Ever Feel Like You're Cheating?
Akilli
I was leafing through a book on marquetry written by a leading French
conservator, when I saw an engraving that depicted the meticulous hand cutting
of fret saw blades as it was practiced 200 years ago, and probably until much
more recently. These are hair thin, brittle blades of say 10 to 30 teeth per
inch, which snap often, with little provocation, and quickly dull otherwise.
These days, you can buy them for about 5 bucks a dozen.
This one example illustrates what I'm sure everyone has thought about at
some time or other: the immense advantage the modern artisan has in the
materials and tools at their disposal in comparison to their not so long
demised counterpart. (From this premise I am exempting technique and training,
in which we moderns are, for the most part, sadly deficient.) Even if whole
new avenues are opened, when I marvel at the astonishing work done in earlier
days and weigh the steps now saved, this embarrasing largess at times makes me
uncomfortable rather than relieved. The actual execution of a fine work itself
entails much drudgery, and perhaps having now been sheltered from much of the
essential preparatory labor, any subsequent travail is viewed as a thankless
chore to be avoided.
A legitimate response would be that artisans at all times have used the
technology which was available, and in most cases would have pounced on any
method more advantageous, particularly as they were, as now, hard nosed
entrepeneurs, and time is florins. These very innovations, however, have also
lead to mass production, and its consequent ills.
If Phidias had access to a pneumatic chisel, I doubt he would have
scorned it; but with each thoughtful tap of the mallet replaced by a hundred
blinding strikes, would he have given the same consideration to his work, and
over time, would the technology have dictated the form, as it seems to have
now?
Are we better off for all the options now at our fingerclicks, or has
something been lost? I could go on, but I think my rabbit hides are burning.
Ethan Gross
Battersby
> Ever Feel Like You're Cheating?
Good one Ethan. No, I feel cheated. You get stucco. Oh, do you get stuck oh.
I should have died before I was born. I've been cheated of the recondite
information that was barely available when my dad was a cub in 1947. Even
then it was the tail end of the real masters of the stucco trade, and the
tricks of the trade have always been closely guarded. By the time I came up
into the business, there was not really enough ornamental work going on to
get the chance to pick up all the fine details.
> This one example illustrates what I'm sure everyone has thought about at
> some time or other: the immense advantage the modern artisan has in the
> materials and tools at their disposal in comparison to their not so long
> demised counterpart. (From this premise I am exempting technique and
> training, in which we moderns are, for the most part, sadly deficient.)
I don't feel like I'm cheating with my shop full of tools, but, I do wonder
what my dad, and his dad (stuccoists), and his dad (blacksmith), would think
of the cordless drills, the wire feed welders, compound mitre saws, the
polymer modified plasters, silicone rubber molds, and on and on. I still
have, and use, tools they built, and there's nothing I like better than
rigging up apparati for some wild procedure, or building a specialized tool
for a special job.
> These very innovations, however, have also
> lead to mass production, and its consequent ills.
Mass production is not killing my trade. The dirty deed has been done for
many years now. I blame it on sheetrock and suspended acoustical ceilings.
Now they've got the urethane crap, and ornamental plaster is a look, not a
highly skilled craft. Today, I would say that 999 "plasterers" out of a
thousand, are nothing more than synthetic veneer jockeys, and 1/1000 can
work gypsum plaster.
> Are we better off for all the options now at our fingerclicks,
Yes.
> or has something been lost?
Yes.
> I could go on, but I think my rabbit hides are burning.
> Ethan Gross
How about your lime, slaked yet??
Bb.
--
T. M. Battersby, stuccoist.
http://www.battersbyornamental.com
tbatt...@satx.rr.com
Akilli wrote in message
Lauri Levanto
learning in evening classes at a small rural town. I do admire old traditions,
and I know that much skill and knowledge has gone forever.
Someone said that the art of brick laying has degenrated the last thousand
years.
For me, the Granite Nefertiti (in Berlin) was a shock. made with primitive
tools,
great skill and enormous patience.
InEurope, however, is a growing trend to cultivate old crafts,
or what is left of them. In Finland they are building a church in 18th century
technique. Hand-sawn planks, handforced nails. In Sweden is a project
of baroque organ reconstruction. Hand-casting the lead plates they need
to build the pipes etc.
I do believe the tide is changing. Of course the bulk will be mass-produced,
but for that reason the rarity of craftmanship will make it a status item.
-lauri
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
"The art has conquered new frontiers with such a vigor
that the homeground has been left to mallow"
Andrew Werby
Akilli wrote in message <20001015130742...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
>Greetings,
> I was leafing through a book on marquetry written by a leading
French
>conservator, when I saw an engraving that depicted the meticulous hand
cutting
>of fret saw blades as it was practiced 200 years ago, and probably until
much
>more recently. These are hair thin, brittle blades of say 10 to 30 teeth
per
>inch, which snap often, with little provocation, and quickly dull
otherwise.
>These days, you can buy them for about 5 bucks a dozen.
[I'm not sure this makes your point, Ethan. I don't believe that marquetry
shops had to make their own sawblades even then- they were produced by
specialty sawblade manufacturers, who doubtless charged enough for them to
ensure a profit. They were probably expensive enough to earn the hapless
apprentice who broke one a box on the ear, however. Probably a more apt
example would be oil paints, the meticulous preparation of which was a
studio chore for artists, although it was usually carried out by
apprentices. ]
> This one example illustrates what I'm sure everyone has thought
about at
>some time or other: the immense advantage the modern artisan has in the
>materials and tools at their disposal in comparison to their not so long
>demised counterpart. (From this premise I am exempting technique and
training,
>in which we moderns are, for the most part, sadly deficient.) Even if
whole
>new avenues are opened, when I marvel at the astonishing work done in
earlier
>days and weigh the steps now saved, this embarrasing largess at times makes
me
>uncomfortable rather than relieved. The actual execution of a fine work
itself
>entails much drudgery, and perhaps having now been sheltered from much of
the
>essential preparatory labor, any subsequent travail is viewed as a
thankless
>chore to be avoided.
[Face it, people are lazy, and if slapdash bravura is admired more than
obsessive toil, it's hard to justify the latter. Galleries these days shy
away from work that takes a lot of time to do; after all, if the artist
becomes "hot", it's important to be able to produce a bunch of it before the
market cools.]
> A legitimate response would be that artisans at all times have used
the
>technology which was available, and in most cases would have pounced on any
>method more advantageous, particularly as they were, as now, hard nosed
>entrepeneurs, and time is florins. These very innovations, however, have
also
>lead to mass production, and its consequent ills.
> If Phidias had access to a pneumatic chisel, I doubt he would have
>scorned it; but with each thoughtful tap of the mallet replaced by a
hundred
>blinding strikes, would he have given the same consideration to his work,
and
>over time, would the technology have dictated the form, as it seems to have
>now?
[Technology dictated form even then. Michealangelo was an expert in the
technology of his day, mastering the techniques of quarrying stone, for
example, so he could get blocks of sufficient size to realize his
conceptions. And Leonardo, of course, was ahead of the curve, considering
himself at least as much a technologist as an artist (although the two
categories were not considered distinct at the time.) But I see your point.
I've often wondered what the ancients could have done had they had access to
the cheap diamond tooling that we take for granted, or synthetic rubber mold
materials, or earth-moving equipment. Perhaps they would have progressed to
Abstract Expressionism centuries earlier, who knows?]
Are we better off for all the options now at our fingerclicks, or has
>something been lost? I could go on, but I think my rabbit hides are
burning.
>
> Ethan
Gross
>
[Speaking of options at your fingerclicks, how's it going with Rhino? ]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
eisc...@my-deja.com
Some thoughts. As I recall, we have about 200 of Rembrandt's ink and
wash drawings (still his best work) done on hand made paper with hand-
made materials. We have something like 18,000 two dimensional works by
Picasso, but he had machine-made paper, canvas and materials. Who's
better? In my mind, power tools and industrial techniques only add
volume to art, not quality.
In the Univ of Penn Museum of Archeology and Anthropology (PMAA) in
Phil I stood in awe and studied Egyptian columns of hieroglyphs done
2500 to 3500 years ago. The chisels marks were visible. The mark of
the maker is always a thrill. These were bronze chisels that made
these marks. But the Egyptian artisans had crews of slaves whose only
duty was to keep a fresh supply of sharp chisels at the hands of the
carver.
That's automation. It's just that the Egyptians had the cheap bodies
to make it work.
One of the pieces in the PMAA was a sphinx-like sculpture about the
size of a pick-up truck carved from granite. Despite the age, you
could tell that it had originally been smoothly finished. I have no
idea how many hours and people it took to make this piece. But the
manpower was there. We do not have it today, at least not at
affordable prices.
Technology has affected everything and art should not be an exception.
Art, to me, is still in the concept, the idea, the execution.
Sculpture, particularly, is still linked to a knowledge of materials
and tools that has been developed over thousands of years. That is why
I love it. I can appreciate those Egyptian chisels marks, the Venus of
Willendorf or the cracks in a cranky piece of linden that some
anonymous carver used to carve a statue of the Blessed Virgin 500 years
ago.
Carve on!
Tom Eischeid
In article <20001015130742...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
aki...@aol.com (Akilli) wrote:
> Greetings,
> I was leafing through a book on marquetry written by a
leading French
> conservator, when I saw an engraving that depicted the meticulous
hand cutting
> of fret saw blades as it was practiced 200 years ago, and probably
until much
> more recently. These are hair thin, brittle blades of say 10 to 30
teeth per
> inch, which snap often, with little provocation, and quickly dull
otherwise.
> These days, you can buy them for about 5 bucks a dozen.
> This one example illustrates what I'm sure everyone has
thought about at
> some time or other: the immense advantage the modern artisan has in
the
> materials and tools at their disposal in comparison to their not so
long
> demised counterpart. (From this premise I am exempting technique and
training,
> in which we moderns are, for the most part, sadly deficient.) Even
if whole
> new avenues are opened, when I marvel at the astonishing work done in
earlier
> days and weigh the steps now saved, this embarrasing largess at times
makes me
> uncomfortable rather than relieved. The actual execution of a fine
work itself
> entails much drudgery, and perhaps having now been sheltered from
much of the
> essential preparatory labor, any subsequent travail is viewed as a
thankless
> chore to be avoided.
> A legitimate response would be that artisans at all times
have used the
> technology which was available, and in most cases would have pounced
on any
> method more advantageous, particularly as they were, as now, hard
nosed
> entrepeneurs, and time is florins. These very innovations, however,
have also
> lead to mass production, and its consequent ills.
> If Phidias had access to a pneumatic chisel, I doubt he would
have
> scorned it; but with each thoughtful tap of the mallet replaced by a
hundred
> blinding strikes, would he have given the same consideration to his
work, and
> over time, would the technology have dictated the form, as it seems
to have
> now?
> Are we better off for all the options now at our fingerclicks,
or has
> something been lost? I could go on, but I think my rabbit hides are
burning.
>
>
Ethan Gross
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Akilli
Apprenticeship still allowed the drudgery to remain visible, and
acknowledged. Apprentices did assume most of the mundane activities of a
studio, thereby sparing the master; however almost everyone started as an
apprentice. and was better off for it - ahem! I wonder if it could be argued
that the pre-packaging of artist materials aided the demise of the apprentice
system? That, along with compulsory education (wait for laughter to subside),
and child labor laws. It is interesting to me that today a college education is
deemed absolutely essential in order to perform a job which in all likleyhood
has nothing to do with your major, whereas formerly, someone entered an
apprenticeship in their teens, and probably persued that trade for the rest
their life. There are misgivings on either side, to be sure.
I'm still not convinced laziness is the prime motivator in current
artistic endeavors. If you read Vasari's Lives or Cellini's autobiography a
fierce competitiveness, pride (and yes, money too) fueled the artist's
ambitions. In order to compete however, a set of standards must exist by which
everyone is measured. Since those have been abolished, the only remaining
measure is cash, and since it is cash divorced from content, art today is
reduced to being viewed as a commodity. Please, do not get me wrong though;
some of my best friends are dollars.
As for Rhino, it's slowly progressing, but I'm no Bathsheba yet.
Ethan
Fred Mason
making things. I also have a fantasy that those of us who can actually make
things with our hands, from raw or relatively raw material will so day end
up on display in museums: School children being shown people who can work
with their hands,
Fred
Brad Strong
Technology empowers more of us to create art while holding down a
"straight" job. I just bought a two thousand dollar plasma cutter, a
Mig welder, and a stone saw, and in about 10 hours created what would
have taken several times longer with an Oxy Acetelyne torch - what it does
for me is give me a quicker means of arriving at the finished piece.
This one was not brilliant, but the idea "worked", so the next one may
knock my socks off. Just as in the manufacturing / design world, the more
iterations you can make, the easier you can make them, increases the quality
of the work because you have a larger number of ideas to choose from during
the design process.
Technology gives the average working guy a chance.
<eisc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8sg475$d1p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Dan Spector
make lots of exposures, some for tech reasons, some because they may not have a
clear idea what the best composition rerally is. And they report to an editor.
Editing is such a large part of photography. Now you would apply this ethos to
sculpture, too: "Let's see David with his arm here, now up an inch, now turn his
face 5 degrees.."
No, while I see your point, I believe you have to design first, then create, and
stay alert for the happy accidents which help a sculpture work.
Creating many similar versions easily--maybe that's the cheating.
--
Dan <arch...@earthlink.net>
http://www.archicast.com
----------
In article <zb5H5.16$ea5....@den-news1.rmi.net>, "Brad Strong"
Akilli
>sculpture, too: "Let's see David with his arm here, now up an inch, now turn
>his
>face 5 degrees.."
>No, while I see your point, I believe you have to design first, then create,
>and
>stay alert for the happy accidents which help a sculpture work.
>Creating many similar versions easily--maybe that's the cheating.
>--
I certainly agree that, having hit upon a successful formula,
plagiarising oneself ad nauseum is also, at least, cheating oneself. That's not
to say it isn't practiced pervasively, and is known as "popular culture".
Photographers do have the luxury of shooting hundreds of pictures, just
to find that right one; but unless your work is completely spontaneous, there
is also an editor at work. Sculptors have been known to use maquettes and
sketches in preparation, and perhaps it is fortunate that this eventually grows
tedious or they could be endlessly tweaking. As computer aided sculpture
progresses in its capabilities, it will be interesting to see how seductive
this tendency becomes. Will anyone ever "press F9 for sculpt" if their work
could still be ever so slightly improved? "Wait... I wonder how it would look
from the space station?"
Ethan Gross
eri...@my-deja.com
as to the lack of experience of creating your own tools, that comes as
the gift of a leaning experience in this age,..my work doesn't costitute
my livelihood,so i get to follow my muse,.I've done stupid exersises
such as smelting iron from local ore, useless in the context of creating
saleable work,but hefting that crappy pig in my hand felt very
empowering,.(since then it's been forged into a nice decorative dagger),
i am a major technocrat, but knowing the roots is nice too,..we all work
in the scope that fulfills us the most,(if not get thee to a trepanner,
you need help),......
Chic McGregor
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
>Akilli wrote in message <20001015130742...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
>>Greetings,
>> I was leafing through a book on marquetry written by a leading
>French
>>conservator, when I saw an engraving that depicted the meticulous hand
>cutting
>>of fret saw blades as it was practiced 200 years ago, and probably until
>much
>>more recently. These are hair thin, brittle blades of say 10 to 30 teeth
>per
>>inch, which snap often, with little provocation, and quickly dull
>otherwise.
>>These days, you can buy them for about 5 bucks a dozen.
>
>[I'm not sure this makes your point, Ethan. I don't believe that marquetry
>shops had to make their own sawblades even then- they were produced by
>specialty sawblade manufacturers, who doubtless charged enough for them to
>ensure a profit. They were probably expensive enough to earn the hapless
>apprentice who broke one a box on the ear, however. Probably a more apt
>example would be oil paints, the meticulous preparation of which was a
>studio chore for artists, although it was usually carried out by
>apprentices. ]
>
>> This one example illustrates what I'm sure everyone has thought
>about at
>>some time or other: the immense advantage the modern artisan has in the
>>materials and tools at their disposal in comparison to their not so long
>>demised counterpart. (From this premise I am exempting technique and
>training,
>>in which we moderns are, for the most part, sadly deficient.) Even if
>whole
>>new avenues are opened, when I marvel at the astonishing work done in
>earlier
>>days and weigh the steps now saved, this embarrasing largess at times makes
>me
>>uncomfortable rather than relieved. The actual execution of a fine work
>itself
>>entails much drudgery, and perhaps having now been sheltered from much of
>the
>>essential preparatory labor, any subsequent travail is viewed as a
>thankless
>>chore to be avoided.
>
>[Face it, people are lazy, and if slapdash bravura is admired more than
>obsessive toil, it's hard to justify the latter. Galleries these days shy
>away from work that takes a lot of time to do; after all, if the artist
>becomes "hot", it's important to be able to produce a bunch of it before the
>market cools.]
>
>> A legitimate response would be that artisans at all times have used
>the
>>technology which was available, and in most cases would have pounced on any
>>method more advantageous, particularly as they were, as now, hard nosed
>>entrepeneurs, and time is florins. These very innovations, however, have
>also
>>lead to mass production, and its consequent ills.
>> If Phidias had access to a pneumatic chisel, I doubt he would have
>>scorned it; but with each thoughtful tap of the mallet replaced by a
>hundred
>>blinding strikes, would he have given the same consideration to his work,
>and
>>over time, would the technology have dictated the form, as it seems to have
>>now?
>
>[Technology dictated form even then. Michealangelo was an expert in the
>technology of his day, mastering the techniques of quarrying stone, for
>example, so he could get blocks of sufficient size to realize his
>conceptions. And Leonardo, of course, was ahead of the curve, considering
>himself at least as much a technologist as an artist (although the two
>categories were not considered distinct at the time.) But I see your point.
>I've often wondered what the ancients could have done had they had access to
>the cheap diamond tooling that we take for granted, or synthetic rubber mold
>materials, or earth-moving equipment. Perhaps they would have progressed to
>Abstract Expressionism centuries earlier, who knows?]
>
This is an interesting thread, well done Ethan.
Andrew, you raise an interesting point on abstraction.
I would just point out that contemporary with the 'classical age'
in Meditterania, Celtic Europe to the North was producing almost
exclusively abstract art, and DID have technological superiority in
most fields, including mould-making and metal-work. So perhaps the
phenomena is not new.
If this is more than coincidence, then why?
Is it related to the reproductive capabilities of certain
technologies, mould-making for instance?
There is something psychologically less acceptable, I feel, about the
mass reproduction of that which is recognisable, e.g.
people/celebrities, landmark buildings, etc than there is for the
reproduction of abstract art, but I can't put my finger on why at the
moment.
A related, and in some ways clearer, question has often crossed my
mind, pertaining to architecture. Namely, 'If the Victorians produced
such beautiful and elaborate buildings without the aid of modern power
tools and materials, why have 'we' produced such banal monstrosities?'
Obviously, there are always exceptions, but I suspect that a hundred
years from now there will be more Victorian buildings left standing
that 20th Century ones.
In the architecture case, it is easier to see the economic factors.
Has that been a factor in cultural art?
>Are we better off for all the options now at our fingerclicks, or has
>>something been lost? I could go on, but I think my rabbit hides are
>burning.
>>
>> Ethan
>Gross
>>
>[Speaking of options at your fingerclicks, how's it going with Rhino? ]
>
>
>Andrew Werby
>www.computersculpture.com
>
regards
chic
chic
'I don't read every post, if I haven't responded to
one you think I should have, mail me'.
Andrew Werby
Chic McGregor wrote in message <3a03b9ca...@news.ntlworld.com>...
>This is an interesting thread, well done Ethan.
>
>Andrew, you raise an interesting point on abstraction.
[I did?]
>I would just point out that contemporary with the 'classical age'
>in Meditterania, Celtic Europe to the North was producing almost
>exclusively abstract art, and DID have technological superiority in
>most fields, including mould-making and metal-work. So perhaps the
>phenomena is not new.
>
>If this is more than coincidence, then why?
[The ancient Celts, like contemporary Moslems, worked under a religious ban
on representation of living creatures, so perforce had to derive a style
independent of this sort of depiction. When Christianity took hold around
the beginning of the last millenium, the prohibition was removed, accounting
for works like the Book of Kells, which used the twining knot-work of
traditional Celtic decoration in pictures of plants and animals, for a
hybrid Celtic/Mediterranean effect.]
>
>Is it related to the reproductive capabilities of certain
>technologies, mould-making for instance?
[The Romans certainly had access to mold-making technology, which they used
for trade-goods like lamps and votive statuary. But they never went in for
abstract art, preferring figurative or floral motifs whenever decoration was
called for.]
>
>There is something psychologically less acceptable, I feel, about the
>mass reproduction of that which is recognisable, e.g.
>people/celebrities, landmark buildings, etc than there is for the
>reproduction of abstract art, but I can't put my finger on why at the
>moment.
>
>A related, and in some ways clearer, question has often crossed my
>mind, pertaining to architecture. Namely, 'If the Victorians produced
>such beautiful and elaborate buildings without the aid of modern power
>tools and materials, why have 'we' produced such banal monstrosities?'
>Obviously, there are always exceptions, but I suspect that a hundred
>years from now there will be more Victorian buildings left standing
>that 20th Century ones.
>
>In the architecture case, it is easier to see the economic factors.
>Has that been a factor in cultural art?
[The Victorians were taking advantage of modern technologies that the
originators of their models didn't posess, while failing to re-evaluate the
motifs that came along for the ride. The acanthus capital, for instance,
that the Romans copied from the Corinthian Greeks, lost a little in
translation at that point. When the Italians of the Renaissance copied it in
their turn, it lost a bit more. By the time the Victorians incorporated it
in banks and railway stations disguised as pagan temples, its forms were
almost totally devitalized. This is why the originators of the International
Style, as it came to be known, felt no compunction about stripping away this
lifeless veneer of ornament and letting the structural verities of their
buildings stand on their own. But you (and Prince Charles) are not alone in
regretting the loss of visual interest in architecture- it may be time for
the pendulum to swing back again.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Dan Spector
>>
>>A related, and in some ways clearer, question has often crossed my
>>mind, pertaining to architecture. Namely, 'If the Victorians produced
>>such beautiful and elaborate buildings without the aid of modern power
>>tools and materials, why have 'we' produced such banal monstrosities?'
>>Obviously, there are always exceptions, but I suspect that a hundred
>>years from now there will be more Victorian buildings left standing
>>that 20th Century ones.
Victorians (1832-1900) had a dazzling array of high tech woodworking machinery,
as the steam age was in full swing, and electricity after maybe 1885. Saws,
planers, routers, bandsaws, jigsaws, lathes, whatever. They would have a heavy
shaft spinning in the center of a loft, and belts took off power for whatever
machine was needed. Mo' better than waterwheels, used for log ripping. Quieter,
really, than electric motors.
Did they worry they were cheating? I sure doubt it. Saw it as The March of
Progress. So get to work with your modern conveniences and consider how now a
single woodworker turns out what a small shop used to produce.
----------
In article <S5ZM5.389483$i5.65...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>, "Andrew Werby"
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
Chic McGregor
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
>Chic McGregor wrote in message <3a03b9ca...@news.ntlworld.com>...
>
>>This is an interesting thread, well done Ethan.
>>
>>Andrew, you raise an interesting point on abstraction.
>
>[I did?]
Yes, you alluded to it (abstraction) being related to technology,
unless I picked you up wrong.
>
>>I would just point out that contemporary with the 'classical age'
>>in Meditterania, Celtic Europe to the North was producing almost
>>exclusively abstract art, and DID have technological superiority in
>>most fields, including mould-making and metal-work. So perhaps the
>>phenomena is not new.
>>
>>If this is more than coincidence, then why?
>
>[The ancient Celts, like contemporary Moslems, worked under a religious ban
>on representation of living creatures, so perforce had to derive a style
Err no. In point of fact, little is known about the religious bans
which the Celts wiorked under other than the ban placed on writing,
even though most of the druid class knew Latin and Greek. (This ban
was reported by classicaL writers.).
Actually animal forms were common-place in pre-Christian Celtic art,
though in abstract form. Bulls and Boars were amongst the most
commonly represented. (see e.g. the Gundestrup bowl).
>independent of this sort of depiction. When Christianity took hold around
>the beginning of the last millenium, the prohibition was removed, accounting
>for works like the Book of Kells, which used the twining knot-work of
>traditional Celtic decoration in pictures of plants and animals, for a
>hybrid Celtic/Mediterranean effect.]
Knotwork is reckoned by most Celtologists to be post-Christian, but
from an influence usually attributed to the Germanic invaders from the
East. However, there are examples of knotwork in Celtic art prior to
Christianity (e.g. vases from 500BC)
>>
>>Is it related to the reproductive capabilities of certain
>>technologies, mould-making for instance?
>
>[The Romans certainly had access to mold-making technology, which they used
>for trade-goods like lamps and votive statuary. But they never went in for
>abstract art, preferring figurative or floral motifs whenever decoration was
>called for.]
>>
Sure. But the Celtic mould-making capability was by far superior.
There are still objects found that we know are mould produced by the
micro-markings but which we do not know ghow they did it.
BTW I'm not convinced at all that the technological capability drove
the production of abstract forms.
>>There is something psychologically less acceptable, I feel, about the
>>mass reproduction of that which is recognisable, e.g.
>>people/celebrities, landmark buildings, etc than there is for the
>>reproduction of abstract art, but I can't put my finger on why at the
>>moment.
>>
>>A related, and in some ways clearer, question has often crossed my
>>mind, pertaining to architecture. Namely, 'If the Victorians produced
>>such beautiful and elaborate buildings without the aid of modern power
>>tools and materials, why have 'we' produced such banal monstrosities?'
>>Obviously, there are always exceptions, but I suspect that a hundred
>>years from now there will be more Victorian buildings left standing
>>that 20th Century ones.
>>
>>In the architecture case, it is easier to see the economic factors.
>>Has that been a factor in cultural art?
>
>
>[The Victorians were taking advantage of modern technologies that the
>originators of their models didn't posess, while failing to re-evaluate the
>motifs that came along for the ride. The acanthus capital, for instance,
>that the Romans copied from the Corinthian Greeks, lost a little in
>translation at that point. When the Italians of the Renaissance copied it in
>their turn, it lost a bit more. By the time the Victorians incorporated it
>in banks and railway stations disguised as pagan temples, its forms were
>almost totally devitalized. This is why the originators of the International
>Style, as it came to be known, felt no compunction about stripping away this
>lifeless veneer of ornament and letting the structural verities of their
>buildings stand on their own. But you (and Prince Charles) are not alone in
>regretting the loss of visual interest in architecture- it may be time for
>the pendulum to swing back again.]
Well, that is all very subjective. I won't try to defend one style
over the other. The key point at issue here, is the ammount of
manhours put into a work. You surely are not denying that the
Victorians put in much more in the way of manhours to produce a
building (on average) than now?
I thought the basic point being made in this thread was that the more
we get in the way of powertools, the less (in terms of actually
shunting atoms around) we do.
I guess the illustrative questions are.
1) If the Victorians had our capability, would they have produced
more of the same or would that technology have fundamentally changed
their output?
2) Assuming that increased technological ability changes output, why
would it seemingly result in less in the way of reorganising the
subject material?
Isn't that essentially the questions raised by Ethan?
regads
chic
Lauri Levanto
> BTW I'm not convinced at all that the technological capability drove
> the production of abstract forms.
>
Looking a more recent history; the American automotive industry
developed from plain "funkis" T-ford to the full barocque of 50's.
Tech itself does not induce bastraction. The cheapest plastic
kitchen utensils are usually most decorated. With enough
production volume the cost of 'artistic touch' is neglible.
>
> >>There is something psychologically less acceptable, I feel, about the
> >>mass reproduction of that which is recognisable, e.g.
> >>people/celebrities, landmark buildings, etc than there is for the
> >>reproduction of abstract art, but I can't put my finger on why at the
> >>moment.
>
While millions of people are happy to buy a miniature Eiffel tower,
I agree that products with personality suffer from multiplication.
Take all that Elvis rubbish.
>
> >>A related, and in some ways clearer, question has often crossed my
> >>mind, pertaining to architecture. Namely, 'If the Victorians produced
> >>such beautiful and elaborate buildings without the aid of modern power
> >>tools and materials, why have 'we' produced such banal monstrosities?'
> >>Obviously, there are always exceptions, but I suspect that a hundred
> >>years from now there will be more Victorian buildings left standing
> >>that 20th Century ones.
> >>
> >>In the architecture case, it is easier to see the economic factors.
> >>Has that been a factor in cultural art?
>
It isn't only money as such. In Victorian era the differencies in income
were larger than now. A work-intensive facad was a show-off of wealth.
A well-off family could have several servants.
My grandfather, a rural vicar had 4-5, my parents one and if
I had to share my income with a servant, it would take half of my income.
Work intensive jobs dissappear, that is the flip side of democracy.
Decorative building is work intensive, not only at production stage but in
design. The technical student's fraternity house by Reima Pietilä had
748 different windows. Somebody has to draw the production plans for each.
The carpenter had to read them and do the settings of his machinery.
Again here, we must separate abstract and minimalism.
Islamic art -the tessellations of alhambra - were abstract
while not minimalistic. Brancusi was kind of minimalist but not abstract.
> * * *
>
> I thought the basic point being made in this thread was that the more
> we get in the way of powertools, the less (in terms of actually
> shunting atoms around) we do.
>
> I guess the illustrative questions are.
>
> 1) If the Victorians had our capability, would they have produced
> more of the same or would that technology have fundamentally changed
> their output?
If the Victorians had produced more of the same, the prestige value
were inflated and they had been forced to invent something new.
That is why the European design in 60's went to expensive materials
while keeping the modern forms.
>
>
> 2) Assuming that increased technological ability changes output, why
> would it seemingly result in less in the way of reorganising the
> subject material?
Highways and skyscrapers involve reorganisation of huge volumes of material.
In the height of academic sculpture it could take a year to polish the
marble after the piece was sculpted. with present power tools
that could be done in a couple of weeks. (about 1 to 20 ratio).
The salary of present day artis and his/her potential client has maybe the
same ratio. The incomes of Medici was more that 1000 times that
of sculptor's apprentice who did the polishing.
>
>
> Isn't that essentially the questions raised by Ethan?
>
We are cheating only if we do not do the best
with our power tools.
-lauri
Fred Mason
of our work, I thought about this discussion.
It occurred to me that most folks would not want to go back to wet plates or
silver iodide treated papers to present their work to others. If using one
newer set of technology is ok, why not the others? When can I see jpegs (in
full color, naturally) of work from photos taken with pinhole camera's and
wet plates?
Don't think that I don't appreciate the work of former artists and artisans,
I'm just trying to catch up with the 20th century.
Fred
"Dan Spector" <arch...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ht8N5.18847$rl.16...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> you wrote
> >>
> >>A related, and in some ways clearer, question has often crossed my
> >>mind, pertaining to architecture. Namely, 'If the Victorians produced
> >>such beautiful and elaborate buildings without the aid of modern power
> >>tools and materials, why have 'we' produced such banal monstrosities?'
> >>Obviously, there are always exceptions, but I suspect that a hundred
> >>years from now there will be more Victorian buildings left standing
> >>that 20th Century ones.
>
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Partly I think Modern Capitalism versus Victorian Empirialism
explains alot of the architecture and art.
An Empire mentality builds for the ages- for self esteem and wow
factor and damn the cost. And the private sector builds to emulate
that ideal.
In Modern Capitalistsic societies, yes there is still some wow
factor at play, but every building and artwork ultimately becomes a
fiscal equation. How much wil it cost versus how much will it
make. This is the ethos of our times.
I look at art history and see the move from art nouveau to art deco
as clearly an economizing of art and craft. Deco was decorative on
a budget. As the west moved from empirialism to capitalism this
trend was inevitable.
Since then all architecture has become a competition of building
the most with the least- And art has tended to follow suit. Rothko
painted while Van Der Roe built, with the same less is more
aesthetic (or should I say, 'economic')
(I think the reason abstract is more comfortably reproduced, Chic,
is that it is often very similar to decorative design in its effect on the
viewer, particularly if the viewer isn't knowledgable about modern
art. The public at large tends to sees abstract art almost like
wallpaper)
To a certain extent I see that the modern techniques and
materials, coupled with the abstract and minimalist movements
have made art easier and faster to produce and this will always
tend to result in lots of hastily made crap by people who would
never have had the patience to do it in the old manner, just as the
advent of the Photoshop and Illustrator gave computer nerds
pretentions to being artistiic.
However, these developments are no different than the early
books detailing the formula for perspective drawing that suddenly
made painting realistic scenes a snap and resulted in an ocean of
renaissance painters. Sure lots of them were banal- but, hey, lots
of them were great, too.
Technology egalitizes art- and sometimes reveals new genius and
talent by making the creation of art accesible to people of differing
temperaments and drives.
Of course, it also exponentially increases the amount of crap as
well.
But this is the challenge to the artist of today- to elect which tools
and materials to use, and how to employ them to realize a vision.
If we are lacking in any area, it is in the ability to distribute
knowledge to those who need it to realize the vision they have in
mind.
While I sympathize with Battersby as I too see the terrific loss of
knowledge and ability, I also point out that the old Italians I studied
under pounced eagerly on silicone and polysulfides and gave not
a backward glance to gelatin or waste molds. And, while I cherish
the old ways that still work best for many purposes, I am overjoyed
that, although I know HOW to point up a maquette to heroic size, I
don't actually have to suffer the tedium, I can scan it and have a
machine cut the large size with perfect accuracy.
I think the best advice for guys like Battersby and myself is to make
a point of preserving the knowledge and skill we do have by
passing it on whenever possible-
Or hey, get a DV camera and an iMac and distribute an interactive
educational CD, saving your knowledge for generations to come.
If you make one, T.M., I'll buy it.
Christopher
Andrew Werby
Chic McGregor wrote in message <3a05fddb...@news.ntlworld.com>...
>On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:05:22 GMT, "Andrew Werby"
><and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Chic McGregor wrote in message <3a03b9ca...@news.ntlworld.com>...
>>
>>>This is an interesting thread, well done Ethan.
>>>
>>>Andrew, you raise an interesting point on abstraction.
>>
>>[I did?]
>
>Yes, you alluded to it (abstraction) being related to technology,
>unless I picked you up wrong.
[Maybe that was Ethan. I don't believe this.]
>
>>
>>>I would just point out that contemporary with the 'classical age'
>>>in Meditterania, Celtic Europe to the North was producing almost
>>>exclusively abstract art, and DID have technological superiority in
>>>most fields, including mould-making and metal-work. So perhaps the
>>>phenomena is not new.
>>>
>>>If this is more than coincidence, then why?
>>
>>[The ancient Celts, like contemporary Moslems, worked under a religious
ban
>>on representation of living creatures, so perforce had to derive a style
>
>Err no. In point of fact, little is known about the religious bans
>which the Celts wiorked under other than the ban placed on writing,
>even though most of the druid class knew Latin and Greek. (This ban
>was reported by classicaL writers.).
>Actually animal forms were common-place in pre-Christian Celtic art,
>though in abstract form. Bulls and Boars were amongst the most
>commonly represented. (see e.g. the Gundestrup bowl).
[I didn't make up the point about the religious ban on representation,
although since, as you point out, they didn't believe in writing things
down, all this is necessarily speculative. Works like the Gundestrup
cauldron are thought to have been made in areas subject to Roman influence,
perhaps at a time when the older beliefs were undergoing change. Older
pieces from further north seem to show very little attempt at
representation, and what figures and animals can be descried are, as you
say, highly abstracted. Since the culture was advanced technologically, this
couldn't be ascribed to manual incompetence, but perhaps it was an aesthetic
rather than religious taboo- much like the one that reigned in America from
the fifties until the eighties, when some brave souls reintroduced
figuration to the high-art world.]
>
>>independent of this sort of depiction. When Christianity took hold around
>>the beginning of the last millenium, the prohibition was removed,
accounting
>>for works like the Book of Kells, which used the twining knot-work of
>>traditional Celtic decoration in pictures of plants and animals, for a
>>hybrid Celtic/Mediterranean effect.]
>
>Knotwork is reckoned by most Celtologists to be post-Christian, but
>from an influence usually attributed to the Germanic invaders from the
>East. However, there are examples of knotwork in Celtic art prior to
>Christianity (e.g. vases from 500BC)
[Not being a Celtologist (or even knowing any), I can't say for sure, but I
recall seeing many examples from Scandinavia that predate the widespread
adoption of Christianity there (about AD 1000). Knotwork itself is just one
variety of elegant non-representational motif used by these people- they
also did a lot with spirals, etc.]
>
>
>>>
>>>Is it related to the reproductive capabilities of certain
>>>technologies, mould-making for instance?
>>
>>[The Romans certainly had access to mold-making technology, which they
used
>>for trade-goods like lamps and votive statuary. But they never went in for
>>abstract art, preferring figurative or floral motifs whenever decoration
was
>>called for.]
>>>
>
>Sure. But the Celtic mould-making capability was by far superior.
>There are still objects found that we know are mould produced by the
>micro-markings but which we do not know ghow they did it.
[What is the mystery here? Which objects?]
>
>BTW I'm not convinced at all that the technological capability drove
>the production of abstract forms.
[Me either.]
>>[The Victorians were taking advantage of modern technologies that the
>>originators of their models didn't posess, while failing to re-evaluate
the
>>motifs that came along for the ride. The acanthus capital, for instance,
>>that the Romans copied from the Corinthian Greeks, lost a little in
>>translation at that point. When the Italians of the Renaissance copied it
in
>>their turn, it lost a bit more. By the time the Victorians incorporated it
>>in banks and railway stations disguised as pagan temples, its forms were
>>almost totally devitalized. This is why the originators of the
International
>>Style, as it came to be known, felt no compunction about stripping away
this
>>lifeless veneer of ornament and letting the structural verities of their
>>buildings stand on their own. But you (and Prince Charles) are not alone
in
>>regretting the loss of visual interest in architecture- it may be time for
>>the pendulum to swing back again.]
>
>Well, that is all very subjective. I won't try to defend one style
>over the other. The key point at issue here, is the ammount of
>manhours put into a work. You surely are not denying that the
>Victorians put in much more in the way of manhours to produce a
>building (on average) than now?
[Manhours were cheaper then, relatively speaking. We put in more capital
investment, in machinery. Also, we build much bigger buildings now. As was
pointed out, the Victorians were binging on mass-produced fretwork and
"gingerbread", which was formerly much more labor-intensive to produce. ]
>I thought the basic point being made in this thread was that the more
>we get in the way of powertools, the less (in terms of actually
>shunting atoms around) we do.
[It certainly wasn't true of the Victorians. I think the effect you note is
an aesthetic preference ("less is more"), not a law of nature. We're
certainly shunting more atoms around today than ever were shunted before,
although it's true that most of them are shunted rather unaesthetically...]
>
>I guess the illustrative questions are.
>
>1) If the Victorians had our capability, would they have produced
>more of the same or would that technology have fundamentally changed
>their output?
[People who wanted an ostentatious display (as they generally did before
being chided out of their "conspicuous consumption") would most likely
produce more of the same - machine-made replication of older hand-made
forms.]
>
>
>2) Assuming that increased technological ability changes output, why
>would it seemingly result in less in the way of reorganising the
>subject material?
[Perhaps people get used to making a correspondence between the difficulty
of manipulating a material and its value when manipulated. When the
perceived ease of doing this is greater, the act of doing it is devalued. So
highly-carved furniture, for instance, was used only by the upper classes in
pre-industrial society, because it was hard to do and expensive. When it
became possible to mass-produce the effect of hand-carving, the Victorians
applied it on a large scale, making it affordable to the middle and even
working classes. This then provoked a reaction in favor of less
highly-worked surfaces which let the material speak for itself.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
David Randolph
but I
recall seeing many examples from Scandinavia that predate the widespread
adoption of Christianity there (about AD 1000). Knotwork itself is just
one
variety of elegant non-representational motif used by these people- they
also did a lot with spirals, etc.]
At that time, the Vikings had been importing Celtic produced material
for a while and thus followed the Celtic and then modifying it to their
own style. If you compare the Celtic styles in France from 400 AD to 800
AD with the Viking stuff from 600 AD to 900 AD, the similarities can be
easily seen.
Battersby
were still on the face of the earth.
<sculpt...@my-deja.com> wrote
> I think the best advice for guys like Battersby and myself is to make
> a point of preserving the knowledge and skill we do have by
> passing it on whenever possible-
> Or hey, get a DV camera and an iMac and distribute an interactive
> educational CD, saving your knowledge for generations to come.
My dad and I did a few videos before he died in 1992. One on running a
twisted shaft, another running cornice. What do you mean by interactive cd??
And where does the imac fit in??
> If you make one, T.M., I'll buy it.
> Christopher
That's a pretty big compliment, coming from you Chris. I'll be sure to get a
copy to you when the day comes.
Later,