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.
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.