Woodturning being defined as "art"

[Rusty Nesmith]

I have a pain in the neck. I call her Jennifer. But seriously, my C6 and C7 are in pretty bad shape. Currently doing the health insurance merry-go-round to get an MRI.

I am with you there. I have had C4 thru C7 fused together. I have two plates and eight screws in my neck. I also have spinal stenosis at T9&10, and L2&3. If it wasn’t for the pivoting headstock I couldn’t turn for very long.

 

[Michael Anderson]

Displayed well glass with get attention from 50 feet away where a nice wooden bowl might not even be noticed. It's the way light works with glass. Seattle can be dark and dismal in the wet winter months, glass brightens it.

You’re right about that. I visited my wife’s parents last week. They just bought a stained glass lamp and the light moving through the glass panels was mesmerizing.

I also think it would be pretty cool to have a glass studio at home. Though, I’m not sure I could ever get used to the teamwork needed for ambitious blown glass projects. I might trend toward carved and surface-treated glass à la Alex Bernstein.

 

[Steve Tiedman]

Glass work is all about bright, vibrant colors that play with the light, and about flowing, dynamic shapes. Generally speaking, wood is not, or not to the capacity of glass. But without a doubt wood can be transformed into art.

My feeling about art in general is that it should be given freely from the artist to their audience. Once art has a monetary value assigned to it, to me, I don't think it is art anymore. It has become a commodity. Art should be valued in its meaning, in the emotions and feelings it stirs. I can't, won't, put a dollar value on what I make. When I make something, and then find someone who has a strong, genuine, positive response to it, I tell them it's theirs to keep and treasure. I received the satisfaction of making it, and the greater satisfaction of giving it away. To me, that is more meaningful than trading the art for money. I've done that before with woodwork and photography, I'll never do it again.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

Steve, a movie can have serious impact emotionally even if you paid money to see it.

 

[Odie]

Glass work is all about bright, vibrant colors that play with the light, and about flowing, dynamic shapes. Generally speaking, wood is not, or not to the capacity of glass. But without a doubt wood can be transformed into art.

My feeling about art in general is that it should be given freely from the artist to their audience. Once art has a monetary value assigned to it, to me, I don't think it is art anymore. It has become a commodity. Art should be valued in its meaning, in the emotions and feelings it stirs. I can't, won't, put a dollar value on what I make. When I make something, and then find someone who has a strong, genuine, positive response to it, I tell them it's theirs to keep and treasure. I received the satisfaction of making it, and the greater satisfaction of giving it away. To me, that is more meaningful than trading the art for money. I've done that before with woodwork and photography, I'll never do it again.

Steve.....I hope a few read your "signature" line.....I found it to be a great statement, and very relevant to this discussion.

I have quoted it below:

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

Your statement(s) above as applied to my own work is applicable. What I do is craft, and I consider myself more of a skilled craftsman than an artist.......but when combined with the natural beauty of great figured woods......in the eyes of the beholder, it becomes "art".

Regarding giving away one's turnings, I've given away about 500 bowls over the years. I find great personal satisfaction in bringing joy to others when I give them away.

When selling your work, there is satisfaction in that, too. I find great pleasure in making a sale to someone whom I know is a collector of art.
Because I sold it, there is no impact on its intrinsic value as an object of art.

=o=

 

[Steve Tiedman]

Thanks, @Odie. My signature line, that's how I've resolved (for myself) that age-old debate of art vs. craft. One day it occured to me that art can't be made without understanding and mastering the craft that it (the art) is a result of.

Woodturning (or woodworking in general), clay/pottery, glass, metals, fabric, paint, ink, charcoal, electonic media... All of these media, and the gear used to work with them, need to be understood and mastered (craft) to create the art that we seek.

 

[Kevin Jenness]

Thanks, @Odie. My signature line, that's how I've resolved (for myself) that age-old debate of art vs. craft. One day it occured to me that art can't be made without understanding and mastering the craft that it (the art) is a result of.

Woodturning (or woodworking in general), clay/pottery, glass, metals, fabric, paint, ink, charcoal, electonic media... All of these media, and the gear used to work with them, need to be understood and mastered (craft) to create the art that we seek.

Actually, a great deal of what is considered art is not dependent on mastery of craft, as the banana duct-taped to the wall illustrates. You may not consider that art, but the art market is defined by what sells in art galleries and auctions. The gradual recognition of turned wood as art is largely dependent on the introduction of that genre into the art market by such self-promoters as Mark Lindquist, in part through asking prices for their work that elevate it above mere "craft" in the eyes of collectors.

 

[Steve Tiedman]

Actually, a great deal of what is considered art is not dependent on mastery of craft, as the banana duct-taped to the wall illustrates. You may not consider that art, but the art market is defined by what sells in art galleries and auctions. The gradual recognition of turned wood as art is largely dependent on the introduction of that genre into the art market by such self-promoters as Mark Lindquist, in part through asking prices for their work that elevate it above mere "craft" in the eyes of collectors.

Bingo, art "market". Buying and selling. Economies and economics. Supply and demand. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Everything you just described, that's business, and art is the product, no different than Ford bringing out a new car. (There are always going to be what the majority of a society would consider artistic outliers, such as a banana taped to a wall, or for the car analogy, the Yugo. Folks like that, claiming to be artists, to me, are not out to give art to the world, they are out for the short-lived shock value. And when they call it art, those who proclaim to be art critics clamor all over it and create publicity- good or bad. And the rest of us unwashed common folk see it and shake our heads with some level of disbelief, and debate amongst ourself whether or not that banana is art.)

Making art for monetary gain should not be a reason to make the art- for me. I make art for the sake of making art to be presented with no expectation, nor acceptance, of like trade, and I am stuck with that notion being art's purest form. I guess if someone wants to then make a dollar on their art, they have two motivators for making it, not one. How many artists give up being artists because they can't feed themselves by way of their art? That's an artist who needs to find another way to earn a living while continuing their art work separately. That person will find all the satisfaction they seek if they respect that notion.

I wonder if all art that is sold could or should be classified as "commercial art"? Someone is in the business (at any level, even the hobby level) of making and selling art; selling is their primary purpose for practicing the craft, to make artistic items with the intent of them being sold and providing an income stream to the artist/crafter. (I did that for a very brief period.) That's a business. I have no problem with the perspective of commercial art, and it keeps the motivation, the reasoning, honest and forthright. It may even help the artist in the end if they embrace the attitude of being an entrepreneur- you want to make art AND make a buck.

Editing the next day- I just re-read the original message in this thread. Paragraph 3 supports my position in that art cannot serve a function or have utility of any kind, say the art scholars. Now, in all fairness, early in this thread I poo-pooed art scholars. That said, they apparently would support my position in that as soon as art is traded for money, that art suddenly has a function, which is to provide money to the artist (or to whomever in its chain of ownership). It no longer exists only for its own aesthetic, therefore it is not art.

 

[Kevin Jenness]

Bingo, art "market". Buying and selling. Economies and economics. Supply and demand. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Everything you just described, that's business, and art is the product, no different than Ford bringing out a new car. (There are always going to be what the majority of a society would consider artistic outliers, such as a banana taped to a wall, or for the car analogy, the Yugo. Folks like that, claiming to be artists, to me, are not out to give art to the world, they are out for the short-lived shock value. And when they call it art, those who proclaim to be art critics clamor all over it and create publicity- good or bad. And the rest of us unwashed common folk see it and shake our heads with some level of disbelief, and debate amongst ourself whether or not that banana is art.)

Making art for monetary gain should not be a reason to make the art- for me. I make art for the sake of making art to be presented with no expectation, nor acceptance, of like trade, and I am stuck with that notion being art's purest form. I guess if someone wants to then make a dollar on their art, they have two motivators for making it, not one. How many artists give up being artists because they can't feed themselves by way of their art? That's an artist who needs to find another way to earn a living while continuing their art work separately. That person will find all the satisfaction they seek if they respect that notion.

I wonder if all art that is sold could or should be classified as "commercial art"? Someone is in the business (at any level, even the hobby level) of making and selling art; selling is their primary purpose for practicing the craft, to make artistic items with the intent of them being sold and providing an income stream to the artist/crafter. (I did that for a very brief period.) That's a business. I have no problem with the perspective of commercial art, and it keeps the motivation, the reasoning, honest and forthright. It may even help the artist in the end if they embrace the attitude of being an entrepreneur- you want to make art AND make a buck.

Editing the next day- I just re-read the original message in this thread. Paragraph 3 supports my position in that art cannot serve a function or have utility of any kind, say the art scholars. Now, in all fairness, early in this thread I poo-pooed art scholars. That said, they apparently would support my position in that as soon as art is traded for money, that art suddenly has a function, which is to provide money to the artist (or to whomever in its chain of ownership). It no longer exists only for its own aesthetic, therefore it is not art.

Some have said an artist is a person who must be creative, it is a (or the) primary part of their being. How is such a person to keep beans on the table while devoting enough time to their art to advance in it? Is it impure to accept filthy lucre for one's creations? Is it worse than engaging in craft for profit? Certainly it can be difficult. T.S. Eliot worked as a teacher, banker and publisher to support his lifestyle, and the phrase "starving artist" didn't become a cliché through inaccuracy. One may be an artist without being a "commercial" or "professional" artist, but it's never been the case that an artist can devote their life to art without an independent income or engaging in the art market.