What is Art?
Jeff Folloder
thought. What is art? Is it the process or the end result or a
combination? This has great relevance with regard to pipes. A Dunhill,
at least in years past, has/had tremendous attention to the process of
pipe making but, in my opinion much less attention to the artistic
composition. A fantastic pipe? No doubt, but boring. I see some
fantastically creative stuff coming from across the pond, but the
fundamentals of the pipe itself are sometimes suspect. Ideally, at
least in my mind, is the combination of the two. Trever calls this
"functional art." So I ask you: What is art in a pipe? Now I know
that for many of you a pipe is a pipe and art has nothing to do with
it. That's cool! But for those of you who collect with an "eye" for
certain pieces, what's up? Would you purchase a piece that you knew
would be a poor smoker simply because it looked good? Would you buy a
piece that you knew would smoke fantastic even if you did not like the
way it looked?
Trever thinks that the Marlowe might be his best smoking pipe ever. I
have no reason to doubt his insight. For me, though, there must be a
balance between function and aesthetics and the Marlowe just fell short
in my mind's eye view of a pipe (no offense, Trever). I am very
enthusiastic about collecting pipes *and* smoking everything I collect.
To me, at least, art is consumption process. You must drink in the
entirety to fully enjoy. I'm awaiting your comments and look forward to
the responses.
--
Jeff Folloder
"Damn, Mingus! How you going to play music with
just one bass note so long?" -Miles Davis
Trever Talbert
I think that applies very well to what you're saying. Everything we see is
a balance between these two, and most lean toward one or the other.
Dunhills might be 97% technique and 3% creativity, while I've seen many wild
pipes that were the opposite bias. Swing too far into technique and you
fall into the trap of lockstep perfectionism... the inability and even total
fear of fancy in favor of fanatical attention to detail. OTOH, one can make
a really grand looking pipe that might have a bowl covered with spots of
paper-thick wood and an airhole like a hedge maze. It's really down to the
individual artisan to decide which he swings toward, and also to decide if
he wants to invest effort into strengthening his weaker side or simply work
on being the best he can at what he does well. For my own part, I make what
I like to buy. I wouldn't buy a piece I knew would smoke badly just for its
shape, though I might buy one not quite perfect if I really liked it. I've
got a Dunhill, for instance, that's bent just a wee bit too much and the
airhole couldn't be centered while maintaining the style, but the curve of
the stem is the prettiest I've seen on just about any pipe and it's worth it
for that. It does smoke wetter than others and swabbing the open part of
the mortise bottom out is a pain, but it's pretty and I like it, so I don't
mind. It also helps a lot that I know the off-centered drilling was
unavoidable and not just sloppy workmanship, so I don't hold it against
them. I probably wouldn't buy anything that looked boring just for the sake
of a good smoke, since I know with a little shopping I can get both good
looks and engaging personality (This is why I only own one billiard, and I
got it in a junk store for $3). At the risk of sounding utterly sexist,
it's a lot like women, really... Do you go with the battle-axe who will have
supper on the table every night and perform her household role with rigid
perfection but zero enthusiasm, do you go with the beautiful model who's
hell to live with and has to carry 50 lbs of makeup with her everywhere, or
do you look for a mixture of the two extremes?
I should probably clarify the statement about the Marlowe - I don't think it
will be my best smoking pipe ever. I think it's one of my best finishing
jobs. Every detail of the pipe is polished - the shank is perfectly
rounded, the top of the ferrule is sanded and gleaming even though no one
will ever look at it, etc. I put more of that sort of work into the Golds
and up because of their price and rarity. It has a very different style
than some of the other stuff, but I like it because its style is internally
consistent. This is a hard thing to describe, but the pieces at least fit
together logically, and while it may look simple and less interesting than
the Cthulhu, it's true to itself. I like it because when I pick it up, I
can't pick out at least a half dozen things that I wish I'd done better.
I'm certainly not offended though, Jeff... I suspect I often inspire a sort
of love/hate reaction with my stuff. There are two kinds of creators in the
world - those who produce one successful style and then stick with it, and
those who are always changing. You can see this everywhere, from movies to
music. If you go see a movie with Arnold in it, you know what you're
getting and you know that Arnold, no matter his part, will still be playing
Arnold. OTOH, if you go see Harvey Keitel, you have no idea what the heck
he'll be playing or what the movie will be like. In music we're always
seeing the franchise groups - those who fix on one simple, likable style and
stick to it like glue, turning out album after interchangeable album. Then
you have the Jethro Tulls of the industry, who range all over the place and
cause people to say, "I liked their X phase best of all". I tend to lose a
lot of interest in the shape once it's done. I can enjoy going back and
making newer copies that improve on the limits and problems of the original,
but there's a certain stopping place where there's just no point of going
further. I could probably go full-time right now and make copies of the
Bilbo for the next year, but it would get really boring after number 12 or
so. So, to me, art is the process and not the result. The "art" of the
creation is in making it and charting new territory, then discarding it and
moving on. I know it will be controversial, but I should also add that I
really don't consider pipemaking a genuine "art"... I grant it the same
respect as a real art, but the limitations of the medium stamp it as a craft
at best to me. I tend to reserve the concept of true art for those fields
where the creators start from nothing, be it the empty air of a concert hall
or the blank white canvas. Compared to those, a pipe is very limited in
what you can do with it, and when you figure in the fact that the grain of
the wood already has its own ideas about what it wants to be, you come away
with a type of creation which is more an act of balancing existing elements
than actually creating something new. But, is IS fun!
Happy smoking,
Trever
"Meddle not in the affairs of wizards, for thou art crunchy, and taste good
with ketchup"
My correct email address is:
zoth(at)hpe(dot)infi(dot)net
www.talbertpipes.pair.com
Paul Tatum
I have bought many a pipe on the sole quality of it's looks only to have it
be a horrible smoke . These pipes sit collecting dust in the racks . OTOH ,
I am a serious billiard fan and to me the simplicity of design and excellent
smoking qualities of the billiard combine to give the ultimate smoking
experience . Yes , billiards are "boring" but that is only because we are so
used to seeing the shape .
The thing I like most about Trevers pipes is that he has meshed the
artistic design with functionality perfectly . You may note on
his web site that he states that the full bent has nearly vanished from his
designs because of the inherent problems that come with the drilling angles
and the process of twisting a moist gas around too much . The closest I've
seen him come to a full blown bent recently was The Pangea , but upon close
inspection it is noticed that the air hole is drilled to the bottom of the
bowl and is perfectly centered in the mortise with the only bend in the
whole thing appearing at the end of the stem near the bit . None of that
sideways drilling where the drill bit scrapes against the ferrule .
I would buy an ugly good smoker over a pretty decoration any day . Also , at
nearly 200 pipes I am to the point where I buy rusticated pipes mostly
because I just don't have time to keep all of them polished and shiny ,
which is how I like my smooth finished pipes . Call me lazy , but I would
rather spend that time smoking on the couch than standing by the buffing
wheel !
A lot of my Dunhill shopping over the years has been geared toward the
acquisition of the odd pieces just because Dunhill doesn't make many odd
shapes as a rule but invariably I reach for the billiards when it is time to
smoke just because , out of the Dunhill's I own , the billiards smoke better
.
Cheers !
Paul
D.P.Griffis AKA PuffMc
once. He was a vantastic man of experience both in custom furniture and
with general carpentry. He told me that no one man can define what is or
is not art in any form. What I saw as art in his furniture he saw as a
good design. This can also be seen in the post's regarding Trever
Talbert's pipes while some say his pipes are art he says they are pipes.
No more no less. Which brings me to my point. Art is in the eye of the
beholder and I dont care who you are desacrating the flag is not art.
Just thought I would throw that last part in for good messure. BTW Thank
you Clyde Huber
Jeff Folloder
Good Points!
As I said, I collect many forms of what I consider art. In those
circumstances where I have been fortunate enough to meet the works
creator, I have often been amazed at the level of dissmissiveness that I
encounter, almost bordering on self-deprecation in some cases! Being a
non artist, I find this tendency a bit disturbing. Trever can deem some
of his work merely pipes. Krasnyansky can say it was a doodle,
Brodersen can call his work therapy and a waste of material. I see art
in the work; art is beauty. It has been said that the Industrial
Revolution has been responsible for the ongoing befuddlement of
England: the end of the system known as Cottage Industry, where most
everything was produced at a home and a sale was based upon the relative
merit of the output. Well, back then, I believe the most skilled of
what Trever would call a craft were called "artisans." I think that has
a lot of merit. I believe Trever and Luigi, as well as several other
pipe makers to be artisans. To create a pipe requires no intimate
mastery of the skill. To create what artisans do requires an
understanding of balance and aesthetic, to be able to commune with the
material and create the right result.
"I don't know art, but I know what I like" speaks to those theories. If
it is beautiful to behold and is what it should be, then it is art,
regardless of the label. Sorry for the philosophy. I am rather
enjoying the public and private responses to this thread.
rpe...@mindspring.com
wrote:
Napoleon tried to stop art and fix it in one certain style, that of
neo classicism. Jaques David, the court artist, was instructed as to
what to do and had to do it that way. There were also attempts to
stop different styles of literature, music, etc.
Along came Gericault "The wreck of the Medusa" and literally screwed
up all of Napoleon's ideas in the painted arts, and Victor Hugo did a
good rip job with les Miserables.
Later in History Hitler also tried to screw the arts down and again
with no success.
As long as Picaso can take a bicycle seat and a set of handle bars and
make a bull out of them, art is what one wants it to be. So, it is in
the mind of the beholder.
P.E.
The question you ask has everything to do with the question of how you
define art. Extreme is the view: If I like it as art, it is art, if not it
is not. For instance somebody hates the Mona-Lisa, for him it is not art.
But even this person could agree to the statement that it is widly
considered as art.
In our culture art is always something that has to be locked up, mostly in
an museum. Art is something that you may not tuch, we prefer to save the
objects from aging, from the signs of use.
In this sence to me a pipe can never be art. If it would, it would loose its
"I am a pipe" quality. (Do you know the painting of MArgritte? You see a
picture of a pipe and the text in french: this is no pipe)
Personnaly I think that art always has to do something with a kind of
message, a kind of view on the world or our beiing. Also this aspect I don't
find in a pipe. (Or it should be things in general..like for instance: pipe
stands for away from modern stress.etc)
But that there is an estetic level in a pipe...no question about that. I
always buy pipes also with a look on how ik looks, and how it will feel etc.
I recently bought a Dunhill. It is not broken in yet, but it smokes very
good. However...I keep wondering what got in to me when buying this pipe
since it looks the same as the very cheap pipes you can get in a
supermarket.
Again..the question of art is a matter of definition, esthetics do matter a
lot with pipes.
But, an other question...why is it necessary to give pipes the art-status?
From the point of art in general it means a decline in the meaning of the
word art, from the point of handwork it is an implicit degrade of good
handywork or craftmenship.
Greetings,
Pascal
Jeff Folloder heeft geschreven in bericht
<36322812...@folloder.com>...
Ceryx
In article <36322812...@folloder.com>, Jeff Folloder <je...@folloder.com>
writes:
<snip>
What is art? Is it the process or the end result or a
>combination?
I believe "art" applies to *both* the creation process and the
final result.
This has great relevance with regard to pipes. A Dunhill,
>at least in years past, has/had tremendous attention to the process of
>pipe making but, in my opinion much less attention to the artistic
>composition. A fantastic pipe? No doubt, but boring. <snip>
As for the Dunhill issue, yes, most are their pipes are (to me)
boring. A lack of individuality, if you will. That is why I only have one, a
Bruyere "Quaint" 44532. And it was the *shape*, not the *grain* that I found to
be desireable. And it *is* an excellent smoker- I think largely due to the oil
curing process it goes through, which is to me part of the "art" of Dunhill,
although it is a *process*.
Ideally, at
>least in my mind, is the combination of the two. Trever calls this
>"functional art." So I ask you: What is art in a pipe?<snip>
Art in a pipe is, to me, a combination of the two- functionality and
beauty (which *is* in the eye of the beholder). Making the bowl and draft hole
are two of the most important steps in making a pipe. Without them, you can't
smoke it, or at best won't like smoking it! Some companies wouldn't know how to
make a pipe where a cleaner can get to the bowl if their existence depended on
it. I have seen pipes (albeit few) where there was absolutely NO hole ANYWHERE
in the bowl. Although these aspects of the pipe are not readily apparent
without examination, and do not necessarily add to the visual beauty of the
pipe, they are totally important in the actual functional aspect of smoking the
"artwork" itself, which is part of the art. This affects the experience of
appreciating the art. If you have an extremely beautiful pipe, let's say
perfect straight grain, but the engineering is so poor as to offer a
disappointing (or non-existent) smoking experience, it's perceived beauty is
negatively affected. To me, an unsmokable but perfectly grained pipe is not
art, at least not from this pipe smoker's viewpoint. I think that the
engineering and performance of the thing is just as important as to its looks
insofar as art is concerned.
But for those of you who collect with an "eye" for
>certain pieces, what's up? Would you purchase a piece that you knew
>would be a poor smoker simply because it looked good? Would you buy a
>piece that you knew would smoke fantastic even if you did not like the
>way it looked?
<snip>
No to both questions. If I were *forced* to choose, though, the
ugly pipe would win out. To me, the absolute most important quality of a pipe
is how well it smokes. If I can't enjoy smoking it, I don't want it.
Here endeth my ramblings.
Jeff Folloder
> But, an other question...why is it necessary to give pipes the art-status?
> From the point of art in general it means a decline in the meaning of the
> word art, from the point of handwork it is an implicit degrade of good
> handywork or craftmenship.
It is not necessary to give pipes the "art-status." Some will some will
not for basically there are to types of pipers: smokers and collectors
(although one can be both). Art is perceived beauty, albeit sometimes
with a "meaning."
A house is but a house. However some houses (Frank L. Wright comes to
mind) have an artistic element. There is beauty and art in the
composition, the harmony, the aesthetic, etc. I do believe a pipe can
have these qualities. In many cases an artist can create a truly
magnificent piece that is a pipe while a non artist would merely create
a pipe. The end result from the two are wholly different. In that
sense, it is not right to declare that a pipe artisan would represent a
decline in the meaning of the word art. We may differ on this view.
Some view a pipe as functional means to an end. Some collect pipes with
an eye to artistic composition. You may fall into the former group and
I in the latter. I see pipes that to me are abominations. In those
pipes you may see a an economical mode of tobacco consumption. To each
his own!
--
Gary Saenz
> define art. Extreme is the view: If I like it as art, it is art, if not it
> is not. For instance somebody hates the Mona-Lisa, for him it is not art.
> But even this person could agree to the statement that it is widly
> considered as art.
> In our culture art is always something that has to be locked up, mostly in
> an museum. Art is something that you may not tuch, we prefer to save the
> objects from aging, from the signs of use.
> In this sence to me a pipe can never be art. If it would, it would loose its
> "I am a pipe" quality.
I think one of the most important lessons I was taught while taking art
in college was on a field trip to the National Gallery and the Hershorn
Gallery in DC. The professor said before we got off the bus "If you
don't like the piece of art you are standing in front of, move on and
find something you like. Don't try to ponder what you hate, life is too
short."
I do think that certain art can be handled as is with a lot of public
sculpture. One thing I like about some the art coming out today is that
it asks you to interact with the space it creates, become part of the
art.
Greg Sprinkle
>Some might argue against this definition. But I'd venture to guess they
>are more likely to be the pipe collectors, and not the pipe makers.
Q. What has no arms and no legs and hangs on the wall?
A. Art
I had a final exam in Art History back in college that was this very
question...not the joke, but "what is art"? Art, is a very difficult thing
to define, but is a subjective value that we as human beings place on things
that evolve from a creative process. No one seems to universally agree about
what is and is not art. Take Jackson Pollock for example...frame your
dropcloths and call it art. I don't think so! While he may be creative, what
he produces - I cannot appreciate.
As for pipes, take a look a straight panels. Gawd!..this has got to be the
most boring shape mankind has ever devised. Bill Taylor makes a lot of them
and I know one guy that this is all he wants. He sees beauty and art in them
that I do not. All I see is two minutes on a bandsaw.
I agree with those that say art is in the eye of the beholder.
--
Greg Sprinkle
http://www.erols.com/gsprink
Jeff Folloder
> As for pipes, take a look a straight panels. Gawd!..this has got to be the
> most boring shape mankind has ever devised. Bill Taylor makes a lot of them
> and I know one guy that this is all he wants. He sees beauty and art in them
> that I do not. All I see is two minutes on a bandsaw.
Greg,
Hallelujah! Someone else who shares my sentiment regarding panels. A
friend of mine says that no matter how much I dislike 'em, I must add
them to my collection if I am to be "serious." I say rubbish! I only
buy what appeals to me and a panel always has struck me as a lazy
cop-out in pipe creation. Wow, flat sides, must take a lot of skill in
sanding that puppy. Now if you talk about, say, a bulldog shape that is
smooth and traditionally rounded on the bottom of the bowl and has eight
flat panels on the top, each ending in an arc that meets the smooth
round bowl bottom... a bit of skill here! But, a straight pipe with
four slab sides? Yech! At least to me.
Art is in the eye of the beholder and in the case of a poseur, in the
evaluation of the appraiser.
richard bies
First, on principle, I object to "art is in the eye of the beholder".
(Art is practiced by the artisan -- it lies in the relationship of the
artisan to the work of art. The beholder may be a pig.)
But I'd suggest you reconsider after trying some wood finishing, or body
work -- the most difficult surface is perfectly flat. Curves are no
sweat.
r.m.bies
Jeff Folloder
> First, on principle, I object to "art is in the eye of the beholder".
> (Art is practiced by the artisan -- it lies in the relationship of the
> artisan to the work of art. The beholder may be a pig.)
>
> But I'd suggest you reconsider after trying some wood finishing, or body
> work -- the most difficult surface is perfectly flat. Curves are no
> sweat.
Richard,
Although I will never be able to persuade you to my beliefs regarding
subjectivism, I must vigorously oppose your negation of the beholder
argument. Many philosophers and noted scholars have underscored the
fact that the ability to appreciate art is as much, if not more, a part
of art's existence than it's explicit creation. Take, for example, the
fictional scenario of a world inhabited by nothing save roaches. An
extra-terrestrial drops the "Mona Lisa" on this planet, unseen.
Thousands of roaches pass the painting each, day never taking notice.
Is it art? Not to any of the roaches! Eventually a roach gains the
power of subjective judgment. Walking past the painting, he cries out
"hey! I like that" and carries it to his roach home. Is it art now? At
least to that roach!
Art is a subjective reality. Just because a thing is caused to exist
does not mean that it is art. The duality of art requires comprehension
of its qualities to truly be art.
And as for woodworking, I do not consider my self accomplished as a
cabinet maker or a pipe maker. But I do consider myself competent
enough to make and repair many things. I have a full complement of
power tools in my garage and a fairly good knowledge of their use. To
wit, I have a bench sander in the garage. It takes no skill to insure
that the work surface is exactly perpendicular to the sanding disc. I
place my wood against the sanding surface and "presto!" it's flat. Now
I use a carpenter's square to rotate the piece just 90 degrees, press
into the sanding surface and now I have 2 flat sides at a right angle to
each other. I continue the process and now I have a square because I
went to the horrendous trouble of marking the wood with a pencil to
define the lengths of the square's sides. Gee, this was tough. Now I
assume that making a ball with a lathe should be no problem for someone
who has mastered its use. I do not have a lathe but have used one and
can say that my skill with the tools is suspect. I would gouge and pit
the wood many times before I even got close to the shape I wanted.
Everyone I talk to says mastering the production of correct curves in
wood takes plenty of skill. Since I don't have plenty, and I can make
flat surfaces...
RRuppelt
>work -- the most difficult surface is perfectly flat. Curves are no
>sweat.
>
That's for damn sure.
Buzz
Trever Talbert
info in here that it really is much easier to make a round bowl than a
square one...depending on the tools. This is one of those things. It's
hard to know how much talent a pipemaker has until you know how he makes his
shapes. A panel would be really easy to make in the way Jeff describes, if
one had a clamp to angle the pipe against the wheel, but unfortunately that
brings up a lot of nitty problems, like how to hold the pipe without
scarring it, how to deal with the back side, etc. In any case, with tools,
yes, it would probably be easier, but for those of us who shape by hand,
it's more difficult. I make almost everything I sell (thus far, with the
sole exception of the Marlowe) by holding the pipe in my fingers and turning
it against the sanding wheel, then fine-tuning the shape with files and
Dremel. In that respect, it's really a challenge to get a perfect flat side
at right angles to 4 other perfect flat sides, and have the lines down each
edge be straight. It can be done, but it's easier to just roll a round bowl
shape on the wheel. And just for the sake of bragging a little, if anyone
has ever seen the picture of Paul Tatum's pipe I made called the "Spiral
Aleglass", that one was done before I ever had a sanding wheel... the 8
flat, octagonal panel sides were done with a Dremel and a flat hand sander,
of all things, and I shaped the rounded tops of each panel by hand. Ugh,
that was without doubt the most labor intensive pipe I've ever made, with
the single exception of the Twisted Egg and something new that's crawling
out from a sepulchrous pit under the workbench...
Happy smoking,
Trever
--
Paul Tatum
. When Trev gave it to me for Xmas a few years back I was amazed right off
at how carefully all of the panels matched . It has four main panels and
four secondary panels on the corners . The top and bottom of the pipe are
rounded giving each of the eight panels a rounded upper and lower line . The
front panel rounds down into the bottom of the bowl and the rear panel is
draped around the shank ( it is a 1/4 bent ) . This is the most fascinating
panel in that the stem looks as if it is growing out of a flat surface that
extends nearly half way down the root of the shank .
The rim of the bowl is interesting as well in that if you were to just go
sanding along to make it rounded it would kill the lines of the panels .
Trever was able to round the rim at a nice radius from the chamber to the
side ( about 1/4 -1/2 inch thick ) while still maintaining the integrity of
the panel shape's . This was done for eight panels no less .
Granted , most pipe makers can whip out a panel on the machine with no
effort in a few minutes but we're not talking about machine made pipes .
Regardless of what anyone says , I consider pipe carving an artform done by
the right person . Art or Craft ? That depends on the person , do they Make
pipes or Create pipes ? The latter is art .
Hmm , all this talk about The Spiral Aleglass is making my mouth water . I
think I will go pack it full of Cross Eyed Cricket for the showing of '
Curse Of The Demon 'on AMC tonight ...
D.P.Griffis AKA PuffMc
Paul Tatum
pipe but it looked terrible .
Paul Tatum
issue that featured the pipe carving contest winners ...
D.P.Griffis AKA PuffMc
it can find a gooooooooood home <G>
Paul Tatum
until eleven . Whew , it is huge ... What a great smoker though .
Stephen P. Smith
>I only
>buy what appeals to me and a panel always has struck me as a lazy
>cop-out in pipe creation. Wow, flat sides, must take a lot of skill in
>sanding that puppy. Now if you talk about, say, a bulldog shape that is
>smooth and traditionally rounded on the bottom of the bowl and has eight
>flat panels on the top, each ending in an arc that meets the smooth
>round bowl bottom... a bit of skill here!
Actually, I own a Ferndown that matches that description. Beautiful
pipe, that. I own a few rather off-beat panels. The panel can be a
very attractive pipe, if it's done right.
Steve Smith
^
~~ ~~ ^
@ ~ @~~ ^
^
\/ ^
~~ ~~ ^
<>-------0
\/
-A portrait of the pipe smoker as a young man-
"taking up a glowing cinder with the tongs and lighting with it the
long cherry-wood pipe which was wont to replace his clay when he was
in a disputatious rather than a meditative mood" -- Dr. John H. Watson
Stephen P. Smith
>Hmm , all this talk about The Spiral Aleglass is making my mouth water . I
>think I will go pack it full of Cross Eyed Cricket for the showing of '
>Curse Of The Demon 'on AMC tonight ...
Funny how "Curse of the Demon" made you think of "Cross Eyed Cricket".
;>)
Stephen P. Smith
creation. This is why mass produced billiards, for example, however
well done, cannot be perceived as art.
Trever is at the very opposite extreme. Having had the pleasure of
meeting him in person and on-line, I can state unequivocally that he
an Artist, in both output and outlook. His pipes are true
"creations", they reflect the soul of their creator. I honestly
believe that Trever would continue making pipes even if no one ever
bought them; his soul would whither if he didn't. A friend of the
composer Debussy once wrote: "Talent does what it can; Genius does
what it must."
Most artisan pipe makers fall well within these two extremes. The
beautiful pipes of Les Wood and W.O. Larsen spring to mind. Both
these men create truly beautiful pipes, and yet they are, first and
foremost, smoking pipes. Are they art? Some will say yes, and some
will say no.
So while we have two readily identifiable extremes in this debate, I
rather suspect the overwhelming preponderance of this discussion will
have to fall in the gray area.
Skydog
Whether it is acceptable or not to a public eye does nothing to subvert the
thing's value as art. Only the artist, given sufficent mastery of the craft
to express the idea, is able to determine whether or not the art has merit.
Public acceptance may or may not provide a monetary value for the art, but
does little to justify the art's creation in the first place.
By some, art is only art if it is commercially successful. There are many
artists who's work is never subjected to public scrutiny. Is it any less
art?
Regards,
Gregory
Paul Tatum
>bought them; his soul would whither if he didn't.
I ask you , how could something already charred , black and crispy whither ?
"Thy food is such as hath been belch'd upon by infected lungs." - Pericles
Trever Talbert
art and product. For myself, at least, the creation is art until it is
finished, and the moment it's done it becomes "product" and I lose interest
in it. I like a lot of my pipes; I'd like to keep a lot of my pipes, but
once they're finished they become static and there's nothing else I can do
with them but smoke them. The art of the thing is in its state of
"becoming" - the transition from lump of wood to polished form, at least for
me. To a writer or a painter, the most intimidating thing in the world is a
blank white expanse, and it's also the most potential-filled thing going.
It literally IS potential - the endless expanse of possibility, and whatever
the imagination can conceive can be projected onto the canvas. It's scary
because the blank white is already a state of perfection in and of itself,
and it carries the hefty weight of, "I'm perfect already. If you're going
to mark me, you'd better be good." Briar is different, and less imposing,
but I still curse whenever I come upon a flaw and have to discard a pipe,
because I always feel like I didn't manage to get the pipe out of the wood
that I was supposed to... that there was a better shape there and now the
block is ruined. Still, I think I probably have a more consistent success
rate with briar than some, because I don't really end up with tons and tons
of rejects, though there are plenty. This disparate attitude toward the
work is what's behind my no-doubt bizarre responses sometimes... when it
comes to creation and shape, I want to do my own thing and sometimes rudely
resist the requests of others to do shapes for them, but after the pipe is
finished it becomes product and my practical side takes over and treats it
as such, working on good customer relations and after-the-sale happiness.
I think one of the most amusing examples of this I've ever seen was in a
course of several episodes of the television series "Northern Exposure".
Maurice, the show's rich and crass fellow, hired a professional violinist to
evaluate a rare million dollar violin for him. Satisfied that it was the
genuine article, Maurice purchased the violin and immediately proceeded to
lock it in his safe to increase in value, so his investment would pay off.
The violinist went nuts, telling him the instrument was meant to be played
and had no meaning in a safe (prompting the response, "Meaning? Of course
it has meaning... 1 point 5 million dollars of meaning!"). This is largely
how I feel when I hear of people buying pipes just for their collector
value, and not smoking them (though I doubt I'll be blowing up anyone's
truck anytime soon, so you can relax, Rob...<g>). Smoking is nice because
it's a balance between creation and destruction. Art, after all,
accumulates, and eventually becomes its own Darwinian system whereby the
largest and strongest either drive everything else out of sight or force
everything else to become like them to survive. The nice thing about pipes
is that, if used, they will eventually wear out on their own and vanish, to
make room for the next wave of makers. I'm flattered by the idea that a few
of my pipes might become treasured heirlooms and outlast me, but I'd really,
really hate to think that my work might still be floating around the used
pipe market of the future and contributing to the estate pipe-based
destruction of new pipemaking industries. The mantra of, "Why pay full
price for a new pipe when I can buy a 1960 Dunhill for $100?" is becoming a
real thorn in the side of today's pipemakers, largely due to its
shortsightedness... if everyone stops buying new pipes in favor of old ones,
soon there won't be any new pipes coming out to be the old ones of the
future. (Philosophically, this is right up there with, "Why NOT bulldoze
all those trees down for a new development? People have to live somewhere,
after all!" on the really non-seeing scale) In this respect of
self-consumption, pipes are very appealing to me as a combination of the
traits of performance art and static art - they're not completely transitory
but they're not infinitely enduring, either. Painting in acrylics always
carried this really odd effect, at least for me, of knowing that - barring
natural disasters and knife-wielding critics - what I was painting was
literally going to last the next thousand years... in most cases the
painting would outlast the canvas it was done on.
My own view, odd though it may be, is that almost all that we accept
casually as art is actually product, and commodity product at that. Art
galleries are great places to be, but they're not enshrined halls of human
accomplishment. Instead, I tend to see them as repositories for the
half-remembered dreams of generations past... most creators I know, myself
included, usually see a much better image in their minds of what they want
than the result that finally springs from their hands, so at best our
galleries are filled with partial successes. Then others come along, assign
their own values and ideas to the flawed result, and tag a market value on
it. Instantly the thing is transformed from a living and growing piece of
art into a selling product. The monetary value is rarely in tune with the
creator's value (What I like and think is good is very rarely what anyone
else likes and thinks is good - something which is true for many artists
I've talked to in every medium. It's very interesting to note just which
people will actually come up and fixate on a particular piece that I've
personally really liked... they're quite a minority, usually), and
eventually the product flies off on its own and assumes an individual
identity, complete with empirical assessments of its worth from every side.
It's a fascinating process to watch, really. For example, Stephen Smith was
right in guessing that I would make pipes regardless of whether any sold or
not. I make them because it's fun to make them, not in an attempt to get
rich or dominate the market. Where they go, and what value they eventually
assume, is entirely up to them and whatever quality others assign to them.
And whether or not they are art falls into that same category - it's for the
viewer to decide what he thinks art is, and, of course, just how much "art"
he will pay for. I look at that portion of value as innate "quality", not
art, and everything has it in varying amounts. When I was showing my pipes
to tobacconists 2 years ago, no one knew my name and they all thought I was
a hobbyist, and I doubt you'd have found many who would have paid $100 for a
pipe, much less considered it "art". Most people probably looked at my
pipes and thought, "Wow, that's neat... he does nice crafty stuff in his
garage". For my part, I was as serious then as I am now about my creations,
and will still be even if everything completely stops selling tomorrow as
I'm forgotten for the next "Flavor of the Month". I'd much rather be like
Jethro Tull or Yes... plugging along and making music I like for years and
years to a small audience, rather than producing vapid stuff just for a big
"Top 10" hit to rake in major money, and then vanish thereafter. I suppose
that's enough rambling for the moment - time to get back to the sander!
Happy smoking,
Trever
--
"And the first moths of summer, suicidal, came. .. to join in the worship of
the light that never dies...in a moment's reflection of two moths spinning
in her eyes"
http://www.talbertpipes.pair.com
The "Reply-To" address above is spam proof. My correct email address is
zoth(at)hpe(dot)infi(dot)net.
Stephen P. Smith
>Indeed. Art is not objective, but merely the expression of an artist.
>Whether it is acceptable or not to a public eye does nothing to subvert the
>thing's value as art. Only the artist, given sufficent mastery of the craft
>to express the idea, is able to determine whether or not the art has merit.
>Public acceptance may or may not provide a monetary value for the art, but
>does little to justify the art's creation in the first place.
Mozart was once chastised by his publisher for not writing music in a
more "popular" style. Mozart replied that if he were going to start
writing just to please the audience, then he might as well "lay down
[his] pen and die".
>By some, art is only art if it is commercially successful. There are many
>artists who's work is never subjected to public scrutiny. Is it any less
>art?
None of Schubert symphonies were ever performed during his all to
short lifetime. Few would argue that they are not "art".
Stephen P. Smith
>>Trever would continue making pipes even if no one ever
>>bought them; his soul would whither if he didn't.
>
>I ask you , how could something already charred , black and crispy whither ?
Nah, it just has a healthy cake built up on it. ;>)
Mario Treglia
fourdotsR...@ma.ultranet.com (Stephen P. Smith) wrote:
> Thus spake Skydog (Gregory Pease) <sky...@value.net>:
>
> >Indeed. Art is not objective, but merely the expression of an artist.
> >Whether it is acceptable or not to a public eye does nothing to subvert the
> >thing's value as art. Only the artist, given sufficent mastery of the craft
> >to express the idea, is able to determine whether or not the art has merit.
> >Public acceptance may or may not provide a monetary value for the art, but
> >does little to justify the art's creation in the first place.
>
> Mozart was once chastised by his publisher for not writing music in a
> more "popular" style. Mozart replied that if he were going to start
> writing just to please the audience, then he might as well "lay down
> [his] pen and die".
>
> >By some, art is only art if it is commercially successful. There are many
> >artists who's work is never subjected to public scrutiny. Is it any less
> >art?
>
> None of Schubert symphonies were ever performed during his all to
> short lifetime. Few would argue that they are not "art".
>
> Steve Smith
a state of mind?
peace
Mario Treglia
Tokyo/JAPAN
--
----------------------------------------
Tha Hell With God,
All I want is Peace
----------------------------------------
richard bies
On 4 Nov 1998, Mario Treglia wrote:
> In article <363f1b58...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
> fourdotsR...@ma.ultranet.com (Stephen P. Smith) wrote:
>
> > Thus spake Skydog (Gregory Pease) <sky...@value.net>:
> >
> > >Indeed. Art is not objective, but merely the expression of an artist.
> > >Whether it is acceptable or not to a public eye does nothing to subvert the
> > >thing's value as art. Only the artist, given sufficent mastery of the craft
> > >to express the idea, is able to determine whether or not the art has merit.
> > >Public acceptance may or may not provide a monetary value for the art, but
> > >does little to justify the art's creation in the first place.
> >
> > Mozart was once chastised by his publisher for not writing music in a
> > more "popular" style. Mozart replied that if he were going to start
> > writing just to please the audience, then he might as well "lay down
> > [his] pen and die".
> >
> > >By some, art is only art if it is commercially successful. There are many
> > >artists who's work is never subjected to public scrutiny. Is it any less
> > >art?
> >
> > None of Schubert symphonies were ever performed during his all to
> > short lifetime. Few would argue that they are not "art".
> >
> > Steve Smith
>
> a state of mind?
>
<Whose> mind, artist or beholder?
r.m.bies
RRuppelt
I've studied art. I have critiqued art. I own art. Yet, I find that I have
no idea what it is. Maybe therein lies the definition. Art is felt.
Best regards,
Buzz
Mark Peeples
Either. Ever seen a '61 Caddy fender hung on a wall??!!!
Mark
Mario Treglia
richard bies <bi...@infobahn.icubed.com> wrote:
Not wishing to get myself trapped in rethoric here but, I can't conceive
art being art, without the artist putting himself in the beholder's shoes.
In other words, can art be art if it doesn't tell nor touch *THE BEHOLDER*
in anyway? Mozart the *ARTIST* wouldn't write music to please the
audience, but to please Mozart the *BEHOLDER*.
peace
Mario Treglia (certified lunatic and very much proud of it)
Bill Triplett
observe it. Art does not need to be beautiful. My three year old can see a
blank piece of paper a box of crayons and just draw whatever comes to mind,
changing streams several times. I don't know what it is, but it is a
projection of her imagination, influenced by her view of the world. Whether
it is *good* or *bad* does not matter. It is art. I don't think art needs
to be appreciated to be art, nor do I think that just because something is
appreciated for its craftsmanship, its beauty ect makes it art.
We are capable of creating very little. You can't create a chair.
Everything that goes into a chair already exists. You're just rearranging,
reshaping. When a picture is taken with a camera, that is not art. When a
camera is used as a tool to create an image that is in the imagination of
the photographer so that the image matches what he sees in his head, it
becomes art.
You can look at a piece of art and think that it is beautiful, ugly,
inspiring, uninspiring, useful, stupid, awe inspiring, boring or intensely
interesting. None of these is what makes it art. As an observer, you can
make it art or not art. You can only observe. The one who makes it art is
the one who used his imagination to *create* something that is in at least
some way unique and decided to express it.
I believe that imagination is the most underused asset we as a people have.
It is the wellspring of art in all its forms, our dreams. It is the
springboard for research and inventions. It is what allows my wife to lay
in the dark and pretend I'm 20 years younger and a pound or two lighter. :)
The most amazing thing about God is His imagination. Think about the beauty
of perfect flower, a perfect sunset. How He imagine these things that had
never been before and spoke them into creation. Now that's art.
--
-------------------
Bill Triplett
-------------------
Stephen P. Smith
>a state of mind?
Hey Mario! Where've you been? Welcome back, kiddo!
Nephilum
Yeah! Hey Mario, e-mail me at the above address. I have a question for you.
Sorry I'm not De-spam savy. :)
Guinness to you,
The Neph