I would disagree with that poster. CNC work can absolutely be art. CNC is just a tool/process to produce something. It would be nonsense for someone to argue that the use of CNC disqualifies something as art.
-
December Turning Challenge: Tree! (click here for details) -
Congratulations to José Esteban Cruz"Rocking Horse" being selected as Turning of the Week for December 16, 2024 (click here for details) -
Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.
Woodturning being defined as "art"
- Thread starter John Ames
- Start date
I would disagree with that poster. CNC work can absolutely be art. CNC is just a tool/process to produce something. It would be nonsense for someone to argue that the use of CNC disqualifies something as art.
Many persons considered world class artists don't build all their work. There is a world-famous glass artist where I live with his own museum. He designs his work, and it is actually produced by others. It's his work because it is his concept, and he tells his glass workers how to produce the pieces. An artist from the Netherlands has enormous trolls all over the world. Each is a unique design. The artist draws up the design and then sends a crew out to build the wooden troll from locally salvaged wood. Some of the crew is local and some come from overseas. The trolls are considered the artists pieces because he came up with the concept and produces the designs. I would posit that the tools you use (cnc?) to produce art have little bearing on whether or not it is art. Lithograph printings done by a printing company and designed by Picaso still have his signature. I feel like wood turning designed as art should be considered art. Wood turnings designed with some other purpose in mind would be something else.
Really interesting and poignant take. I tend to agree. Just this week I joined a local “fine arts association” in my town, only to find out that they only support artists that work in 2D media…as long as it’s not photography or graphic design. How ridiculous!
This is valuable discussion - Thank you for sharing it.
I'm going to take a leap here and speak for the scholars with whom I had my original lengthy discussion many years ago and do my best to represent their point of view.
The African masks wouldn't be considered "art," in their minds, as the masks served a purpose/utility and were actually used as such. Whether that use was cultural/symbolic, or not, has no bearing on their definition of art. A shaman's wand, or Aboriginal jewelry that wards off spirits, also not "Art." All of these types of items would fall under the category of "Artifacts."
An indigenous people's "rain dance" is not art. An indigenous person dancing for no reason is art. A war chant, not art. A chant that is purely performative, is art. If whatever "art" is created is meant to achieve a task, solve a problem, or have utility in some way, it can't be art.
Art can/does/will evoke emotions on, and of, its own aesthetic. That is the sole purpose of "art." Bringing about emotion(s) is not a utility, therefore only those things that are created with the sole purpose of arousing an emotion/reaction/thought/mood, and otherwise have no purpose, can be art.
The Mona Lisa was not created to be used as a placemat. If it were, it wouldn't be "art." It would be an artifact.
Well Martha, if you like and want to buy it, then yes absolutely it is art! 
@John Ames ; good discussion. I think everyone here understands the " experts' " definition that you have related to us. But neither it, nor the experts' expertise seems to be getting wide acceptance.
Last edited:
From what understand of the CNC kerfuffle is the distinction between CNC and woodturning. CNC is a technique for creating things out of wood (in this argument). Woodturning is a technique for creating things out of wood. Woodturning is not CNC. CNC is not woodturning. CNC has a place, and if it garners enough interest, it should have its own forum. I don't think anyone has said CNC can't be used to create utility pieces or art either one.
This definition eliminates the discussion of anything that is woodturning-related from a woodturning forum: piercing, pyrography, routing jigs for fluting, etc. etc.
CNC is a tool, and if it is being used in a woodturning-related way, it is just as relevant as everything else.
I try to look at it this way…
These art scholar folks make the rules of the game. We might not like the rules or agree with the rules, but they are important for all of us to know and understand (even accept) if getting woodturning more “respect” in the art world is a goal of ours. I would like to see woodturning elevated in the art world. I think that’s good for all of us who sell our work.
There are rules in every sport that the fans, players and coaches don’t like or understand - (NFL catch rule anyone? You can move a golf ball on the putting green but not the fairway?) - but they still have to be accepted by those in the sport.
The vast vast vast majority of woodturners are hobbyists playing backyard football. The technical rules of the NFL game don’t matter much at all and we can make them up and change them as we go along. But for those of us who are (or aspire to be) professionals in the big leagues, I think it’s important to know (and accept?) the rules of the game as set forth by the “rules committee.”
I don't disagree. I was not expressing my opinion, but rather recapping some of the past discussions.
I'd disagree with you there. How does defining cnc and woodturning as 2 different things eliminate processes that can be done to something created through either woodturning or a cnc process?
CNC is merely a tool. The result of its use is dependent upon the person using it, just as are chisels, brushes, pencils, keyboard keys and anything else used by a maker/artist.
The exclusionary attitude of the OP's sources merely reinforces they own prejudices and their view of themselves as somehow superior because they've gone through the ceremonial education and paid the freight (tuitions of $300k)
The exclusionary attitude of the OP's sources merely reinforces they own prejudices and their view of themselves as somehow superior because they've gone through the ceremonial education and paid the freight (tuitions of $300k)
I'm not suggest that they shouldn't be defined as different things. I am simply stating (in response to Kent's recap) that just because they (CNC, pyro, etc.) are different things, doesn't mean they should be excluded from a woodturning forum.
I suppose it’s the rules that really make the great Artists great…..or should I say the breaking of the existing rules. Say the dark moody days of Goya or Rembrandt (the rules of the day) evolved into the fantastic brush strokes of Van Gogh (generally frowned upon be the experts of the day). Now the medium is the same but as with modern times, rules cannot contain Art….Art will always be busting at the seams (CNC or not, lol).
Very true, Mark.....
No matter how, or who defines it, there will NOT be universal agreement on the definition of art.
That may seem frustrating to some......until they comes to terms with the variety of beliefs, thoughts, feelings.....and ultimately accepts what is.....rather than what they think should be.
-o-
When you hit “play”, it is what comes out of the speakers that counts.
Believe it or not, this is a subject that has been discussed at length by many AAW members over the years. A speech to the 2000 meeting of the Collectors of Wood Art by David Ellsworth, one of the AAW's founding members and the first editor of American Woodturner , was printed in the journal's Fall 2000 issue and may be of interest. He addressed the challenges of getting woodturning accepted as a species of decorative or functional art and the roles of gallerists and collectors in that process. He ended the piece with this:
I’m not aware of anyone who’s come up with a usable definition of either ‘craft’ or‘art’, but I can describe the intimacy of the relationship between them, which is that “craft is the foundation from which art can grow.” To me, it is that ‘can grow’ part that’s the most interesting, because it speaks of personal choice, interpretation, and intent .
Making the shift from craft to art is, of course, not easy. I like to think of it as being placed into a rich new landscape where there are no maps no accurate guidelines or distance markers. The direction one takes is less relevant than the direction one has taken. There are no rules that can’t be broken, or formulas that can’t be changed. And once you feel you have arrived, you’re likely to discover that you have just begun … or maybe you were there all the time.
On a purely personal level, I am proud to be both a craftsman and an artist. And when the two shake hands, I know that I am doing really good work.
I’m not aware of anyone who’s come up with a usable definition of either ‘craft’ or‘art’, but I can describe the intimacy of the relationship between them, which is that “craft is the foundation from which art can grow.” To me, it is that ‘can grow’ part that’s the most interesting, because it speaks of personal choice, interpretation, and intent .
Making the shift from craft to art is, of course, not easy. I like to think of it as being placed into a rich new landscape where there are no maps no accurate guidelines or distance markers. The direction one takes is less relevant than the direction one has taken. There are no rules that can’t be broken, or formulas that can’t be changed. And once you feel you have arrived, you’re likely to discover that you have just begun … or maybe you were there all the time.
On a purely personal level, I am proud to be both a craftsman and an artist. And when the two shake hands, I know that I am doing really good work.
This is a sentiment that could be applied to almost any subject worldwide. Differences, diversity, surprising events that don't conform to the norm. All things that make the planet worth being a part of. Also one of the causes of much conflict! Wood turning as a metaphor for life.
I don't think anyone here is looking for a consensus. I've quite intentionally not shared my personal opinion on this topic, at all, and only offered my understanding of what the experts shared with me, and how they might respond to the arguments presented in this thread.
I am not an art expert. VERY far from it. But I've talked to art experts who are deep in their field and well renowned. I'm sharing with everyone here what they have shared with me, not in an attempt to change anyone's mind, or create a consensus, but rather to open up peoples' ways of thinking about the topic. Because if we understand the way "they" (the gatekeepers) think, it can/might help us within the woodturning community make a little more progress in the fine art world. If that's what anyone wants, that is....
If I've opened some minds to a new perspective, and educated some folks on how art experts view "what is art," then mission accomplished. No consensus necessary or desired. That would be boring.
Well John.....You haven't opened up my mind to anything I wasn't already aware of.....since this topic has been discussed numerous times in the past. What you have done, is remind me that my opinion isn't unique, nor has approval/agreement from quite a few others......and, it's all good by me!
All I'm doing is contributing to the topic, and letting the discussion develop.....
-o-
If it is not segmented and turned I doubt if it is art.
Interesting topic, here's a twist (art definition aside) do you think that you are an artist or a craftsperson? As a novice, I copy forms, processes, and ideas that others have shown me, to work on my skills, the results may or may not be art. I'm new to turning and my primary goal for now is to become a craftsman. Becoming a craftsman should give me the ability to create both art and utilitarian items that I and others will enjoy. For me, to consider myself an artist my creations would need to intentionally show some originality, and subjective beauty.
Paul, your twist is interesting. Thinking artistically is a skill set in itself not necessarily aligned with craftsmanship. To make something that moves others means learning about people and what makis them tick. The trick is to design a piece without regard to your skills that will have an effect on others and then bring your ability up to par to pull it off. Most of us only make stuff that fits within our skillset, An artist is pointed in a different direction. Fit and finish is not always at the top.
I have 30 years of back issues of Woodturning, a British journal. Perusing one last night, the May 2008 issue had an article by Mark Hancock that opines about craft vs art in woodturning. He also references a 2002 article by Terence Conran that discusses the same subject. In this opinion article, Hancock notes, “craft is the work of skilled hands whereas art expresses a thought, concept, or reaction about or to something. It does not necessarily have to be pleasing to view.” Another poster mentioned Ellsworth’s 2000 comments on the subject. It seems the argument has evoked interest for more than 2 decades and likely will continue to do so.
Last edited:
It would also make a great fly swatter in a pinch. I think the academics in question have been educated far beyond their intelligence.
The subject of art vs craft in woodworking publications goes back at least to Art Carpenter's article The Rise of Artiture in 1982 (Fine Woodworking #38). As a grizzled furnituremaker he was nonplussed by semi-functional pieces with artistic aspirations that in his estimation lacked any sensitivity to materials or use, but he was open to "useless" objects like Wendell Castle's trompe l'oeil carved work that displayed what he considered real woodworking ability. He recognized that art pieces did not necessarily depend on functionality or craftsmanship for effect and thought that much of what he described as "artiture" was equivocal in that function was compromised for the sake of novelty or flamboyance. Perhaps that is inevitable when makers morph a craft based tradition into the art world. Carpenter referred to a similar movement in the pottery world earlier in the century.
He wrote, I would guess that most makers of artiture call themselves artists. A contemporary definition, recently hazarded by a conceptualist, is that artists are those who call themselves artists. I wouldn't call most makers of artiture craftsmen, for that implies a sensitivity to the structure of materials, and few of the pieces I saw evidenced much concern for that. Whatever would work to fit the idea was used- or whatever was at hand. Not many make artiture from a craft base. Part of the reason, I'm sure, is the time and patience needed to acquire skill and practice craftsmanship and its modest rewards.
"Fine art" in the tradition of Da Vinci or Rembrandt, or even Picasso, was based on long apprenticeship and mastery of craft, but our modern world of fine art includes Duchamp's readymades, "scribbles that my 5 year old could do better" and conceptual pieces that mean nothing without an extensive explanatory caption. So there is both exclusivity in the sense that many gallerists balk at exhibiting work with a wisp of functionality and opportunity in that wood artists evolving from a craft tradition have established a foothold in the art world. For someone who wants to consider themself an artist the best thing is to keep making, innovating and finding an audience without worrying too much about definitions.
He wrote, I would guess that most makers of artiture call themselves artists. A contemporary definition, recently hazarded by a conceptualist, is that artists are those who call themselves artists. I wouldn't call most makers of artiture craftsmen, for that implies a sensitivity to the structure of materials, and few of the pieces I saw evidenced much concern for that. Whatever would work to fit the idea was used- or whatever was at hand. Not many make artiture from a craft base. Part of the reason, I'm sure, is the time and patience needed to acquire skill and practice craftsmanship and its modest rewards.
"Fine art" in the tradition of Da Vinci or Rembrandt, or even Picasso, was based on long apprenticeship and mastery of craft, but our modern world of fine art includes Duchamp's readymades, "scribbles that my 5 year old could do better" and conceptual pieces that mean nothing without an extensive explanatory caption. So there is both exclusivity in the sense that many gallerists balk at exhibiting work with a wisp of functionality and opportunity in that wood artists evolving from a craft tradition have established a foothold in the art world. For someone who wants to consider themself an artist the best thing is to keep making, innovating and finding an audience without worrying too much about definitions.
Some "art" I like viewing are everyday items made way, way larger for effect. Their attraction is how thought provoking they can be.
One was a 15' high replica of an old style typewriter eraser with the round eraser wheel and the brush displayed such it appeared the offshore wind was blowing the brush. This was at the Seattle Sculpture Garden along the waterfront. That one was recently removed for unknown reasons, surprising how many younger viewers didn't know what it represented.
Another was a 20' tall replica of an old, all wood clothes pin formerly viewable from the driveway of a Microsoft billionaire's home in Medina. That took me back to a time when most homes had remnants of clotheslines in the backyard and the basement.
A generally accepted piece of art that I was able to handle didn't give me favorable feelings. It was an almost basketball sized hollow form by a well known turner. My first impression was of its apparent mass, strength and solidness compared to other turnings displayed nearby. But my tactile response to its paper lightness was totally the opposite. Even though I knew it was hollow it was disappointing. I consider the tactile aspect of wood items a major part of what makes them attractive. I suppose if that hollow form had been weighted to match its visual impression it would have impressed me more. Is it the craftsmanship of hollowing that makes such items attractive?
One was a 15' high replica of an old style typewriter eraser with the round eraser wheel and the brush displayed such it appeared the offshore wind was blowing the brush. This was at the Seattle Sculpture Garden along the waterfront. That one was recently removed for unknown reasons, surprising how many younger viewers didn't know what it represented.
Another was a 20' tall replica of an old, all wood clothes pin formerly viewable from the driveway of a Microsoft billionaire's home in Medina. That took me back to a time when most homes had remnants of clotheslines in the backyard and the basement.
A generally accepted piece of art that I was able to handle didn't give me favorable feelings. It was an almost basketball sized hollow form by a well known turner. My first impression was of its apparent mass, strength and solidness compared to other turnings displayed nearby. But my tactile response to its paper lightness was totally the opposite. Even though I knew it was hollow it was disappointing. I consider the tactile aspect of wood items a major part of what makes them attractive. I suppose if that hollow form had been weighted to match its visual impression it would have impressed me more. Is it the craftsmanship of hollowing that makes such items attractive?
Last edited:
There was an exhibit at an art gallery near here last year with numerous upscaled, faithful renditions of common tools in wood. I thought it interesting that the tools themselves would be at best be considered for display in an industrial design retrospective but were considered collectible and saleable as art when made in an unusable outsized version.
I think hollow forms have an element of mystery beyond "how was that done?" Lightness can contribute to that surprise factor. I don't know that it is important or essential except that once turned hollow forms tend to dry with fewer problems when relatively thin, and piercing is a lot easier with thin walls.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 13,027
- Likes
- 5,437
- Location
- Dalworthington Gardens, TX
- Website
- pbase.com
A soup can or a potted meat can isn’t art, but a painting depicting either of those might be art. While art mustn’t be functional, would it be reasonable to assume that it still needs aesthetic worth (such as conveying a message or an emotion)?
The Navajo people make a well known design on a coiled basket commonly called a wedding or celebration basket. The design elements have symbolic meanings. They are beautiful, but not art because they and the objects placed in them serve a specific purpose in the ceremony. My main interest in woodturning is making turned wooden baskets that are realistic illusions of the real thing (as best as I am able). My basket illusion turnings can’t be functional because they aren’t the real deal. This implies that their only worth is to sit on a shelf and do nothing. I’m not pretending it is art, it’s just what I like making.
The Navajo people make a well known design on a coiled basket commonly called a wedding or celebration basket. The design elements have symbolic meanings. They are beautiful, but not art because they and the objects placed in them serve a specific purpose in the ceremony. My main interest in woodturning is making turned wooden baskets that are realistic illusions of the real thing (as best as I am able). My basket illusion turnings can’t be functional because they aren’t the real deal. This implies that their only worth is to sit on a shelf and do nothing. I’m not pretending it is art, it’s just what I like making.
Ouch, that sounds unpleasant!
I agree at least in part. Art does not require skill or a high degree of craftsmanship but being skilled makes it a lot easier to execute your artistic vision and to make your art better.
True. My point was that the emphasis is on the art component as a priority and not the craftsmanship. Many known painters downplayed their painterly chops for a more loose presentation. Even Picasso at age 13 could paint classically. You would never know it from his prolific works over the years.
I'm happy calling myself a crafts person, but not an artist. Maybe it's the utilitarian aspect of what I make, but more probably because the objects I make seem to be the same small number of items over and over again. Bowls, hollow forms, boxes, etc. They may individually be a bit different from each other, but they are not really that unique. An artist, on the other hand, while perhaps keeping to a single or small number of media, creates unique objects, and rarely repeats the same thing over and over again. A portrait artist, for example, has a specific genre, medium, and style, but each portrait is still unique. Many of my bowls look exactly alike.
Ahh, but portraits are functional, so they can't be art (by this definition).
I totally agree with the your comment; "CNC is a process/Objects are art" - within limits, I guess. CNC as a tool can produce art but having written the code you can duplicate as often as you choose! I wouldn't consider CNC copies "Art", no more than I would consider prints of famous paintings "Art".
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,052
- Likes
- 5,583
- Location
- Lakeland, Florida
- Website
- www.hockenberywoodturning.com
I think there is art value in at least limited copies.
The Smithsonian sculpture garden has a casting of Rodin’s BURGHERS OF CALAIS.
I think this is 1 of 12
For me this casting has the emotion invoking power to qualify as art.
A few turners have used casting in metal and glass to great effect.
I have a Trent Bosch bronze casting I continue to marvel at.
Another very interesting twist. This implies that your definition for art would exclude all copies, very interesting because a huge part of the art market is for copies (limited or not).
I don't know what to think about this... I'm certainly on the fence. I would argue if CNC work can create "art," then any computer coding could be used to create art. I've read a few different articles where print artists are very upset with AI generated prints being entered in galleries and art shows and in some cases winning prize monies for the "artist."
If CNC, and AI, can create art, then it seems one would have to allow 3D printing into the party... I don't know how the sculptors would feel about this?
The rabbit hole gets deeper and darker all the time!
It is a deep rabbit hole. I’ve seen some pretty incredible pieces produced via 3D printing. Not your basic click and print, rather something quite complicated. Articulated prints made of hundreds of pieces, for example. Serious design and construction skill involved. 3D printing is just another process.
As to AI, yeah that deepens the rabbit hole a bit. Does art require a human element? In all of the definitions we’ve seen in this thread, no one specifically mentioned “created by a human”.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,052
- Likes
- 5,583
- Location
- Lakeland, Florida
- Website
- www.hockenberywoodturning.com
It’s about objects. 3D printing additions to turned objects has been displayed in the gallery
It’s another tool.
Ornamental turning has been accepted for a long time it is comparable to CNC with the programming being written on cams.