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.
-
Congratulations to Alex Bradley winner of the December 2024 Turning Challenge (click here for details) -
Conversations are now Direct Messages (click here for details) -
Congratulations to Gabriel Hoff for "Spalted Beech Round Bottom Box" being selected as Turning of the Week for January 6, 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
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.
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.
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, a movie can have serious impact emotionally even if you paid money to see it.
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=
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
I'm typically not one to debate semantics and I will leave the 'naming' up to whoever purchases one my pieces
I had one foot in the music world. It is a mixture of all of it. I know people that play just for the enjoyment of it and those who make a living at it. When you step up to the mic in front of a bunch of people, the art has to be there no matter about the money. That connection is where it is at. When I put a piece on the table, that is where it is at. There are those that sing for their supper. They have to make that connection or have an empty plate. It is not a question about how you feel about art, it is a question of how you feel about money.
Just curious, I was interested in seeing some of your work. Can’t find any anywhere. How can you be definitive about the art world and its inhabitants if you have not experienced it?
Hello Jerry. Was there something in my post that was not clear? What would make you think I've not experienced the art world, that I don't have an Instagram account? To your first point, I don't maintain a website or social media accounts, I have no interest in them, they'd serve me no purpose. I've put a couple items in the "what's on your lathe" thread on this board to answer the question of... what is on your lathe; pretty inconsequential stuff. How much I turn, how much art, or craft, I may produce, and whether I publish images of it on the internet for anyone to see has no bearing on my thoughts and opinions that I expressed, and disclosed, in my post, which I hope addresses your question.
I've been turning since 1995, and my personal world (friends and relatives, and AAW chapter membership in the early 2000s) has been presented no shortage of my work, my art, over time. (In 1996 I did have a weekly booth for 6 months at a farmer's market where I sold pens, but I was never considering those to be art.) Because I don't maintain an internet presence to show the world everything I make does not make me any less of an artist, or lack experience in the art world. In my post I explained my reasoning, I disclosed that it is what it means to me, and I defended it by referencing scolarly notions from the opening post of the thread.
One need not be an artist to have an opinion about what art is, or isn't.......😉
However, it's always good to see the artwork of those who express their opinion, when it's applicable.
=o=
However, it's always good to see the artwork of those who express their opinion, when it's applicable.
=o=
That is a fair question. Your conclusion that if you are in the art world and selling, the work is no longer art but a commodity. Twenty years ago I had to defend my work as “not turned” and today I have to defend it as not being art? I know a lot of people selling that are great artists. My question to you is how can you make a statement like that? My conclusion was, you do not know me or anyone in my world. That is a fair assessment. I wanted to check out your work to see if you know something I don’t. I do agree that a lot of it is beyond silly, like the banana taped to the wall. But there is more to it than that.
I was a design engineer for over 20 years. I designed mostly automotive intake manifolds, but have experience designing many different products. I always believed that what I did was science, as the shape of my product was dictated by it's function.
I took a watercolor and drawing art class and the instructor of this class had us introduce ourselves and what we did for a living. Upon hearing what i did he inquired a bit more about it. He asked to see some of my work. At a later class I brought in 2 manifold for him to look at. He was emphatic that what i did was art.
To say that something that is sold doesn't make it art is absurd to me. How is it art before a sale, but all of a sudden isn't art of it's sold. As I've stated what I did for a career I didn't think was art, before this class it never occurred to me to think of it as art, but after having that experience my thought of what art is has changed. Art is a process of manipulating your environment to create something new. That can be physical or not, from nothing or something else. Now it is good or not is up to each person that interests with it.
/end rant
Gregory
I took a watercolor and drawing art class and the instructor of this class had us introduce ourselves and what we did for a living. Upon hearing what i did he inquired a bit more about it. He asked to see some of my work. At a later class I brought in 2 manifold for him to look at. He was emphatic that what i did was art.
To say that something that is sold doesn't make it art is absurd to me. How is it art before a sale, but all of a sudden isn't art of it's sold. As I've stated what I did for a career I didn't think was art, before this class it never occurred to me to think of it as art, but after having that experience my thought of what art is has changed. Art is a process of manipulating your environment to create something new. That can be physical or not, from nothing or something else. Now it is good or not is up to each person that interests with it.
/end rant
Gregory
How's that for art? Gordon Pembridge, South Africa.
I disagree here. If I had the opportunity, say a benefactor, I would solely focus on making things. We live in a world where that isn’t really a possibility any more. Needing a second job just so you can afford to make art in your spare time is a burden and crippling to creative output. When I’m unburdened by other responsibilities, I make more, which inspires more ideas. It’s positive feedback (self-amplification). When I have to put down my gouge to go to work, pick up the kids, etc… (just examples), I think about making, but the momentum isn’t as strong as if I’m actually doing it. The notion that selling artwork to provide the basic necessities (shelter, food, healthcare, etc…) doesn’t preclude what I make from being art. I understand what you’re saying, but for you to say that money is the motivator is incorrect or maybe myopic. Money is often the facilitator for making more art. That said, the distinction between the two is likely the price point of the art, but that gets more into the realm of ego… (obviously that last statement is nuanced)
Sorry, your work product was functional. Ipso facto, not art. 🙃
Well Kevin, at one time I had a BMW roadster. It was very functional BUT, it definitely was a work of art! 😎
We can agree to disagree. In your world every piece of furniture isn't art. Same for all jewelry. Same for fashion. The list could go on. It is defined as Functional Art.
Google AI expresses Functional art vs utilitarian by the artist incorporation of design elements and aesthetic <s>asterisk</s> into the design. Some of the most influential artist of the modern era Sam Maloof, Frank Loyd Wright, Gustav Stickley are great examples of Functional artist.
Gregory
Last edited:
I jest. The distinction between functional art and the other kind is artificial in my opinion. What do I know, though, I don't have a PhD in art history.
I hope you were joking when you cited Google AI as an authority on the subject. "Asterisk"? Hallucinations, anyone?
Yes I was. Although the definition is accurate. I would never site an Ai source in a legitimate paper, but rather than picking one of the myriad of articles that come up from a cursory search of the subject i picked the Ai source to show just how silly it is to think that just because something is functional that if can't be art. Ai can be accurate even though it's just functional.
Gregory
How can the definition be accurate based on the "incorporation of design elements and asterisk"? The Singularity has a ways to go- I hope.
“If it doesn’t hold soup …”!
Sorry that is my typo it's supposed to be aesthetic. My bad, I'll edit the original.
Gregory
The english language, or any other language for that matter, was never meant to convey what is or what isn't art. Art just won't allow itself to be pigeon holed like that.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
- Messages
- 1,450
- Likes
- 1,273
- Location
- Roulette, PA
- Website
- www.reallyruralwoodworks.com
That'd have to be about my take on it - I have done pieces I was going to throw in the firewood pile, someone saw it and thought it a thing of beauty... Other pieces, I have taken pride in and many folks complimented me on the work, and then every so often someone came along and commented something to the effect "Why would I pay $30 for a piece of firewood?" Just to each their own - I have seen stuff that people refer to as Art, that I personally feel at best it was just a first grader's first attempt (if I was feeling generous) to downright ugly, but someone else would pay a couple hundred bucks (or more) for it. I gave up trying to define what art is, and just go for what *I* Like , and the hell with what anyone else thinks of it.