitively defined as "fine art". It also includes commentary concerning the so-called "experts":

Why Is Classical Art So Good? | PragerU

What makes great art great? Is it simply a matter of personal taste, with little or no regard for skill or execution? Or are there standards by which an…

www.prageru.com

Why Is Modern Art So Bad? | PragerU

For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the…

www.prageru.com

-o-

 

[Pat Cogdal]

I received my masters degree in sculpture over 20 years ago and the argument was the same then as now. I have always leaned on the side if you classify yourself as an artist and you call what you make art than it's art. In the woodturning world I see more folks trying to avoid the title of "artist" for one reason or another and if the term craftsman or folk artist or maker of functional things gets you back in shop or studio (another hard line for folks) then call it what you will and keep making. Why is a wooden goblet less of a work of art then a jewel encrusted chalice? Why when I go to the art museums (and I've gone to many) do I find so many functional pieces of furniture behind ropes or models of buildings in architecture exhibits. If the definition of art is that it serves no function or utility then I contend that ever honey dipper ever turned is a work of art because no one every actually uses those (LOL I don't know that to be a fact).

 

[Kevin Jenness]

Excluding function from art is an unusually restrictive definition. For one thing it leaves out architecture, which can be defined as "art that has toilets in it." I'm not sure what art is but as Justice Stewart said of obscenity, "I know it when I see it."

 

[Rick Moreton]

To put it short, I'd say art is something that is made to make others feel an emotion.

If it is or can be functional shouldn't matter. In theory I could take the Mona Lisa and use it as a placemat at the dinner table, which would make it a potentially functional object. Maybe you could add the caveat that the primary intention of a object shouldn't be that it is functional. But would that be up to the creators or owners? For someone who owns but never intends to drive a Ferrari, maybe it is art for them.

 

[John Ames]

To put it short, I'd say art is something that is made to make others feel an emotion.

If it is or can be functional shouldn't matter. In theory I could take the Mona Lisa and use it as a placemat at the dinner table, which would make it a potentially functional object. Maybe you could add the caveat that the primary intention of an object shouldn't be that it is functional. But would that be up to the creators or owners? For someone who owns but never intends to drive a Ferrari, maybe it is art for them.

I always had the same basic thoughts as this…. Art is subjective…. Some people think something is art, some don’t, to each their own… they know it when they see it…

BUT - the art scholars dismissed this (my) point of view and impressed on me that art has to be defined. The QUALITY and MERIT and VALUE of art can always be debated and judged but one cannot argue IF something is art. The standard is something that exists purely for its own aesthetic.

Art is not the same concept as beauty, for example, where many people look at the same thing and are allowed an opinion as to its beauty or lack thereof. Everyone gets to decide whether they like/appreciate/understand/hate/loathe a piece of art. What is not debatable is whether that thing is or isn’t art.

If I never drive my Ferrari (like I have one!) and just stare at it, it doesn’t become art. However if I cut the car in half and mount the Ferrari to a wall, rendering it unusable, it is art.

The depth of this topic has fascinated me for a long time… it’s enlightening and healthy to read the perspectives of others! Thank you for indulging me.

 

[Steve Tiedman]

And art scholars serve... what purpose? Pfft.

From learning and understanding, practice, and perseverance, comes craft. From skilled craft, one makes art.
-Steve Tiedman

 

[Richard Coers]

Is there a time schedule to how often this has to come up? Woodturners are about the only group I know that has to often discuss what there really make.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Bill Brumbine [rip] made it very simple. "If it won't hold soup, its Art."

 

[robo hippy]

Well, to me, "art" does seem to apply to the ability to use one's tools efficiently. Strange that it doesn't seem to transfer to the finished product.....

robo hippy

 

[Brian McCutchon]

Well, I don't think the definition of art is universally agreed upon, even among scholars. At any rate, I doubt most art museums would dismiss a piece just because it could be used for something. One could probably find many examples of bowls, pots, and vases in art galleries. As for the example you mentioned, an object that seems to have the primary purpose of insulting someone's religion should have no place in this discussion.

 

[Mike Novak]

The Mona Lisa (art) is part of the Louvre (not art). So it’s clear that art can be a part of something useful. You could even say the Mona Lisa is an embellishment to the Louvre, much like a bead or paint is an embellishment on a bowl.

The unfortunate jar example that John described is art, but it contains useful items (the jar) that could be used. Of course, washing the jar and storing pickles in it would destroy the “art”. Another example is if I placed a Ferrari on top of the glass pyramid at the louvre as a statement about the misuse of fossil fuels. It would be art. But the minute I took it down and drove it, the art is destroyed. How is this different than displaying a bowl on a mantelpiece and forbidding my wife from making salad in it?

Also using the unfortunate jar example, if the “artist” made it with the intention of increasing their fame, or earning money, isn’t that a function? Does this mean it’s not art for the creator, but is art for everyone else? If I were to use the Mona Lisa as a serving tray, does that mean it never was art?

I think that this brings us around to what the scholars are trying to avoid, which is there can be no universal criteria to determine if something is art. Art is personal. The jar with pee in it is art because the OWNER has no useful purpose for, and it conveys an esthetic. If I owned it, it wouldn’t be art, it would just be a dirty jar.

So I’d argue that I see a lot of art in our gallery. Some of it is art applied to useful objects. Some are objects as part of art. Some is just pure art. But it’s the owner who decides.

 

[Bob Brown]

Put your price on the turning, then double it . That's art . It's like the gentleman that sold a pepper grinder to Oprah. He died before he could fill all the orders from her viewers.

 

[Doug Freeman]

@John Ames thank you for the post. I know nothing about the “art” world, so this stuff is educational for me. I have an engineering degree and spent 40 years using it - that’s a diametrically opposed world.

I would be very interested in the “good” vs “bad” art opinions from the “experts”. Please add another post.

 

[Neil S]

When I went through art school over 50yrs ago I was preparing to be an artist. I was dux in the final year of the four year course, so they probably thought I was an artist and perhaps better than the average art school graduate. At the end of my course an art gallery offered to exhibit my work, so perhaps they also thought I was an artist. I then taught art for a number of years, so the art department must have thought that I was good enough to do that. Among my colleagues and close lifelong friends are practising artists who exhibit regularly, including some who are acknowledged among the leading artists of my generation in this country. Their work is held in the collections of state and national galleries.

Back when I was potting selected pieces from our exhibitions were acquired by state and national galleries. Presumably those government institutions thought it had a place in those art galleries.

I have turned wood for all of my adult life, more so over the last 30yrs. My work exhibits in galleries alongside what others would call art (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.). However, to my knowledge, no pieces of woodturning as such have been acquired for the collections in state and national galleries.

My artist friends still think of me as an artist, but apparently not the art institutions.. Do I feel any less of an artist because I'm working with wood instead of clay, paint, pencil, stone or print?... not really. Does it bother me?... even less!

The life of an artist is a difficult one. You only do it because you are driven to do so, not because you want to be thought of as an artist or what you do is art. Few stay the course and fewer can make a living from it doing so. I'm the last one to decry any of their efforts.

And, yes, the definition that John has given for what is art is valid.

What is good or bad or inconsequential art is another matter altogether.

 

[John Ames]

When I went through art school over 50yrs ago I was preparing to be an artist. I was dux in the final year of the four year course, so they probably thought I was an artist and perhaps better than the average art school graduate. At the end of my course an art gallery offered to exhibit my work, so perhaps they also thought I was an artist. I then taught art for a number of years, so the art department must have thought that I was good enough to do that. Among my colleagues and close lifelong friends are practising artists who exhibit regularly, including some who are acknowledged among the leading artists of my generation in this country. Their work is held in the collections of state and national galleries.

Back when I was potting selected pieces from our exhibitions were acquired by state and national galleries. Presumably those government institutions thought it had a place in those art galleries.

I have turned wood for all of my adult life, more so over the last 30yrs. My work exhibits in galleries alongside what others would call art (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.). However, to my knowledge, no pieces of woodturning as such have been acquired for the collections in state and national galleries.

My artist friends still think of me as an artist, but apparently not the art institutions.. Do I feel any less of an artist because I'm working with wood instead of clay, paint, pencil, stone or print?... not really. Does it bother me?... even less!

The life of an artist is a difficult one. You only do it because you are driven to do so, not because you want to be thought of as an artist or what you do is art. Few stay the course and fewer can make a living from it doing so. I'm the last one to decry any of their efforts.

And, yes, the definition that John has given for what is art is valid.

What is good or bad or inconsequential art is another matter altogether.

Thank you for sharing your experience in the academic art world…

Like almost everyone, I had always held to the idea that “art” was subjective and personal. I was fascinated to learn the truth about art being actually definable. I’m glad a few others have found this topic interesting and/or educational.

My hope in bringing this up is that if we all learn what the academics use as criteria, it can give us an advantage in advancing woodturning whether it falls under the art or any other category.

Just because so much of what we all make isn’t technically “art” it doesn’t make it any less marvelous and impressive. I hope everyone just makes what makes them happy and if you are a seller of woodturning, I’m hopeful that knowing how “art” is actually defined, can help us all get into more galleries and more representation within that space. (If that’s what anyone wants, that is!)

 

[Russ Braun]

I suppose if you subscribe to any rule as being true, then that rule makes you right.

I recall learning about the so called experts who knew the sun rotated around the earth, those experts that prescribed bleeding or leaches to cure one’s ills, the flat world believers (who still exist today). Hmmmm, rules changed??

Art is in the eye of the beholder, thus the jar of urine or the pictures painted by an Elephant’s trunk qualify…..only if you make them so.

Because I say so doesn’t make it any more real…..except to people that subscribe to my say so!

If becoming an art expert depends on learning that simple “rule of art” right out of the gate, what’s the chance all the experts are wrong (or will be at some point)?? History is littered with the debris of the “so called experts”.

 

[Jaramiah Severns]

I’ve yet to find a definition of “Art” that includes lack of utility or function as a required characteristic. Rather, it’s the expression and/or evocation of ideas, emotions, and feelings that seems to be the common factor. Anything beyond that is purely pretense.

Britannica: Something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings

Cambridge dictionary: the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings

Oxford dictionary: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

 

[Alan Weinberg]

I’ve yet to find a definition of “Art” that includes lack of utility or function as a required characteristic. Rather, it’s the expression and/or evocation of ideas, emotions, and feelings that seems to be the common factor. Anything beyond that is purely pretense.

Britannica: Something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings

Cambridge dictionary: the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings

Oxford dictionary: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

I think this sums it up nicely.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

I have been an artist my entire life. No one can tell me what art is or is not. For me, it is whatever I say it is. I seek what it can be with no limitations.
Allow me to ask a simple question… do you need or want a professor of music to tell you what music is or is not? Do you want or need a professor of cinema to tell you what is a good movie? Does anyone have an emotional religious experience standing over a stack of cement blocks in the middle of a museum floor? My count for this silliness is five. Does anyone think the photo “Piss Christ” is any more than cheap shock art? Does looking at a $150k banana taped to the wall bring tears to your eyes? Does anyone think good craftsmanship is a detriment to good art work?
A valid emotional response is to throw up all over such baloney. These same generic art professors threw Norman Rockwell under the bus. It is at the point now that if anything is outrageous, pointless, craftless, or tasteless, it is art and nothing else is. If one speaks out, they are considered artistically challenged. Har, har, har.
Make your art your way and enjoy the heck out of it. Be thankful you do not have to stick a single toe into that mess.

 

[stu senator]

If an item is "art" and is displayed is the display useful?

By the way is this art?

Dogs Playing Poker Oil painting Picture Printed on canvas,Home Wall Art Decor,05 | eBay

Architecture & Cityscape. Sports & Recreation. Oil Painting Picture Printed On Canvas. Our prints are high-quality works of art, providing you with a unique collectible value. New Arrival. All Gallery Wrap canvas have mirrored edges - A mirrored edge copies the outer edge of an image to extend...

www.ebay.com

 

[John Ames]

If an item is "art" and is displayed is the display useful?

By the way is this art?

Dogs Playing Poker Oil painting Picture Printed on canvas,Home Wall Art Decor,05 | eBay

Architecture & Cityscape. Sports & Recreation. Oil Painting Picture Printed On Canvas. Our prints are high-quality works of art, providing you with a unique collectible value. New Arrival. All Gallery Wrap canvas have mirrored edges - A mirrored edge copies the outer edge of an image to extend...

www.ebay.com

The scholars I spoke with would say the art is the art and the display is not. Unless that “art” served some utility.

Dogs playing poker…. Yes. Art.

The NEXT bucket of muck to think about while flying down this rabbit hole is whether “art” created by Artificial Intelligence is actually art. Or works created by CNC machines…. I wish I could have spoken with the scholars about that! (Or maybe not??)

 

[stu senator]

<Unless that “art” served some utility> Covers a hole in the wall?

<Dogs playing poker…. Yes. Art.> The first time it was painted or the many copies. Is it art if it was copied by mechanical (photo) means?

<“art” created by Artificial Intelligence is actually art.> Maybe not yet but soon.

<Or works created by CNC machines> The machine is just an extension of the artist's hand and mind conceived and expressed as a program rather then by a brush or hammer and chisel.

Oh the rabbit holes we go down when we are bored and and want some mental stimulation.

 

[Timothy White]

By definition, "art" can have no function or utility.

This definition is also the perfect definition for TRASH!
If the Mona Lisa (inspires or evokes emotion) then by definition it can’t be art.

 

[Michael Anderson]

Interesting thread with a lot of good views. I’ve always held the opinion that defining art is impossible. Art IS. Prescribing a definition is antithetical.

Academics define terms as a necessity. That world deals in precision, and if scholars fail to see that they are missing the entire point of their field. A definition is useful for textbooks, syllabi, etc… In a practical sense, art is undefinable. BUT, if the majority of galleries use a non-utility definition as their criteria for acquisition, that sucks.

I think that defining art in an exclusionary way comes across as ignorant or pretentious.

 

[Odie]

Yes....very interesting thread....

The definition I find to be the most applicable would be....."If the creator of anything thinks it's art....then, it's art! (Anyone has the authority to declare what is, or isn't art.....by the act of doing so.)

In my post #2, the author tells his opinion of "classical" vs "modern" art......(an opinion I totally agree with)......but it could be art, if the creator thinks it's art.....whether or not, anyone else agrees. One interesting thing to note about this, is the author of the videos didn't say that "modern" art wasn't art.....only that in his opinion, it isn't good art.

It's obvious that a definition of art with unanimous agreement...... is an impossible undertaking!

-o-

 

[John Ames]

This definition is also the perfect definition for TRASH!
If the Mona Lisa (inspires or evokes emotion) then by definition it can’t be art.

You are closer than you think.... I've forgotten where I read this but the quote was:

"All art is rubbish, not all rubbish is art."

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

I suppose if you subscribe to any rule as being true, then that rule makes you right.

I recall learning about the so called experts who knew the sun rotated around the earth, those experts that prescribed bleeding or leaches to cure one’s ills, the flat world believers (who still exist today). Hmmmm, rules changed??

Art is in the eye of the beholder, thus the jar of urine or the pictures painted by an Elephant’s trunk qualify…..only if you make them so.

Because I say so doesn’t make it any more real…..except to people that subscribe to my say so!

If becoming an art expert depends on learning that simple “rule of art” right out of the gate, what’s the chance all the experts are wrong (or will be at some point)?? History is littered with the debris of the “so called experts”.

Great expression of opinion that matches my feelings also.

I would only add "who really cares?" . Whether it is called art or woodturning the only real thing that matters is I made it and enjoyed getting to that point. "IF" someone sees "IT" and enjoys "IT" then that too adds to my pleasure in "IT".

Boy what a ride!!!

 

[John Ames]

Interesting thread with a lot of good views. I’ve always held the opinion that defining art is impossible. Art IS. Prescribing a definition is antithetical.

Academics define terms as a necessity. That world deals in precision, and if scholars fail to see that they are missing the entire point of their field. A definition is useful for textbooks, syllabi, etc… In a practical sense, art is undefinable. BUT, if the majority of galleries use a non-utility definition as their criteria for acquisition, that sucks.

I think that defining art in an exclusionary way comes across as ignorant or pretentious.

I agree with you. That's why I think it is important for us to understand the rules that "they" (the art scholars and possibly gallery owners) play by. Each gallery will have its own rules, and allow whatever they want in. However, if they follow the scholars' interpretation, it helps us understand why we might be underrepresented in the "art" world.



On another side note, one other thing to remember is the difference between Museums and Galleries. Museums house artifacts. Some pieces of art are historically significant enough that they warrant artifact status. But mostly museums are filled with old furniture, pieces of clay, bones, mummies and whatever else. With a few paintings, photographs and sculptures etc. thrown in. A Gallery, on the other hand, exists to show (and usually sell) art. And art only. Artists make money from galleries, not museums. That's one reason why we might want to care (at least a little) what the art scholars think.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

You make a great point John. A galleries customers listen to what the owners say and buy accordingly. If you want to be a factor in that world you can’t have a big mouth like me. 😳

 

[Russ Braun]

You make a great point John. A galleries customers listen to what the owners say and buy accordingly. If you want to be a factor in that world you can’t have a big mouth like me. 😳

I cannot remember any time where your big mouth wasn’t full of wisdom or entertaining Jerry. Your smooth delivery is an art in itself. The world could use more “big mouths” like you Brother…..but like most art, you are unique!

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

As to what is art..... a few years ago we had the somewhat heated discussion about CNC oval bowl making. Art or not?

 

[Pat Cogdal]

As to what is art..... a few years ago we had the somewhat heated discussion about CNC oval bowl making. Art or not?

Why not? A CNC must be programmed by someone (artist or craftsman), design decisions are made. A CNC is just a tool. Not as much fun as a lathe in my opinion but still just a tool and I’ve seen some pretty creative stuff made on one.

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

Why not? A CNC must be programmed by someone (artist or craftsman), design decisions are made. A CNC is just a tool. Not as much fun as a lathe in my opinion but still just a tool and I’ve seen some pretty creative stuff made on one.

Yes, you and I are total agreement on this Pat. But the moderators decided CNC discussions should be banished to the off topic area.

As I mentioned that discussion was two years ago. Since then a few posters have mentioned CNC in describing their work with no objections from the moderators.

 

[Mark Jundanian]

If art must not be functional, then the Mona Lisa, being a portrait, cannot be art. All portraits exist to preserve the likeness of an individual.

(For the record I don't agree with experts' views referenced in the OP).

 

[Paul Paukstelis]

One way to make it more fun....turn your lathe into a CNC machine!

New video by Paul Paukstelis

photos.app.goo.gl

 

[Michael Anderson]

Yes, you and I are total agreement on this Pat. But the moderators decided CNC discussions should be banished to the off topic area.

As I mentioned that discussion was two years ago. Since then a few posters have mentioned CNC in describing their work with no objections from the moderators.

You’re being quite disingenuous with your post. I remember the thread in question, which was just a bit over a year ago:

https://www.aawforum.org/community/threads/cnc-oval-bowl-making.19381/

I believe Bill moved the thread to the off-topic forum because it went off the rails dramatically. It wasn’t moved nonchalantly. And your statement “the moderators decided CNC discussions should be banished to the off topic area” is total baloney. You have other threads you created about CNC turnings that are still in the general woodturning discussion forum. There are several others that focus on or that reference CNC work that are still in the general forum.

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

You’re being quite disingenuous with your post. I remember the thread in question, which was just a bit over a year ago:

https://www.aawforum.org/community/threads/cnc-oval-bowl-making.19381/

I believe Bill moved the thread to the off-topic forum because it went off the rails dramatically. It wasn’t moved nonchalantly. And your statement “the moderators decided CNC discussions should be banished to the off topic area” is total baloney. You have other threads you created about CNC turnings that are still in the general woodturning discussion forum. There are several others that focus on or that reference CNC work that are still in the general forum.

Did you just post something to be argumentative? It just seems like you’re being petty.

Maybe it depends on which end of that discussion you were on. I didn't see it go off the rails. If it did it was couple posters suggested I take it elsewhere because it offended them since they didn't come here to read about CNC. There were a number of total nonsense postings about CNC's in that thread I took issue with and told them so.

The moderators could have easily edited portions of the thread that they felt went off the rails.

The question still is, can CNC work be considered art. One poster in that thread said no.

I'm well aware others have posted since about CNC with no consequences. And I expect CNC will come sooner to this forum than I had originally thought.

 

[Mark Mandell]

As part of my Master's Degree (sculpture) I also worked as a GA with Roy Seiber who was (1972) the foremost authority on African Art (Indiana Univ.). Seiber noted the similar attitude referenced by the OP's phd's and countered it as being an excuse for "art-ignorant" (his term) people to stay that way. He illustrated his argument as follows:
Go to any tribal village in Africa that carries on masking ceremonies and solicit opinions by villagers about a particular mask. The men would likely inform you that the purpose of the mask was to "scare the children (to behave) and keep the women in their place." Others in the group, including the kids, would freely offer opinions about the quality of the mask as well as its likelihood to be effective in a ceremony Across all the age groups he would get considered and often detailed opinions and comments about the piece.
Seiber then suggested you go to New York's MOMA, borrow a semi-famous painting, set it up on an easel on the sidewalk, and solicit comments from people passing by. He maintained that most of what you'd get would be "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like". Sieber would add to that as amounting to "and I like what I know."
His point was that the African society's art was a living, breathing part of the society that created it whereas art (however you wish to define it) in modern western societies has become disconnected from the culture that creates it, at best replaced with the intellectual pronouncements by allegedly knowledgeable pedants more than willing to spoon feed others as to "what's good" or "valuable."

The pedantics conveniently ignore that practically everything in our lives, from a toaster, to a car, to the computer screen you're reading this on has, to one extent or another, had some input by an artist. You might wish to call them a "designer" as if that justifies some devaluation of what they do, but artists they remain.

I had a truly informative interview with the head of the prestigious Kennedy Gallery in New York City. After looking at my photo portfolio his response was, "Your work is very good, at times exceptional, but you must understand why I cannot take you on. Galleries are not museums, we are in the business of selling what our artists produce. Our customers may like what they purchase, but their purchase is an investment with the expectation that what they buy will increase in value as the artist's name is and becomes more recognized and thus collectable."

I thus ran headlong into the Art World's Catch 22. To get your work into a gallery, you need to establish your name as valuable. How do you "get a name?" You have to get into a gallery, of course.

I decided my family were worth more than being dependents of a starving artist, so I went to law school.

 

[hockenbery]

question still is, can CNC work be considered art.

CNC is a process
Objects are art.

Objects stand on their own regardless of the process used to create them.