Woodturning being defined as "art"

[Ric Williams]

BTW, the fact that an art critic spouting pretentious opinions can make a better living than than a farm worker who helps supply our food is the height of injustice and absurdity.

Oh crap, I did it again. Hope I don't get banned.
Irreverence. It's not just a coping mechanism. It's a way of life!

 

[Gregory Hickman]

BTW, the fact that an art critic spouting pretentious opinions can make a better living than than a farm worker who helps supply our food is the height of injustice and absurdity.

Oh crap, I did it again. Hope I don't get banned.

I think most of society can agree with that statement. Where we value production isn't always placed where it should be.

Gregory

 

[Jerry Bennett]

 

[John Ames]

One should not suppose any scholar from any discipline holds the keys or is the gatekeeper to any door. A true student never touts the success of the learning path behind him but constantly asks, “what else am I missing”. I would ask you, what are the specific traits or properties that constitutes a work of art… Are you sure?

Jerry I completely understand your point and respect you greatly as a true artist by ANY definition. I, too, have always thought the path ahead is more interesting than the path behind us.

That said,
There are gatekeepers to many endeavors/disciplines at many levels...
If I play in a jug band, I likely can't get a chair with the orchestra. Orchestras don't typically allow one string tub bass players to sit in no matter how good they are.
If I don't acquire a racing license judged and certified by a racing school, I don't get to enter even the most basic race car races no matter how well I drive.
If I can't perform the basics of magic, I'm not allowed membership to the Magic Castle
I can't enter my half breed mutt into the Westminster dog show... dog "scholars" and experts have to determine if my dog is worthy for entrance
Music and Art scholars and professors are the ones who allow admittance into Julliard, CalArts, Berklee and the like

One must get past all these gatekeepers to reach these lofty goals. All of these institutions have basic "rules" to allow one to enter into these respective worlds.

According to the scholars I spoke with, the specific trait for something to be art is: Something that is created strictly for its own aesthetic and without utility. Am I sure? I don't really like their definition, but I lack any formal knowledge on the topic to produce a counter argument. Because I am completely uneducated and unfamiliar with the art world, I feel like I kind of must take these experts' word over my own uneducated opinion, whether I agree or not. Someone decides what work belongs in an art gallery, and from what I have come to understand, those gallery "scholars" tend to follow this definition.

A physician friend of mine has a sign in his office that says: "My Medical Degree Outranks your Google Search." I have no doubt an art scholar PhD would feel like that if I tried to argue with them.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

This is a GREAT reply. I have additional thoughts when I return from breakfast with friends this am.

 

[Steve Tiedman]

@John Ames, I agree, thank you. And although I may not like the notion of gatekeepers, I do understand and respect their function. Gatekeepers are everywhere, and as I think about it, my own career is as a gatekeeper in the construction industry. (And not as the guy on the fence gate at big jobsites.)

Flipping around on TV last night (ariel signals only...), I stopped for a few moments on the PBS show Independent Lens, episode titled "Minted". It was about the current trend of digital NFTs, non-fungible tokens (okay, I just left the realm of being able to speak with any kind of knowledge or sound opinion) and what it has done in the art world, "for better and for worse". I'm not going to re-hash the 3 minutes I saw, and I'd probably be out of context anyway, but for anyone genuinely interested, invest an hour and fifteen minutes and see what those on the leading edge of this particular art front are doing, and what they've done to re-define at least one part of the art market by, what looked to be in my 3-minute viewing, completely eliminating both the middleman and the gatekeeper.

Minted | NFT art documentary | Independent Lens | PBS

An insider’s look at the rise and fall of the NFT (non-fungible token) phenomenon that transformed the future of digital art.

www.pbs.org

 

[Mark Jundanian]

Ok, you spoke to some scholars whom you believe to be authoritative. Are they the "gatekeepers"? Take a look at the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art website and you will see collections of arms and armor, costumes and musical instruments. Some of the most impactful pieces I remember from my visits there were functional, including a Sung Dynasty teabowl and many Japanese lacquerwork boxes. Although "according to the scholars I spoke with, there is no such thing, nor can there ever be, "functional art"" their view is scarcely universally accepted.

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

What is the concern whether woodturning is art? Is it a monetary issue, woodturnings don't bring in the dollars of other works? I know my local "art" galleries don't represent many woodworkers or woodturners, could it be as simple as buyers aren't interested?

 

[Jerry Bennett]

John, 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 some 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?
So far, 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? CalArt teaches that.
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.
All of it is art. In my estimation, crap art. But still, art.
All of the things you refer to require skill to be accepted. Julliard looks for skill, then teaches nuance…art.
I have actually played a one string tub bass. It doesn’t work well even in a garage band. Self taught Chet Atkins did an album with the Boston P. Orchestra. Never say never.
I used to fly aerobatics in a powerful Pitts biplane in competition. All skill, no art just like car racing.
Make your art your way and enjoy the heck out of it. You can do anything you are willing to pay the price getting you skills up to par. Do not accept the limitations imposed gleefully by others.

By the way, if your physician does not like you educating yourself about what he is doing to you, friend or not, get a second opinion.

 

[Michael Anderson]

This is a great thread. Here’s another take.

I wonder if the scholars would contend that the non-functional requirement can be nuanced. For example, the teapots and armor Kevin mentioned. Holistically, the piece is functional (vessel for holding liquid, or armor for protection), but the surface embellishment serves no purpose aside beautification. If the embellishment was instructions, or even a “clan” designation, it would be functional, but something like flowers (or whatever) are purely decorative.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

Michael, At some level, all works are functional and have a purpose. The Sistine Chapel paintings were to impact the parishioners and thus enhance Papal control. To me, art can exist anywhere including a functional item. All of this malarkey began at the end of the 19th century. No I was not there. Church support of art was dwindling and “people” art was coming down the pike thanks to the availability of materials. Those in the business of selling art wanted to differentiate between the lowly art of a craftsman and what they dubbed “fine art”. Prior to that, all of it was considered just art and all were considered artists. This is only a rough overview, there is more to it.
If you remember, Andy Warhol presented ordinary objects such as a can of Campbell soup screen printed on canvas as art. Marcel Duchamp entered a urinal in the big art show overseas with the name “A. Mutt” written on the side. They are all making it up as they go along.
I have always contended, art that has legs will find its way into the world no matter who’s name is tattooed on its butt or whatever gets in the way.

 

[Kevin Jenness]

This is a great thread. Here’s another take.

I wonder if the scholars would contend that the non-functional requirement can be nuanced. For example, the teapots and armor Kevin mentioned. Holistically, the piece is functional (vessel for holding liquid, or armor for protection), but the surface embellishment serves no purpose aside beautification. If the embellishment was instructions, or even a “clan” designation, it would be functional, but something like flowers (or whatever) are purely decorative.

Just for clarification, the tea bowl I mentioned is not "embellished" at all. It is a very pure form with a white crackled glaze. And it could hold soup.

Jazz has been called "the music that surprises". Whatever art may be defined as, for me it has to make me see and feel in a new light. I don't believe that one must be accepted by academic gatekeepers to produce work that has those qualities, or that functionality precludes artistic quality.

One of the pieces I remember best from my last visit to the Met was this oversize ceremonial robe made of dog tags. Some/One Would it be not "art" if it was sized for and worn by a human being?

 

[John Ames]

Just for clarification, the tea bowl I mentioned is not "embellished" at all. It is a very pure form with a white crackled glaze. And it could hold soup.

Jazz has been called "the music that surprises". Whatever art may be defined as, for me it has to make me see and feel in a new light. I don't believe that one must be accepted by academic gatekeepers to produce work that has those qualities, or that functionality precludes artistic quality.

One of the pieces I remember best from my last visit to the Met was this oversize ceremonial robe made of dog tags. Some/One Would it be not "art" if it was sized for and worn by a human being?

Thank you for sharing that link... I love that piece. Fantastic...

 

[Michael Anderson]

@Jerry Bennett and @Kevin Jenness don’t get me wrong. I haven’t adopted the non-function requirement for something to be considered art (and I don’t believe either of you think I have); I do find it an interesting restrictive definition. Overly academic, but in that world things should be as close to black/white as possible. Absolute is impossible, of course—absolute is too simple for pretty much everything in our world and beyond.

I made my previous statement as more of a “gotcha”, in the sense that it is possible to separate the utility of an object from the artistic value. In another related thread somewhere I made a long post outlining my views, but here I’ll sum it up to say it is a fool’s errand to define what is art and what isn’t art.

That said, I appreciate both of your responses. Kevin, I’d love to see that teapot, and Jerry, the “no I was not there” cracked me up.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

Art is for everyone in some form or fashion, not just a chosen few. We all get to participate in whatever way we can.

 

[John Ames]

No one can tell me what art is or is not.

As you say... Never say never

At some point, someone has to decide what/who gets into the best galleries and art showcases and what the criteria are. In my view, woodturning art is woefully underrepresented both in these types of exhibitions and in monetary return/value compared to other art forms. I'd like to see this change and for woodturning to be more respected/represented in that world. I might be alone in that... wouldn't be the first hill I died on all alone! And I think the first step toward making that happen is for all of the woodturning community to at least understand what the gatekeepers think.

Again, we can all have different opinions on what art is or isn't (I actually think that's healthy!) but all of our collective and disparate opinions mean nothing to those who hold the keys to the galleries and representation.

For what its worth, I couldn't agree more that art is for everyone and anyone who wants to, should participate to the best of their ability and strive to improve by any means they can/want. And I'd like for those who achieve the highest levels in woodturning to be able to reap the most possible benefit for their extraordinary effort and talent. In order for that tom happen we have to understand their rules, whether we like it or not.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

In reality John, we are talking about two different things. What is art and… what can you place in the art world. Something can be a wonderful work of art and no one wants it due to various reasons. Galleries pick what they think they can sell, no exceptions. Van Gogh faced that in his lifetime. I have been accepted and rejected by various venues. Not because it is wood or turned but because of theme or genre compatibility issues. To be successful in the art world, you need to wear armor and a helmet. To get something in a museum, is usually accomplished through a collector. I have heard that a collector has to kick in a little scratch along with their “gift”. There is no direct route. Galleries seek dollars, museums seek footprints and donations. Do not base your understanding or appreciation of your art on what anyone else thinks.
Over and out.

 

[Kevin Jenness]

As you say... Never say never

At some point, someone has to decide what/who gets into the best galleries and art showcases and what the criteria are. In my view, woodturning art is woefully underrepresented both in these types of exhibitions and in monetary return/value compared to other art forms. I'd like to see this change and for woodturning to be more respected/represented in that world. I might be alone in that... wouldn't be the first hill I died on all alone! And I think the first step toward making that happen is for all of the woodturning community to at least understand what the gatekeepers think.

The gatekeepers at galleries and showcases are not typically academics, they are marketers looking for material their audience wants to see and buy.

 

[Darryn Achall]

To add in another wrinkle. I did an online search for "artisan vs artist". Very interesting as to what the most common consensus is for these two terms. in short:
Seems to me a wood turner could fit into both categories if using traditional techniques in conscious and creative ways.

 

[DON FRANK]

Jerry summed up most of my thoughts and many that I didn't think of on this subject however I will add one minor point. I disagree that art should not be functional,- it absolutely has to be. I feel like the "function" of art is to make you feel an emotion that you did not feel before you viewed it. That can be a smile, a frown, a tear, a laugh, a sense of awe or simply the gob smack feeling that two hands and a mind created something that beautiful. There are many other adjectives I could add but you get the point.

 

[Steve Tiedman]

To add in another wrinkle. I did an online search for "artisan vs artist". Very interesting as to what the most common consensus is for these two terms. in short:
View attachment 71084 Seems to me a wood turner could fit into both categories if using traditional techniques in conscious and creative ways.

I can live with being referred to as an artisan.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

Me too as long as they call me in time for supper.

 

[Steve Tiedman]

And it's much better than what I usually call myself 10 times a day.

 

[Ric Williams]

Take it from me, being referred to as an old-fartisan is not the same, even if it *is* true.

 

[Odie]

for you to say that money is the motivator is incorrect or maybe myopic. Money is often the facilitator for making more art.

If I had to depend on my bowls to make a living, I'd starve to death. I am highly motivated to sell them, but the only benefit I see in it, is to sustain my bowl making......it's the "facilitator", as Michael said above.

I often wonder just how much I make per hour, and I'd bet I don't even make $5/hr and that might be wishful thinking!

As I see it, there is much more to life than money. As they say, the best things in life are free......and I pretty much work for free!

=o=

 

[John Ames]

If I had to depend on my bowls to make a living, I'd starve to death.

Which stinks…. A talent like yours and many others (Hi Jerry!) deserves to be fairly compensated. This is my whole point in starting this thread.

Also - - I’ve been using the terms “functionality/function” and “utility” on behalf of the scholars’ definition interchangeably but I probably shouldn’t.

Art does have a “function” of existing for its own aesthetic, (I.e. arousing an emotion) but no real utility/use.

 

[Odie]

Which stinks…. A talent like yours and many others (Hi Jerry!) deserves to be fairly compensated. This is my whole point in starting this thread.

Also - - I’ve been using the terms “functionality/function” and “utility” on behalf of the scholars’ definition interchangeably but I probably shouldn’t.

Art does have a “function” of existing for its own aesthetic, (I.e. arousing an emotion) but no real utility/use.

Hey thanks John.

I'll add that the current economy has a lot to do with my diminishing sales the last three years, and I was selling roughly double the number of bowls for the four years preceding that.

I must say that I'm enjoying my shop time more now than I did then, because I've slowed down to a very satisfying pace. At this stage of my life at 76yrs, making money isn't as important as it once was. My social security pretty much pays the everyday bills. (I'm very lucky to be a Vietnam vet, and the $31,000 bill for my recent hospitalization was covered in full by the VA.)

=o=

 

[Pat Cogdal]

The only competition among the mediums is for the dollars being spent. My buyers/collectors are not usually glass people, and vice versa. Similar to what Alan posted above.

That said, turned wood as an artform is still in the 'infancy stage', in my humble opinion. Glass as an accepted artform has been around for centuries.

I agree with you Donna. I was just talking to a friend last night and was describing a sculpture I'm working on and he was confused that I was turning so much of it. I explained to him that as a mixed media sculptor I don't limit myself to any particular medium but I have been doing a deep dive on turning for last few years. He was also shocked when I explained to him that turning well and sculpting with wood is actually (in my opinion) more difficult than casting bronze but I think people feel value in the archival nature for metal and glass.

 

[Kevin Jenness]

Art does have a “function” of existing for its own aesthetic, (I.e. arousing an emotion) but no real utility/use.

This academic argument that "real" art can have no function seems just that, academic. Consider Japanese netsuke. These are intricately sculpted toggles or buttons originally used to suspend various types of containers from the sash of pocketless robes. With the adoption of western garb in Japan that function lapsed, yet the production and export of netsuke has continued. Much of contemporary production is schlock aimed at the tourist trade, yet it is a respected area of artistic effort, with an active collectors' market. Some of the most prized netsuke date from the era when they actually were used on a daily basis for the most quotidian of functions. Should we say that those netsuke are artistic objects only now that they are no longer needed to keep a wallet or snuffbox from falling to the ground? The best were highly valued even prior to the Western advent.

Is there a useful comparison to "turned art" here? Some of that work is explicitly sculptural, decorative, non-utilitarian, yet much is derived from functional turned objects like vessels and columns. Very little is made for use other than display, yet some of it could hold soup or support an entablature. One might say that incorporating truly artistic design into objects used everyday is at least as important as stocking the galleries with "useless" work, although perhaps less valuable to the artist/artisan's ego or pocketbook..

 

[John Ames]

Kevin - I wish the academics agreed with your sensibilities.

 

[Michael Brown]

Seeing as I have been operating a CNC for a week now; I feel I am the preeminent authority on it /sc.

Wood turning (v.) is an art. I see the art of reading the wood and following the grain, and letting it transform while you turn. I differentiate this to production, where the canvas is predetermined.

CNC (v.) is most definitely an art. Knowing materials and design limitations and the fastest way to still create a perfect physical creation of a digital representation is humbling to the initiated, impressive to the colleagues, and mundane to the ignorant.

Wood turnings (n.) are a byproduct of an art.
CNC machined objects (n.) are a byproduct of an art.
The blood, sweat and tears of innovation, creativity and constructive exploration are what we champion as art (v.)
The envy of the lazy gives rise to unsolicited criticism. The lazy can be recognized by fault finding and dehumanizing; extrapolating the flaws of the art onto the artist.