Further considerations on facets of WT art
Lyn J. Mangiameli
This is kind of an open letter.
Gee, I didn t anticipate the positive response that I have received on
my incomplete article from fellow turners. John Jordan and Cindy Drozda,
you have convinced me that it may have the makings of a publishable
article, one that might be useful as well as informative. Thank you to
many who by email, at the WC forum, and at the newsgroup have helped
expand on and challenge the ideas contained. Cindy, I like your idea of
expanding the article to include statements, and perhaps a little dialog
between exemplars of the various facets. So, I m posting the current
slightly revised and expanded version of the article at the end of this,
and calling for formal comments and essays on it, particularly from
those who represent one of the facets. I ll also try to arrange contact
(perhaps with the help of some of you out there) with some of the
representatives of the other facets, such as the galleries and major
collectors. I don t think we have a book here, but I do think we may
have an extended article or chapter, of which my remarks could be the
introduction. I ll edit (with permission) some of the contributions and
lets see what we end up with.
This may be just a big flop, but it could turn into an interesting
experiment in using the interactive abilities of the internet to pull
something together of value.
Lyn
Three Facets of Woodturned Art: An incomplete consideration.
Many of us approach wood turned art as creators, some of us are also
collectors or regularly deal with collectors, and a few of us interact
with the intermediaries between the creator and the collector the
galleries, museums and craft fair organizers. I m not an expert with
respect to any of these facets of woodturned art, but I do find it
interesting to consider the different contributions and perspectives
that each of these groups have brought, and continue to bring, to the
rise in stature and continued production of woodturnings intended as
art. So in this brief survey, I m going to offer some thoughts and
describe some resources that have helped me increase my own
understanding of and appreciation for these three interrelated aspects
of woodturned art objects. The following thoughts are not fully
developed, and the resources incomplete, but perhaps they may serve to
generate a fuller discussion of the topic.
The Creators:
This aspect, understandably, is the one wood turners have the most
familiarity with. The definitive discussion of the pioneering turners is
presented in the book Woodturning in North America since 1930 [WTNA]
which was published in 2001. This book is a history geared towards both
turners and collectors alike. A briefer but nicely illustrated history
of the early developers of woodturned art has been put forward by Kevin
Wallace in the first of two articles he has done for the magazine
American Style (Fall 2002, issue 30). This article is clearly written
for the collector, but will be of equal interest to the turner. Both
Wallace and WTNA describe the pioneers such as Prestini, Stocksdale,
Osolnik, and the Lindquists, and both provide interesting little
anecdotes and biographical tidbits about these and other trail blazing
turners. There are also two books which specialize in providing brief
biographical statements of the elder statesmen of woodturned art (though
the turners presented were contemporary at the time of the books first
publication): Master Woodturners by Dale Nish, 1985; The Art of Turned
Wood Bowls: A Gallery of Contemporary Masters And More by Edward
Jacobson, 1985. Many of a later generation of turners have been well
profiled in the books from the late photographer/turner Tony Boase:
Woodturning Masterclass and Bowl Turning Techniques Masterclass. All of
these give some limited insight into the motivations and lifestyles of
those who seek to produce woodturned art, and in addition, show us the
forms that initially defined what was considered an artistic turning.
Obviously, the creation of woodturned art, and how it is defined, is
ongoing and expanding. Some of the best profiles of contemporary
creators of woodturned art are found in the pages of the magazine
Woodwork. Woodwork is a bimonthly slick paper magazine which describes
itself as A Magazine For All Woodworkers, but has a strong focus on
the studio furniture movement and woodturning as art. The magazine has
been around for a little over a decade, and regularly has a gallery that
includes examples of fine artistic turnings. About a third of the issues
have had a profile of a woodturner and their work. Recent issues have
profiled Kevin Wallace and his cutting edge turnings (April 2003, issue
80), Merryl Saylan (June 2002, issue 75), Michael Hosaluk (August 2001,
issue 70), and Betty Scarpino (February 2000, issue 61), to name just a
few. The magazine also has run an article by Kevin Wallace, The Past
and Future of Wood Art (August 2002, issue 75) that both expands on and
parallels his writings for American Style.
The Intermediaries:
The intermediaries are the galleries, museums and craft fairs. I think
this is the group least understood by both the typical woodturner and
the typical collector. These people are highly influential in
determining which turners and thus what individual styles and pieces
will be brought to the collectors attention. To that extent, in many
respects, they have at least as much power in defining what will be
considered wood art, as either the creator or the collector. Wallace
does a good job of describing this in his article for Woodwork magazine
listed earlier.
Though as much as a matter of historical curiosity as for current
understanding, Wallace tells us of the early craft fairs (e.g., the
American Craft Council s East Coast/West Coast 1978 exchange in San
Francisco), and their role in exposing and fostering early wood artists.
This role cannot be underestimated in any discussion of woodturned art.
The craft fair was one of the principle means of achieving financial
support for those wishing to create artistic turnings. East Coast events
such as the Rhinebeck Craft Fair provided a venue for turners like the
Lindquists, Giles Gilson and Al Stirt. The West Coast craft fair circuit
similarly offered opportunities for turners like Dell Stubbs and William
Hunter. On the other hand, juried craft fairs, like galleries, can serve
as a significant filter of what work is brought to public attention.
Certain galleries were early to accept woodturnings as art, and along
with others, continue to bring wood art to the public s attention. The
del Mano gallery (http://www.delmano.com/ ) is one of the most well
known, but Martha Connell s gallery in Atlanta
(http://www.craignutt.com/gallery/connell.htm) is another of venerable
standing. Martha, is particularly interested in the development of
turners over their career, and a tour through her usually closed lower
cabinets is like a walk through the modern history of turning. Other
prominent galleries, though relative new comers, include the Patina
Gallery in Santa Fe
(http://www.santafegalleries.net/Galleries/patina.htm ), the gallery
materia in Scottsdale, (http://www.gallerymateria.com/ ) and the Duane
Reed Gallery of Chicago and St. Louis (http://www.rduanereedgallery.com/
) and the Heller Gallery in New York City (http://www.hellergallery.com/
). A good gallery not only selects work for display (and thus places
their own stamp of approval on it), but educates the collector in the
medium, the artist, and the style.
An interesting new twist on the traditional gallery is the rise of the
internet gallery. While a number of woodturners have websites with
photos of their work, some of which is priced for sale, an approach more
similar to a traditional gallery is created in cyberspace by places like
Guild.com (http://www.guild.com/ ). Guild.com presents the works of such
familiar turners as Christian Burhard, Art Liestman and Binh Pho, which
are offered for prices that you would associate with any traditional
gallery.
It is amusing to read the introductory text of Edward Jacobson s book
(listed earlier), where he tells the story of how he was one of the
first to bring wood art (namely his private collection) to the attention
of museum directors as he was entertaining them during their stay in his
home town for a convention. Today, we have woodturned art well
represented in The American Craft Museum in New York, the Arizona State
University Nelson Fine Arts Center in Tempe, the Detroit Museum, the
High Museum in Atlanta, the Mint Museum in Charlotte, The Renwick
Gallery in Washington D.C., to name only a few, but as recently as 1981,
such exhibits were virtually none existent. Though late in the
Intermediary chain, museums do much to determine which turners and what
style of turnings come to public attention, and act as a significant
confirmatory of the choices collectors have made.
More an auxiliary organization than an intermediary, there is also the
Wood Turning Center (http://www.woodturningcenter.org/) established by
Alfred LeCoff in 1986. Wallace, WTNA, and the Wood Turning Center s own
books (e.g., the Challenge Series see my article at Andi Wolfe s website
http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~awolfe/COW/wolfe.html for their
description) and periodical Turning Points, all describe LeCoff s
successful efforts to guide and develop woodturning as an art form, and
to organize symposia and exhibitions to foster that intent.
The Collectors:
Collectors are of obvious importance, for they make creation of
woodturned art, financially viable not just in the present, but also
with respect to the future. By the art they choose, they also play a
role in defining what will and will not be considered desirable and
valuable wood art. Many also assume the role of sharing their
collections with others, by gifts to museums, sponsoring exhibitions,
and providing the substance for books which may or may not be associated
with exhibitions. Kevin Wallace, in the second of his two articles for
American Style (Winter 2002-2003, issue 31) describes the significance
of collectors, and acquaints those uninitiated with the type of people
drawn to collecting. Wallace quotes David Ellsworth as saying
Collectors&can influence an artist s work, as their purchases allow the
continued exploration of a particular series or approach. In a sense,
collectors take on the role of patron, enabling the artist s continued
growth. And by providing validation and exposure for this relatively new
art form, they have also have been responsible for new artists taking up
the medium.
Prominent and influential collectors include Edward Jacobson (his book
described earlier), Jane and Arthur Mason (Turning Wood Into Art: The
Jane and Arthur Mason Collection, 2000) who credit seeing Jacobson s
collection for sparking their interest, Robyn and John Horn who maintain
a friendly rivalry with the Mason s Robyn being a noted wood artist as
well (Living With Form: the Horn Collection of Contemporary Crafts),
Bohlen (The Fine Art of Wood: The Bohlen Collection), Ron and Anita
Wornick (Expressions in Wood: Masterworks from the Wornick Collection,
1996), and David and Ruth Waterbury. Sadly, one of the first and most
loved of the major collectors, Irving Lipton, died not that long ago in
2001.Wallace also provides a nice brief profile of a less exalted but
serious collector, Joe Seltzer, who has more than 600 turnings, many of
them miniatures.
Collectors can also offer the opportunity to see the way they present
their acquisitions within their own homes. Seeing turnings in a home
setting (even though many of these homes bear little resemblance to the
typical turner s home), can provide ideas not only about how turnings
can be displayed to good advantage, but also it can provide ideas about
designs one might wish to develop to fill a particular type of space, or
compliment a specific style of setting. The second of Wallace s articles
for American Style is almost entirely illustrated with photos of wood
art in its daily surroundings. An earlier issue of American Style
(Winter 2000-2001, issue 23) has an article on the collections (not just
of wood) of Margaret Pennington, where we see turnings displayed about
her mansion, including the Mark Lindquist ground breaking wood
sculpture, Silent Witness #1/Oppenheimer.
One of the best ways to keep in touch with the activities of the most
serious of wood art collectors is to visit the Collector s of Wood Art
website: http://www.collectorsofwoodart.org./ or attend one of their
semiannual meetings that are often timed to coincide with the SOFA
(Sculpture Objects, Functional Art) Expositions. This organization was
spearheaded by Robyn Horn and has grown into an influential group which
includes most of the collectors listed above. Its development as a group
is clearly delineated in their newsletter (available at their website)
and is summarized in the article The Past and Future of Wood Art
Wallace wrote for Woodwork magazine (Vol. 56, August 2002). As Wallace
notes, while the CWA s mission has been to expose and educate potential
collectors to wood art, the influence of this largely well healed group
of collectors cannot be underestimated. Coming to the attention of this
group, and meeting with its approval can bring a prominence and
financial reward to a turner that reap rewards for many years to come.
The down side of this is that such a small number of people can have a
powerful influence in determining what will be defined as successful and
desirable wood art and indirectly determine what even established
galleries will seek to present.
Before ending, these brief considerations, I can t resist pointing out
Richard Raffan s acerbic critique of woodturned art, which masquerades
as a review of the book Wood Turning in North America (Woodwork, Vol.
64, August 2002). In much the same spirit as his article well over a
decade earlier ( Current Work in Turning: Do High Gallery Prices Make It
Art, in Fine Woodworking, Nov. 1987, Vol 67), Raffan reveals his
disdain for those who seek to promote their turnings as nonfunctional
art. A brief quote can serve to represent Raffan s view: &we should
begin to take a long hard look at what woodturners, lathe artists,
wood-lathe artisans call them what you will have produced, especially if
they wish to be taken seriously as Artists with a capital A. Consider
also that much of what is promoted as art is at best a technical
achievement and no more than a mediocre decorative object which no
amount of verbiage can elevate. Virtuosity for virtuosity s sake creates
some impressive objects, but are they art? Very rarely. Raffan expands
on these remarks, while taking several established turners to task.
While I find his critique to reveal a rather narrow perspective if not
being outright egocentric (which I suspect will be at least somewhat
apparent to others who are familiar with Raffan s own history and
style), it is a critique, something that is actually rather little found
in the discussion of woodturnings as art objects. Other areas of the
arts have an established body of art critics but to my knowledge most
evaluative commentary of woodturned objects has been in the form of
(usually gentle) peer review. Perhaps when we have an active fourth
facet of non-turners who regularly choose to critically discuss the
merit of woodturned objects, we really will know that woodturned objects
have reached a parity with other forms of artistic expression.
The point of all of this can summarized by expanding on an observation
originally made by the wood turner Russ Fairfield. The issue of whether
woodturnings can be considered objects of art is already settled. Enough
turnings have been acquired by collectors and exhibited in museums and
galleries of fine art to have determined that point. However, one must
be mindful that a group of woodturners sitting together in a room, and
defining something as "art" does not make it so, nor does the production
of those aspiring to be (or self anointed) creators of woodturned art.
The definition of what is art will be made not by the artists
themselves, but by a greater population which includes collectors, craft
fair jurists, gallery managers, museum curators and independent art
critics. On the other hand, there is nothing for the others to judge, if
there are no creations put forward by turners for judging. In order to
be complete, any discussion of woodturnings as objects of art must
consider the multiple perspectives of all who have influence on its
definition. Hopefully this article has helped to develop a greater
understanding of some of those perspectives.
Bill Luce
realized that my motives were fundamentally based on cowardice and
conflict avoidance. I realize it sets me up as an additional target,
and I could never have the energy to respond up to the level of the
input postings, but I can stop myself no longer.
I am very offended by the antagonistic flavor of this section of the
posting (directed toward Richard), and am not sure it is really
contributes well to the overall message and quality of the posting. I
must confess my surprise that I am the only person that is upset by
the tone of this section.
The quotes selected of Richard's are chosen fairly well to present a
strong view, but I feel the treatment here too comfortably dismisses
any validity to what Richard has said. I have heard over a dozen
world class and well respect turners bemoan the fact that much
woodturning work that is presented, promoted and sold as fine art is
lacking in the basic fundamentals of excellent form, artistic balance
and composition, and basically is not great art.
To be an excellent article, in my view the posting needs to stick to
the real issues of position. In fact Richard's position (strong as
it is) is an important facet of the larger subject the article
purports to treatise.
I will stop now as I am upset enough to be in danger of written words
that would make me further guilty of some of the very characteristics
to which I am reacting to in the original posting.
And I apologize to the reader that I am not as articulate and well
written as the original poster. I am sure that it will be easy to
intersperse my text with comments that show me to be the fool I must
be. But I was ashamed of myself for waiting to long to go on record.
Bill Luce
Lyn J. Mangiameli
forward a sincere and thoughtful (though as you admit, a strong)
reaction, and that was the hoped for result of putting the article forward.
Interestingly, Richard and I have corresponded on the article, and he
seems to not to be distressed with my comments. While he may not fully
agree with them, he appreciated that I gave him credit for being one of
a tiny few who have been offering a level of critique that has been much
lacking. I have asked, and he is seriously considering, being one of the
commentators on the article, should it reach a point of some significant
publication.
Raffan did not mince words in his articles (and I have the benefit of
having read them all in their entirety), and I believe my explication of
his critiques reflected that. He has done us a service by offering such
critiques, but in the end, I feel critiques of that nature will always
be compromised when provided by one of the (for lack of a better phrase)
high profile personality turners. I think the same problem exists with
respect to others of similar position who offer their critique, such as
David Ellsworth. In a seperate thread, I note how some have mentioned
that David has used his influence to advocate the proper style to finish
a bottom, which not coincidentally is the way it happens to be done on
his turnings. I think that any artist/turner of this stature is at least
somewhat egocentric in their position, as at some level they are always
justifying and promoting their own body of work. (Which is why I
commented that Richard's comments could be understood in the context of
his own background.)Thus some suggest, and I still believe, that
woodturned art will be best served and more fully recognized when
critique on artistic merit begins to take place outside of the body of
turners. I believe it requires an seperate constituency, one apart from
the turners and collectors and those with a fiscal intermediary
interest, to be justified as a fourth facet.
So Bill, I appreciate your comments as they help us all more fully
explore the issues associated with what I wrote. I'll also add, despite
my biased roles as turner and collector, that I find many of your
turnings to be first rate and viewing them brings me considerable pleasure.
Lyn
Owen Lowe
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Raffan did not mince words in his articles (and I have the benefit of
> having read them all in their entirety), and I believe my explication of
> his critiques reflected that.
A few months back I read Richard's piece in WTINA and am currently
reading his Turned Bowl Design book. The underlying message I believe I
am reading is that a turning's primary purpose is to be functional. If
the form of a bowl does not allow it to perform the duties of a bowl
(i.e., stable containment of objects, ease of grasping) then the form
fails in comparison to other shapes that accomplish those things.
I would be curious to know if Richard believes that woodturnings _can_
qualify as "art" and, if so, what work he feels is deserving of the
label.
Like I said, it's been months since I read the WTINA piece - does he
give indications as to what he would accept as turned art?
(should RR like to respond privately, I'm all ears)
BTW, this whole art vs. craft thing wears me out! Whether or not I've
ever made a piece of art, I don't know. I do know that I've tried my
best to put all the skill of the craft I've attained into my efforts.
_____
American Association of Woodturners
Cascade Woodturners Assoc., Portland, Oregon
Northwest Woodturners, Tigard, Oregon
_____
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Owen Lowe wrote:
>
> A few months back I read Richard's piece in WTINA and am currently
> reading his Turned Bowl Design book. The underlying message I believe I
> am reading is that a turning's primary purpose is to be functional. If
> the form of a bowl does not allow it to perform the duties of a bowl
> (i.e., stable containment of objects, ease of grasping) then the form
> fails in comparison to other shapes that accomplish those things.
>
> I would be curious to know if Richard believes that woodturnings _can_
> qualify as "art" and, if so, what work he feels is deserving of the
> label.
>
> Like I said, it's been months since I read the WTINA piece - does he
> give indications as to what he would accept as turned art?
The two references in my article are both places where Richard has
discussed this fairly directly. Both, IMO, are well worth reading, and
for some will be rather eye opening, as clear expositions of Raffan's views.
>
> BTW, this whole art vs. craft thing wears me out! Whether or not I've
> ever made a piece of art, I don't know. I do know that I've tried my
> best to put all the skill of the craft I've attained into my efforts.
My article never took up this issue, but was focused on woodturned
objects represented (at least by someone) as objects of art. Frankly I
think one of the reasons why the craft vs art distinction is never well
resolved is because it places in opposition two constructs that are
neither unique nor even on the same spectrum. Was Da Vinci an artist or
a craftsman when he painted his famous portrait? How about lesser
portrait painters in the days before photography?
Lyn
Charles Bjorgen
of...), this whole discussion takes me back to the same kinds of
discussions that revolved around the same questions in the world of
photography. There are many, many names in the photo world that are
indentified with artistic photography, names such as Weston, Adams,
Cartier-Bresson, Strand, etc. Then this discussion becomes somewhat
blurred when one starts to include the great photojournalists that are
lumped into the artistic category (the Life and Look Magazine photogs).
I recall as a college student majoring in photojournalism, I did a
research paper on the publication "Camera Work" done back in the early
1900's by the famous photographer Alfred Stieglitz. The publication was
aimed at promoting photography as an art form. In one of the issues I
recall Stieglitz writing: "there is no art, there are only artists."
Whenever I find myself doing battle with the concept of art or craft,
even in woodturning, I remember that phrase and quickly put it out of my
mind.
Owen Lowe
Charles Bjorgen <cbjo...@citilink.com> wrote:
> Stieglitz writing: "there is no art, there are only artists."
> Whenever I find myself doing battle with the concept of art or craft,
> even in woodturning, I remember that phrase and quickly put it out of my
> mind.
Charles,
Fantastic! As a photographer in a previous life chapter, I recall
struggling with the "art" label in that realm too. I'll comment that
what qualifies as art varies from person to person, but fine craft is
pretty darned near universally recognized.
For some reason I get swept up in desiring my efforts to be artistic -
but I don't really know what that means or how to get there. What is
clear to me is what I need to achieve for fine craftsmanship.
Owen Lowe
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My article never took up this issue, but was focused on woodturned
> objects represented (at least by someone) as objects of art. Frankly I
> think one of the reasons why the craft vs art distinction is never well
> resolved is because it places in opposition two constructs that are
> neither unique nor even on the same spectrum. Was Da Vinci an artist or
> a craftsman when he painted his famous portrait? How about lesser
> portrait painters in the days before photography?
As I replied to Charles, misguidedly I get swept up in desiring my
efforts to someday be considered "Art". There's some sort of prestige or
desirability in attaining the label. The problem is that I have no idea
how to get there - they say "Art" expresses a message, emotion or
whatnot. Jeez, what am I trying to say other than look at this beautiful
creation of nature that I've manipulated into a pleasing shape? (Similar
to Andi's comments about her motivations.)
I believe you are correct pointing out how difficult it is defining
whether now-famous people are/were artists or craftspeople. Whether or
not something is "Art" is a totally subjective and personal
determination - however, I believe whether or not something exhibits
fine craftsmanship is much more quantifiable and universally accepted.
Along these same lines, I believe work seen primarily as fine
craftsmanship is what is valued and protected for generations - while
works of "Art" may fall out of favor and be discarded by those initially
interested. In other words, I think I'd much rather have my work saved
for future generations because it represents a mastery of the turning
skills rather than because someone decided it looked artistic, whatever
that means.
My whole problem with this thread, and I believe what I read into Tony
Manella's comments, is that there is prestige to becoming known as an
"artist" - but many, many makers of outstanding and innovative examples
of the turing craft are overlooked just because someone has not slapped
the "Art" label on their work - making them more sought after in the
marketplace. Why is it that galleries and collectors feel the need to
call something "Art" - and then present it to the public as being more
desirable than works of excellent craft?
Maybe I know the answer to that. Perhaps it's about marketing and the
gallery's attempts to psychologically elevate their offerings to set
them apart from other sales outlets - and thus justify higher prices.
Ruth
Like Bill, I *really wasn't going to get into this discussion, mostly
because I don't feel I have the training or knowledge to judge art.
However, I totally agree with Bill's first post (sharing the same depth
of anger) and now Owen has written, what I consider, the perfect
logistics of this whole thing called "ART". I find I just have to add
my feelings (getting stronger with each thread and post) interspersed
with Owen's sage words.
<<< Owen wrote: "...misguidedly I get swept up in desiring my efforts to
someday be considered "Art". There's some sort of prestige or
desirability in attaining the label.">>>
This can be distracting because you and I are thinking about other
people's opinions and veering slightly from our own.
<<< "The problem is that I have no idea how to get there - they say
"Art" expresses a message, emotion or whatnot. Jeez, what am I trying to
say other than look at this beautiful creation of nature that I've
manipulated into a pleasing shape?">>>
I don't believe a woodturning is "Art" in the true sense of the word
until it expresses a message or emotion as Owen said. It is fine
craftsmanship. It becomes art when something more is done to it; ie
Ron Fleming, Lyle Jamison, etc.
Ellsworth, Raffan, etc. are master turners and know fine form. I'm not
arguing art vs craft, but that is exactly what this article Lyn started
is all about; when, how and why does a master at the CRAFT of
woodturning become an ARTIST.
<<< "Whether or not something is "Art" is a totally subjective and
personal determination - however, I believe whether or not something
exhibits fine craftsmanship is much more quantifiable and universally
accepted.">>>
I totally agree!
<<< "Along these same lines, I believe work seen primarily as fine
craftsmanship is what is valued and protected for generations - while
works of "Art" may fall out of favor and be discarded by those initially
interested." >>>
Lyn, this statement should be in the article. We (collective humanity)
have changed word meanings to where we don't know what "art", "craft"
and "hero" mean today!
Art comes from the inner senses.
Craft comes from the hands.
Hero means beyond your obligated job.
(I put in hero because I think it shows what I'm trying to say; we have
"sports heroes" now!).
Is Ellsworth (only using him as example) then really an Artist or
simply a Master Craftsman who is known world wide and the fame making
his work collectible, making his work more valuable, making him more
famous so the retailers (galleries) and collectors tell us he's an
"artist"? Or has he just become famous for hollowing a good form
through a tiny hole?
<<< "Why is it that galleries and collectors feel the need to call
something "Art" - and then present it to the public as being more
desirable than works of excellent craft?
Maybe I know the answer to that. Perhaps it's about marketing and the
gallery's attempts to psychologically elevate their offerings to set
them apart from other sales outlets - and thus justify higher
prices.">>>
You got it! Having owned two retail specialty businesses, I do know
you can convince people something is desirable to own be it a bowl,
painting or a Beanie Baby.
Owen, you're right, "art" is just a word that really has no definition
no matter how hard we try to give it one. It's like saying "pretty
blue"; it's an opinion not a real thing. If someone gave me a Picasso,
I'd immediately sell it just to buy a Ron Fleming piece of "art"!
Sorry about getting so winded, guess this is another "itch" of mine;
like "aggressive" turners....... : )
Ruth
Woodturners Logo
My shop and Turnings at
http://www.torne-lignum.com
Darrell Feltmate
if it is art, but I know what I like" ? In my younger days I thought of
being a guitarist. I have known many competent guitarists. One day I
heard Andres Segovia play. He had a quality that changed the playing
from superb craft to artistry. I do not know what the difference is, I
know I do not have it.
There are a few people, I believe, that are artists in the way that
there are people who are geniuses. I am happy to be a craftsman. I
desire to be a better craftsman. Occasionally I make a piece that
someone considers "art." I smile. I like to look at craft. I understand
clean lines, nice cuts, fine stitches, exact applications of color, good
finishes, a piece of work that fits its intended use.
Being a craftsman is a good thing. A craft object that is a thing of
beauty is good in its own right. It may even be art. If I knew what that
was, I might know if the object is. I am happy anyway. I think I will go
turn a bit now.
Be at peace. Have a good Easter.
--
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS, Canada
http://www.roundthewoods.com
Lyn J. Mangiameli
thoughts using Ruth's comments as the primary vehicle.
Ruth wrote:
> Like Bill, I *really wasn't going to get into this discussion, mostly
> because I don't feel I have the training or knowledge to judge art.
That is the point of my final paragraphs. Few turners are in a good
position to comment on art, and some that may be qualitified are usually
unavoidably biased by their own body of work. That doesn't mean they
should be unable to express their opinion, but that their opinions
should be viewed in the context of their own body of work and
qualifications.
> However, I totally agree with Bill's first post (sharing the same depth
> of anger)
I find this interesting, and also revealing of the problem of turners
judging other turners' works. First, I haven't heard anyone write that
they had read the articles I was referencing that Richard wrote and that
they found I was far off base in my characterization of their content or
tone. Rather, it seems that some folks are bothered that I might
publicly say something disapproving about a personality they know and/or
respect. When critiques are generated by fellow turners we may
personally know and like (or dislike), how do we seperate the quality of
the critique from our feelings toward the critic. Obviously, at some
level, this becomes an issue with any critique, but it is magnified
greatly when we are in relationship (even from afar) with the critic.
That said, and I repeat again, Raffan deserves a lot of credit for
stepping forward to offer some thoughtful critique in a wilderness
almost devoid of it.If one looks at the few outsiders who thus far have
written on turners' works (e.g., Revolutions in Turning), their writings
have been much more of a cheer leading tone than a critique. Richard,
instead provides critque and often does so by comparing several of an
"artists" works to each other- what I find to be a particularly valuable
approach to the project.
and now Owen has written, what I consider, the perfect
> logistics of this whole thing called "ART". I find I just have to add
> my feelings (getting stronger with each thread and post) interspersed
> with Owen's sage words.
>
> <<< Owen wrote: "...misguidedly I get swept up in desiring my efforts to
> someday be considered "Art". There's some sort of prestige or
> desirability in attaining the label.">>>
>
> This can be distracting because you and I are thinking about other
> people's opinions and veering slightly from our own.
These are the issues that drive me a bit crazy. It seems that some
people are saying that because they might be tempted to allow outside
opinions of their work to sway the quality or direction of their work,
they should be protected from the temptation by denying that labels
such as "art" be applied to their work. Frankly, it seems just the
opposite to me. I can't think of anyone who is more responsive to the
opinions of others than the craftsman who puts their works up for sale
or does work on commision. In the larger society, it is the artist who
is seen as the more independent.
Secondarily, of course there's prestige or desiability in attaining the
interest of others, and having them value your work, irrespective of
what you may wish to call it, and regardless of whether they are buying
your bowl to decorate their home or wash the baby. To my mind, all of
this revolves around whether one puts their work up for display and/or
sale. If you make your work public, even if only for teaching purposes,
you are putting your work forward for evaluation, and it is the human
condition to care about what those evaluations will be. If you really
want to reduce (note that I don't say eliminate) the infuence of
others, then never share your work. (FWIW, you see very little of my
work out there, for this very reason).
>
> <<< "The problem is that I have no idea how to get there - they say
> "Art" expresses a message, emotion or whatnot. Jeez, what am I trying to
> say other than look at this beautiful creation of nature that I've
> manipulated into a pleasing shape?">>>
>
> I don't believe a woodturning is "Art" in the true sense of the word
> until it expresses a message or emotion as Owen said. It is fine
> craftsmanship. It becomes art when something more is done to it; ie
> Ron Fleming, Lyle Jamison, etc.
To an extent this echo's the classic distinction between "image makers"
and "object makers." It is a distinction I believe is false. BTW, a
great deal of what is shown in "Art" history books is not what I think
most would consider works of great message or emotion, a lot of art,
particulary landscape and portraiture, offer a very restrained "message"
compared to an exposition of skill in recreating an image.
> Ellsworth, Raffan, etc. are master turners and know fine form. I'm not
> arguing art vs craft, but that is exactly what this article Lyn started
> is all about; when, how and why does a master at the CRAFT of
> woodturning become an ARTIST.
Actually, that is not what I intended for the article to be about.
Unlike most who have written in, I have a generous definition of "art,"
which for me is when an object is valued for its decorative qualities
over its functional. Craftsmanship may play a significant or minor role
in whether an object is valued as a decorative object. Indeed, in many
"art" circles, it is believed that the "artist" finds technical skills
to just be a hassle to overcome in the process of putting forward a
"statement" (see, i.e., Howard Risotti's essay in Skilled Work: American
Craft in the Renwick Gallery).
My article was an attempt to have turners be able to look at the issue
of woodturned art from a meta perspective that recognized that other
groups beyond the creator have a role in defining and furthering wood
turned art.
>
> <<< "Whether or not something is "Art" is a totally subjective and
> personal determination - however, I believe whether or not something
> exhibits fine craftsmanship is much more quantifiable and universally
> accepted.">>>
>
> I totally agree!
This is only one aspect of determining what is art, and is a relatively
naive belief. The values one applies in those "personal"
determinations are a product of the education, and exposure, and the
cultural values that are integrated over a lifetime. One should not
underestimate the influence of museums, galleries, the educational
system, one's parents, and ones peers have in molding what you believe
are your own "personal" values. Again, that is part of the point of the
article. To consciously ignore those influences, and thus fail to
consider them, makes you more subject to them than less.
As for fine craftsmanship, I may be more quantifiable, but it is not
necessarily more recognizable. Turners recognize many of the nuances of
craftsmanship because they are experienced in the techniques involved.
This is part of the problem that turners have by only listening to
turners, they judge things based on a priviledged knowledge that the
typical person lacks. Most people will not recognize even a quarter of
the "craftsmanship" that goes into a hand crafted item (or even many
machine made items). Interestingly, it is often the gallery owners who
educate buyers in the indicators of excellent craftsmanship.
>
> <<< "Along these same lines, I believe work seen primarily as fine
> craftsmanship is what is valued and protected for generations - while
> works of "Art" may fall out of favor and be discarded by those initially
> interested." >>>
>
> Lyn, this statement should be in the article. We (collective humanity)
> have changed word meanings to where we don't know what "art", "craft"
> and "hero" mean today!
>
> Art comes from the inner senses.
> Craft comes from the hands.
> Hero means beyond your obligated job.
> (I put in hero because I think it shows what I'm trying to say; we have
> "sports heroes" now!).
I agree with you totally with respect to hero's, it's uncritical use is
something that is particularly galling to me. I disagree with respect to
the others, as I think it is a false distinction and is often
incorrect. There has been much that has been finely crafted in history,
but because the original purpose of the object lost pertinence, it was
long ago disgarded. On the other hand, there is much art that was
minimally or inadequately crafted (perhaps the very best example are
many of the frescoes), but the messages have been timeless and people
have appreciated the works despite their technical flaws.
>
> Is Ellsworth (only using him as example) then really an Artist or
> simply a Master Craftsman who is known world wide and the fame making
> his work collectible, making his work more valuable, making him more
> famous so the retailers (galleries) and collectors tell us he's an
> "artist"? Or has he just become famous for hollowing a good form
> through a tiny hole?
If you want a really good (though narrow) discussion of this very point
with regards to this very person, read the Raffan articles.
>
> <<< "Why is it that galleries and collectors feel the need to call
> something "Art" - and then present it to the public as being more
> desirable than works of excellent craft?
> Maybe I know the answer to that. Perhaps it's about marketing and the
> gallery's attempts to psychologically elevate their offerings to set
> them apart from other sales outlets - and thus justify higher
> prices.">>>
>
> You got it! Having owned two retail specialty businesses, I do know
> you can convince people something is desirable to own be it a bowl,
> painting or a Beanie Baby.
There is truth in this, but is is only a part of the picture. I find it
interesting the underlying (and sometimes quite open) disdain for
galleries. Of course galleries wish to make money, is it really that
strange that a gallery owner would wish to be reimbursed for their time
and overhead costs, and risks (not to mention wishing to pay their own
mortgage and feed their family). Does this bias them a bit, of course it
does. But to focus on these aspects to the exclusion of the many good
things the Galleries do is bothersome to me. They educate, they provide
exposure, they search out work, they deal with the many sales and
financial hassles that the creators are often poorly versed in
providing. I suspect that some of the frustration with galleries is that
they to some extent they exist as gatekeepers, but I would suggest that
for many a buyer, that gatekeeping role is the very thing the buyer is
seeking.
>
> Owen, you're right, "art" is just a word that really has no definition
> no matter how hard we try to give it one. It's like saying "pretty
> blue"; it's an opinion not a real thing. If someone gave me a Picasso,
> I'd immediately sell it just to buy a Ron Fleming piece of "art"!
Whether or not one believes there is a definition of art (and of course
if one wants one you can just go to the OED), the word and concept have
always been with us and always will be. I suggest that others consider
the issue a bit more deeply and from a wider perspective, and have
attempted to provide some resources for those who might wish to do so.
But as they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it
drink."
Again, this isn't specifically a reply to Ruth, but rather her
consideration of other's comments allowed me to use her reply a a
vehicle for responding in the most efficient manner.
Now everyone needs to go out and get a new Carpe Lignum - Torne Lignum
t-shirt to appreciate her work of craftsmanship on the front. :-)
Lyn
Arch
the in between stuff I turn? It graces neither a museum nor a flea
market.:( Mostly it just sits on my shelves, but it's mine own and I
like it. Maybe it's a closet facet? :) Arch
Fortiter,
Lobby Dosser
"Arch" <al...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20582-3E9...@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net...
ld
Owen Lowe
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> That said, and I repeat again, Raffan deserves a lot of credit for
> stepping forward to offer some thoughtful critique in a wilderness
> almost devoid of it.If one looks at the few outsiders who thus far have
> written on turners' works (e.g., Revolutions in Turning), their writings
> have been much more of a cheer leading tone than a critique. Richard,
> instead provides critque and often does so by comparing several of an
> "artists" works to each other- what I find to be a particularly valuable
> approach to the project.
I agree wholeheartedly with respect to my own experiences. None of the
venues I've shown my work - local AAW chapters, alt.binaries or WOW -
have generated any sort of sincere and constructive criticism. (I did
have one comment once about a singed pine bowl that I should have
continued burning it for winter heat or something to that effect. <BG>)
Agreed - with the addition of much of what I see in "Art" galleries and
"Art" museums.
> Unlike most who have written in, I have a generous definition of "art,"
> which for me is when an object is valued for its decorative qualities
> over its functional. Craftsmanship may play a significant or minor role
> in whether an object is valued as a decorative object. Indeed, in many
> "art" circles, it is believed that the "artist" finds technical skills
> to just be a hassle to overcome in the process of putting forward a
> "statement" (see, i.e., Howard Risotti's essay in Skilled Work: American
> Craft in the Renwick Gallery).
I like your definition, but... it seems a bowl could be both
non-artistically functional and artistically decorative - on the flip
side, Jamieson's torso's are purely decorative. Are they art just
because they're decorative? It comes back to who the determining voice
_is_ who gets to define what is "art" and what fails to be good enough
for the label. Also, I find "art" with poor technique just sloppy work.
If one doesn't care enough for the presentation or have a competent
mastery of the required skills to pull it off, then the piece as a whole
comes up short in my book (along the lines of Arch's bottom finishing
thread).
> The values one applies in those "personal"
> determinations are a product of the education, and exposure, and the
> cultural values that are integrated over a lifetime. One should not
> underestimate the influence of museums, galleries, the educational
> system, one's parents, and ones peers have in molding what you believe
> are your own "personal" values. Again, that is part of the point of the
> article. To consciously ignore those influences, and thus fail to
> consider them, makes you more subject to them than less.
Agreed - no matter how hard one may try, outside influences _will_be_
incorporated into anyone's work. It's inevitable. BUT, again I come back
to: by what qualifications do these people have to seemingly dictate to
the wood turning world that piece A qualifies as "Art" and piece B does
not. I contend it is still merely their personal opinion(s) and
reflective of what appeals to _them_. And by that token, the turning
community is being led by the art world "experts" into producing their
vision of woodturned "art".
> > <<< "Along these same lines, I believe work seen primarily as fine
> > craftsmanship is what is valued and protected for generations - while
> > works of "Art" may fall out of favor and be discarded by those initially
> > interested." >>>
> >
> > Lyn, this statement should be in the article. We (collective humanity)
> > have changed word meanings to where we don't know what "art", "craft"
> > and "hero" mean today!
> >
> > Art comes from the inner senses.
> > Craft comes from the hands.
> > Hero means beyond your obligated job.
> > (I put in hero because I think it shows what I'm trying to say; we have
> > "sports heroes" now!).
>
> I agree with you totally with respect to hero's, it's uncritical use is
> something that is particularly galling to me. I disagree with respect to
> the others, as I think it is a false distinction and is often
> incorrect. There has been much that has been finely crafted in history,
> but because the original purpose of the object lost pertinence, it was
> long ago disgarded. On the other hand, there is much art that was
> minimally or inadequately crafted (perhaps the very best example are
> many of the frescoes), but the messages have been timeless and people
> have appreciated the works despite their technical flaws.
Are they technical flaws due to poor workmanship or limitations of the
materials of the day?
> > <<< "Why is it that galleries and collectors feel the need to call
> > something "Art" - and then present it to the public as being more
> > desirable than works of excellent craft?
> > Maybe I know the answer to that. Perhaps it's about marketing and the
> > gallery's attempts to psychologically elevate their offerings to set
> > them apart from other sales outlets - and thus justify higher
> > prices.">>>
> >
> > You got it! Having owned two retail specialty businesses, I do know
> > you can convince people something is desirable to own be it a bowl,
> > painting or a Beanie Baby.
>
> There is truth in this, but is is only a part of the picture. I find it
> interesting the underlying (and sometimes quite open) disdain for
> galleries. Of course galleries wish to make money, is it really that
> strange that a gallery owner would wish to be reimbursed for their time
> and overhead costs, and risks (not to mention wishing to pay their own
> mortgage and feed their family). Does this bias them a bit, of course it
> does. But to focus on these aspects to the exclusion of the many good
> things the Galleries do is bothersome to me. They educate, they provide
> exposure, they search out work, they deal with the many sales and
> financial hassles that the creators are often poorly versed in
> providing. I suspect that some of the frustration with galleries is that
> they to some extent they exist as gatekeepers, but I would suggest that
> for many a buyer, that gatekeeping role is the very thing the buyer is
> seeking.
I don't have animosity towards galleries, museums or other venues as
public viewing and sales outlets. I do have disdain for the aspect of
their businesses which implies they are experts in what qualifies and
what does not qualify as "art".
> > Owen, you're right, "art" is just a word that really has no definition
> > no matter how hard we try to give it one. It's like saying "pretty
> > blue"; it's an opinion not a real thing. If someone gave me a Picasso,
> > I'd immediately sell it just to buy a Ron Fleming piece of "art"!
>
> Whether or not one believes there is a definition of art (and of course
> if one wants one you can just go to the OED), the word and concept have
> always been with us and always will be. I suggest that others consider
> the issue a bit more deeply and from a wider perspective, and have
> attempted to provide some resources for those who might wish to do so.
What's OED?
Just some thoughts I couldn't stick in anywhere else: There seems to be
general desire with regard to attaining the "artist" & "art" label. How
would one know when they become an artist and is producing art? When
someone else tells them so? Is it something all creative people should
strive for? What benefits does it grant?
My apologies if some of my replies are a bit disjointed - I've been
adding to this most of the day and may have misunderstood or gotten off
track.
Owen Lowe
Darrell Feltmate <darrell...@tru.eastlink.ca> wrote:
> When does craft become art? What is art? Is this a case of "I know not
> if it is art, but I know what I like" ? In my younger days I thought of
> being a guitarist. I have known many competent guitarists. One day I
> heard Andres Segovia play. He had a quality that changed the playing
> from superb craft to artistry. I do not know what the difference is, I
> know I do not have it.
Are you nuts? Segovia an artist?!?
Actually I'm just yanking your chain - I'm not into guitar and I have no
idea who Andres Segovia is. But, I'd imagine there are folks out there
familiar with his work who _would_ disagree with you.
Which brings up another thought. When I was just starting out in turning
I found much of the work impressive. I was in awe of the famous and
not-so-famous turners I read about and undoubtedly placed their skills
and ideas up to great respect. In some loosely defined ways, they were
all artists to me. That's not, however, true from anyone else's point of
view. Intermediate skilled turners would be much more critical and would
narrow the eligable work down quite substantially. Advanced turners
would pare the group even more. So, is it fair for anyone other than
one's peers to critique work and claim one piece over another is
deserving of higher acclaim? In addition to being on a comparable level
of achievement, must one also be familiar with the medium and the
process?
Perhaps this is why we should embrace Richard Raffan's critical view
over the exclamations of praise heaped on much of the turning elite. By
most opinions, he has the qualifications and mastery of the craft to
make such comments. Why does it appear he's the only one willing to go
out on a limb to call negative attention to his peers?
> Being a craftsman is a good thing. A craft object that is a thing of
> beauty is good in its own right. It may even be art. If I knew what that
> was, I might know if the object is. I am happy anyway. I think I will go
> turn a bit now.
Yes, wholeheartedly yes. Now, to go check out my woodturned bird's nest
cooking in the oven before I load it up with the 7 turned eggs and head
out the door to tonight's Cascade WT meeting...
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Owen Lowe wrote:
> In article <3E9EF91A...@earthlink.net>,
> "Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>><<< "The problem is that I have no idea how to get there - they say
>>>"Art" expresses a message, emotion or whatnot. Jeez, what am I trying to
>>>say other than look at this beautiful creation of nature that I've
>>>manipulated into a pleasing shape?">>>
I'm suggesting that part of "how to get there" can be considered by
giving thought to the views of those who are influential in making those
determinations: the galleries, museums, craft fair juries, and
collectors. In the end, they are your "customers" and while one does not
have to tailor his or her work accordingly, one can benefit from
examining the commonaliites between the objects that have made the
grade. I suspect that one will hear things like excellent
craftsmanship, a flawless finish, an original idea, a clean line, etc.
But mostly, I would be being false to my premise to suggest that I as a
turner can provide an adequate answer. Again, this topic is being
discussed only amongst turners and we are missing the benefit of the
other perspectives.
>>>
>>> BTW, a
>>great deal of what is shown in "Art" history books is not what I think
>>most would consider works of great message or emotion, a lot of art,
>>particulary landscape and portraiture, offer a very restrained "message"
>>compared to an exposition of skill in recreating an image.
>
>
> Agreed - with the addition of much of what I see in "Art" galleries and
> "Art" museums.
Yes.
>
>
>>Unlike most who have written in, I have a generous definition of "art,"
>>which for me is when an object is valued for its decorative qualities
>>over its functional. Craftsmanship may play a significant or minor role
>>in whether an object is valued as a decorative object. Indeed, in many
>>"art" circles, it is believed that the "artist" finds technical skills
>>to just be a hassle to overcome in the process of putting forward a
>>"statement" (see, i.e., Howard Risotti's essay in Skilled Work: American
>>Craft in the Renwick Gallery).
>
>
> I like your definition, but... it seems a bowl could be both
> non-artistically functional and artistically decorative -
I think it is quite possible for something to be functional and also
artistically decorative. A Bulgari watch might offer an example. What I
don't understand is what you mean by something being non-artistically
functional and artistically decorative at the same time.
on the flip
> side, Jamieson's torso's are purely decorative. Are they art just
> because they're decorative?
It is for the persons who purchase them as decorative additions to their
life.
It comes back to who the determining voice
> _is_ who gets to define what is "art" and what fails to be good enough
> for the label. Also, I find "art" with poor technique just sloppy work.
> If one doesn't care enough for the presentation or have a competent
> mastery of the required skills to pull it off, then the piece as a whole
> comes up short in my book (along the lines of Arch's bottom finishing
> thread).
Lots of people get a voice in the determination: creators,
intermediaries and collectors. That was the point of the article. Bad
work is generally not going to be appreciated by those groups, and
that's the end of it.
>
>
> Agreed - no matter how hard one may try, outside influences _will_be_
> incorporated into anyone's work. It's inevitable. BUT, again I come back
> to: by what qualifications do these people have to seemingly dictate to
> the wood turning world that piece A qualifies as "Art" and piece B does
> not. I contend it is still merely their personal opinion(s) and
> reflective of what appeals to _them_. And by that token, the turning
> community is being led by the art world "experts" into producing their
> vision of woodturned "art".
Most intermediaries have a strong background in the fine arts. The also
usually have an understanding of both the creator and the collector and
tend to see both a lot more than most people ever will. However, I would
just as soon not be making statements about the intermediaries but
rather helping to make the linkages for others to interact directly with
them. Its part of the reason why I would have loved to have
intermediaries present their own commentaries to the article.
>
>
> Are they technical flaws due to poor workmanship or limitations of the
> materials of the day?
Sometimes one, sometimes another, often both. Also remember that much
sculptural "art" is never manufactured by the "artist" but rather
produced by skilled metal workers, etc.
>
>
> I don't have animosity towards galleries, museums or other venues as
> public viewing and sales outlets. I do have disdain for the aspect of
> their businesses which implies they are experts in what qualifies and
> what does not qualify as "art".
I'm not certain all galleries do this. They are also attentive to what
their buyers are going to consider fine art. Galleries have choice over
what they will display, but not over what people will buy. A successful
gallery will be attentive to what collectors think, as well as their own
ideas. From another angle, is may be useful to give these people some
credit for what is usually their educational foundation in the fine
arts, their personal love of fine things, and desire to promote them and
make them available to others.Again, I'd rather we had gallery operators
making their own statements. I think there are often too many
assumptions that are made about the intermediaries with too little
actual interaction with them. Finally, I think that many are put off by
galleries because of the prices associated with fine art, put off that
is, unless you are trying to derive part of your living from the sales
of your work.
>
>
> What's OED?
Oxford English Dictionary.
>
> Just some thoughts I couldn't stick in anywhere else: There seems to be
> general desire with regard to attaining the "artist" & "art" label. How
> would one know when they become an artist and is producing art?
There are lots of potential answers to this, but one is when other
people identify you as such.
When
> someone else tells them so?
As above,
Is it something all creative people should
> strive for?
Henry Murray, "autonomous propriate strivings." You can find it in a
personality theories textbook.
What benefits does it grant?
What an interesting question. I think someone would to say that if one
needed to worry about the benefits, one isn't an artist.
Just thoughts. Again, I think most of the answers to the questions you
pose would best come from the intermediaries and collectors and
established artists themselves.
Lyn
Leo Lichtman
"Owen , I can get past your not knowing what OED stands for (Oxford English
Dictionary,) but not knowing of Segovia leaves me so stunned I can't
concentrate. :-?
Marshall Gorrow
"master woodturner" or "master craftsman" than an "artist".
My wallet would probably appreciate the term "artist" more! :-)
I don't expect either term to be applied to me in the near future! :-)
--
Marshall Gorrow
Hogansburg, NY USA
http://mgorrow.tripod.com/
"Ruth" <rfn...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25017-3E...@storefull-2315.public.lawson.webtv.net...
><snip> when, how and why does a master at the CRAFT of
> woodturning become an ARTIST.
<snip>
Owen Lowe
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Lyn wrote this:
> >>BTW, a great deal of what is shown in "Art" history books is not
> >>what I think most would consider works of great message or emotion,
> >>a lot of art, particulary landscape and portraiture, offer a very
> >>restrained "message" compared to an exposition of skill in
> >>recreating an image.
I responded:
> > Agreed - with the addition of much of what I see in "Art" galleries
> > and "Art" museums.
Lyn responded:
> Yes.
It seems as though, on the one hand, you are saying you trust the
experienced viewpoints of the collectors, gallery owners and museum
curators to proclaim that which is art and that which is not art; but
on the other hand, you acknowledge that much of what's in galleries and
museums isn't what you'd consider as art.
Maybe I'm getting too hung up on trying to nail down what "art" means
and that it's a universal quality that should be obvious to and agreed
upon by all. The curators, owners, collectors choose work that appeals
to some inner sense and is a fine example of the effort. The next
museum, shop down the street, collector next door will quite likely
choose something totally different. Neither one is right or wrong. The
trick for turners aspiring to that arena, as I see it, is to find a
person influential enough to proclaim it as "art" and promote it as
such. Doesn't really matter if others or even if the creator
him/herself sees it in that light.
> > I like your definition, but... it seems a bowl could be both
> > non-artistically functional and artistically decorative -
>
> I think it is quite possible for something to be functional and also
> artistically decorative. A Bulgari watch might offer an example. What
> I don't understand is what you mean by something being
> non-artistically functional and artistically decorative at the same
> time.
Guess I was trying to get too specific with your definition of art.
> Most intermediaries have a strong background in the fine arts. The
> also usually have an understanding of both the creator and the
> collector and tend to see both a lot more than most people ever will.
> However, I would just as soon not be making statements about the
> intermediaries but rather helping to make the linkages for others to
> interact directly with them. Its part of the reason why I would have
> loved to have intermediaries present their own commentaries to the
> article.
Fair enough and I see your point - it would be helpful to hear their
motivations and thought processes.
>Finally, I think that many are put off by galleries because of the
>prices associated with fine art, put off that is, unless you are
>trying to derive part of your living from the sales of your work.
Oh yes, :), I'd be certain of that.
> > Just some thoughts I couldn't stick in anywhere else: There seems
> > to be general desire with regard to attaining the "artist" & "art"
> > label. How would one know when they become an artist and is
> > producing art?
>
> There are lots of potential answers to this, but one is when other
> people identify you as such.
Hey! I'm an Artist! My wife, 4-year old, and mom all say so. Now,
please, a show of hands from those who don't agree. I see we're not all
in agreement... I guess it doesn't really matter what the rest of you
think since my target audience is pleased. Reminder to self, "nothing
subjective can be set in stone; and the audience's sensibilities are a
shifting yardstick."
> What benefits does it grant?
>
> What an interesting question. I think someone would to say that if
> one needed to worry about the benefits, one isn't an artist.
Slam-dunk. I suppose your meaning is that artists create art no matter
the benefits. It's not a choice but a need. If that's what you meant,
then I need to restate my question. What benefits does persuing the
exposure of and from unknown art experts offer as opposed to just
creating what one feels and sharing it with those around him/her?
From what I understand about the art market, it's a difficult path and
probably has greater pressure on future performance and disappointments
than I'd care to ever subject my ego to.
One final question: is there a distinction between an upscale
unique-crafts gallery and an "art" gallery? In other words, is this an
owner claimed qualifier? Maybe this runs parallel to the woodworker
joking about spending time in the shop vs. the studio... Granted,
there's more implied prestige having work sold though a Del Mano than
the Exit 287 Stuckey's gallery, but if the same piece sold at either
place for the same price would it matter a bit?
Owen Lowe
<E2Kna.66000$ja4.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lic...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Leo.
I don't have time for that touchy-feely, cultured crap - every spare
moment I have I make an attempt to head out to the garage to put steel
to wood in one form or another.
Pat Matheny... now he's a guitarist I've heard.
Darrell Feltmate
I like Pat Matheny's playing. What does that have to do with Segovia? Or
Les Paul or Chet Atkins or Malmsteen or ....?
Jim Andersen
< have to tailor his or her work accordingly, one can benefit from
<examining the commonaliites between the objects that have made the
<grade. I suspect that one will hear things like excellent
<craftsmanship, a flawless finish, an original idea, a clean line, etc.
I too have been holding off commenting on this thread until now. Every time
I hear a discussion of what "art" is I am reminded of the children's story
of "The Emperor's New Clothes". I think too often we will say something is
art because everyone else is saying it is and we don't want to be the one to
say "I don't see it that way, it looks to me like he's in his underwear".
On the other hand "excellent craftsmanship, a flawless finish, an original
idea, a clean line, etc" are things that can be recognized. Even these are
subjective depending on the evaluator's knowledge of the subject.
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Owen Lowe wrote:
> It seems as though, on the one hand, you are saying you trust the
> experienced viewpoints of the collectors, gallery owners and museum
> curators to proclaim that which is art and that which is not art; but
> on the other hand, you acknowledge that much of what's in galleries and
> museums isn't what you'd consider as art.
What I am repeatedly trying to say is that their are multiple
perspsectives on what is "art" and what will be supported as "art." Each
of those perspectives are going to be influential, and to a greater or
lesser extent, valid. One should not get too hung up on only viewing, or
evaluating, or aquiring, or creating for (or from) any single
perspective, as it will blind you to valuable information/appreciation
that can be obtained through consideration of the other points of views.
Gallery owners, or collectors, or museum curators can fall into the
same traps as creators,but interestingly, I find them to be more aware
of the multiple perspsectives and actively entertain them. For example,
the Wood Art Collectors Society regularly invites gallery owners and
artists to give presentations. How often do you see gallery operators
being offered to give presentations.
Second, I'm comfortable with accepting that that my definition of art
will not always coincide with others. Gee, my definition of what
constitutes a car doesn't always coincide with others.
>
> Maybe I'm getting too hung up on trying to nail down what "art" means
> and that it's a universal quality that should be obvious to and agreed
> upon by all.
IMO you are. "Art"like "love" is not a concept that lends to
quantification and thus specification.
The curators, owners, collectors choose work that appeals
> to some inner sense and is a fine example of the effort. The next
> museum, shop down the street, collector next door will quite likely
> choose something totally different. Neither one is right or wrong. The
> trick for turners aspiring to that arena, as I see it, is to find a
> person influential enough to proclaim it as "art" and promote it as
> such. Doesn't really matter if others or even if the creator
> him/herself sees it in that light.
I'll leave it to others to address this one, though I personally don't
view it this cynically. That undeveloped fourth facet of woodturned art,
the independent critic (and often academic), helps bring honesty and
clarity, but not necesarily consistency, to all this.
>
>>Most intermediaries have a strong background in the fine arts. The
>>also usually have an understanding of both the creator and the
>>collector and tend to see both a lot more than most people ever will.
>>However, I would just as soon not be making statements about the
>>intermediaries but rather helping to make the linkages for others to
>>interact directly with them. Its part of the reason why I would have
>>loved to have intermediaries present their own commentaries to the
>>article.
>
>
> Fair enough and I see your point - it would be helpful to hear their
> motivations and thought processes.
Yes, Yes, Yes. That's been the whole point of the article all along. Not
that they are or should be sole arbiters, but that "it would be helpful
to hear their motivations and thought processes"!!!
> Hey! I'm an Artist! My wife, 4-year old, and mom all say so. Now,
> please, a show of hands from those who don't agree. I see we're not all
> in agreement... I guess it doesn't really matter what the rest of you
> think since my target audience is pleased. Reminder to self, "nothing
> subjective can be set in stone; and the audience's sensibilities are a
> shifting yardstick."
Indeed.
What benefits does persuing the
> exposure of and from unknown art experts offer as opposed to just
> creating what one feels and sharing it with those around him/her?
Perspective and context. At a different level, why do turners ever
bother to look at the works of other turners?
>
> From what I understand about the art market, it's a difficult path and
> probably has greater pressure on future performance and disappointments
> than I'd care to ever subject my ego to.
I think that depends a lot on the needs, talent, and character of the
artist. I suspect some folks like Andi will deal with all of these
things quite well.
>
> One final question: is there a distinction between an upscale
> unique-crafts gallery and an "art" gallery? In other words, is this an
> owner claimed qualifier? Maybe this runs parallel to the woodworker
> joking about spending time in the shop vs. the studio... Granted,
> there's more implied prestige having work sold though a Del Mano than
> the Exit 287 Stuckey's gallery, but if the same piece sold at either
> place for the same price would it matter a bit?
Wouldn't this be a great question to put to a panel of gallery owners?
I'm serious. I think it would be a great thing to have occur at an AAW
meeting and then offered as a tape or in their journal. Smaller scale
presentations could be quite valuable at the local woodturner group level.
Lyn
Arch
creator--intermediary-- collector triad as a sort of 3 legged stool with
3 equally important legs. Without each one, it wouldn't stand. He also
researched resources and offered his opinions to help us gain insights
in forming our own conceptions.
I didn't want this thread to wither, but I didn't know that it was being
well considered on another forum. I needn't have been concerned. Now I
wonder if it hasn't overgrown and fallen into the quicksand of art vs
craft, wit (I'm half guilty) and OT (I'm fully guilty) dilution of the
original intent. The various digressions are all very good in
themselves, but the trees might hide the forest.
So, with best to all and criticism of none, I look forward to an
expanded, and not too fettered, version of Lyn's original premise. Arch
Fortiter,
Owen Lowe
al...@webtv.net (Arch) wrote:
>Now I
> wonder if it hasn't overgrown and fallen into the quicksand of art vs
> craft, wit (I'm half guilty) and OT (I'm fully guilty) dilution of the
> original intent. The various digressions are all very good in
> themselves, but the trees might hide the forest.
Guilty as charged. I awoke this a.m. after dreaming about art vs. craft
and realized I had strayed afar from Lyn's original intent. I plan on
revisiting his posting to pull myself back on track.
Lyn, my apologies for firing off on a tangent. I'll also do my best to
look up the Raffan articles to help put into perspective what his views
are.
Owen Lowe
"Jim Andersen" <ande...@uwplatt.edu> wrote:
> I too have been holding off commenting on this thread until now. Every time
> I hear a discussion of what "art" is I am reminded of the children's story
> of "The Emperor's New Clothes". I think too often we will say something is
> art because everyone else is saying it is and we don't want to be the one to
> say "I don't see it that way, it looks to me like he's in his underwear".
> On the other hand "excellent craftsmanship, a flawless finish, an original
> idea, a clean line, etc" are things that can be recognized. Even these are
> subjective depending on the evaluator's knowledge of the subject.
True - and just because a well-respected gallery or museum declares
something as art doesn't mean anyone else has to agree. If they see the
beautiful robes on the Emporer, then great for them.
Bertie Pittman
I woudn't use this four letter word for the work that graces your
shelves
but for some of my own -
JUNK :}
Bertie
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:58:48 -0400 (EDT), al...@webtv.net (Arch)
wrote:
Arch
My post was clumsy and not well thought out. It comes over as presuming
to say what Lyn means and worse, it presumes to decide what others
should post. I wish I could retract it. Please forgive & ignore. Arch
Fortiter,
Mike Vore
> In article <3E9D9F09...@citilink.com>,
> Charles Bjorgen <cbjo...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>> Stieglitz writing: "there is no art, there are only artists."
>> Whenever I find myself doing battle with the concept of art or craft,
> Fantastic! As a photographer in a previous life chapter, I recall
> struggling with the "art" label in that realm too. I'll comment that
> what qualifies as art varies from person to person, but fine craft is
I too am one of the 'converts' from the world of photography, not
photojournalism, but 'club photography' with the Silver Spring Camera
Club (MD). I took my share of 'honorable mentions' in the monthly
competetions. I also displayed in an invitational show and was quite
'turned-off' by the artsie stuff (out of focus, double printing, etc)
It was just a different genre that clashed with my work. I'm finding
that as in photography, woodturning has many facets, many of them
overlapping.
As a club photographer my works mainly fit the 'formulae' for good
pictures - full range from paper white to dead black (this was
monochrome) prints. And the proper angles and 'hot spots'. But
when the 'rules' were broken creatively for a good reason the pictures
were fantastic - many of mine didn't quite reach that level.
So it seems to be in the world of turning - take bowls for instance -
using the 'golden section' to get the right proportions make for a
good looking bowl - quite utilitarian and good looking, but not really
artistic. Turn a bowl that still looks good (stretching the rules)
but uses some special feature (grain, bark inclusion, ??) and it will
become a work of art. It just has intrinsic beauty.
To paraphrase one of the guest 'experts' at a judging of portraits,
"There are only a half dozen, or so, portriates in the whole world.
But many copies with different faces".
I look at the dozen or so bowls I've turned and think of what he said.
My bowls are of different wood, sizes, and shapes - but for the most
part they are just copies of each other. Oh I have one or two pieces
that are different - they were experiments that turned out ok.
mike
--
Michael Vore, AAW, Capitol Area Woodturners
http://mike.vorefamily.net/ohmywoodness <-Custom Woodworking
http://mike.vorefamily.net/thewoodenradio <-The weblog
Lyn J. Mangiameli
a nice perspective on the article. Perhaps even better,you seemed to
provide a meta-perspective on the discussion. I found that of value, and
certainly not to be presumptious.
Lyn
Ruth
As Lyn said, this thread has taken an interesting turn. I know I'm
learning quite a bit. BTW, Lyn, nice save at the end of
your response to my last tirade. : ) : )
First I need to apologize for the way some of my statements sounded.
In my desire to be as brief as possible a few of my comments did not
express my total thought and I see why you may have misunderstood some
of it.
I would like to read the articles that Richard wrote, where can I find
them? (do I need to order a publication?)
<<<(Ruth wrote; "This can be distracting because you and I are thinking
about other people's opinions and veering slightly from our own."
(Lyn replied: "These are the issues that drive me a bit crazy. It
seems that some people are saying that because they might be tempted to
allow outside opinions of their work to sway the quality or direction of
their work, they should be protected from the temptation by denying that
labels such as "art" be applied to their work.">>>
Not at all. Outside opinion is a good thing, to a point. It sways the
quality or direction only for someone who knows their work could
improve. No outside opinion can make your quality worse (can it?).
<<< (Lyn) "If you really want to reduce (note that I don't say
eliminate) the infuence of others, then never share your work. (you see
very little of my work for this very reason).">>>
I've seen pictures of your work and it is "art". : )
This is the most important point I need to correct (and apologize for
my lack of in-depth response):
<<< (Lyn replied) "I find it interesting the underlying (and sometimes
quite open) disdain for galleries. Of course galleries wish to make
money, is it really that strange that a gallery owner would wish to be
reimbursed for their time and overhead costs, and risks (not to mention
wishing to pay their own mortgage and feed their family).>>>
I am embarrassed you took my words in this vein. Few understand this
better than I do and never, never would I suggest it's wrong for a
gallery to make a profit.
<<< "Does this bias them a bit, of course it does. But to focus on
these aspects to the exclusion of the many good things the Galleries do
is bothersome to me.">>>
Every single business that deals with selling items to the public is
biased; they have to be or they will be out of business in a wink. I
owned and operated a quilt/fabric shop, I sold some pretty ugly fabrics,
I used to tell customers (truth) "I want to provide you with items that
you will gladly give me your hard-earned money and be happy with the
exchange."
<<< "I suspect that some of the frustration with galleries is that they
to some extent they exist as gatekeepers, but I would suggest that for
many a buyer, that gatekeeping role is the very thing the buyer is
seeking.">>>
I see this as good not a frustration. Example; The owner of the gallery
that sells my work seeks out artists and craftsmen, accepts works she
knows her clientel will appreciate (and buy) and sets the prices (fine
by me, I am getting more after her commission than when I did juried
shows!). She knows or learns how every craft is done; materials, time
and basic technique. I admire that, also makes her a terrific
salesperson.
Other side of this: My work was turned down by one gallery owner, he
said my finish wasn't hard and shiney and people wouldn't like it.
Fine, that's his type of customer (an outside opinion that is certainly
not going to sway my work!).
We need galleries of all degrees and level of what they think is "art"
or more honestly, "salable goods" so we have a choice of what we buy.
I love galleries, really!
I haven't added any inspirational insight, just trying to clear up that
what I said was not what I meant........do I sound like Arch? ; )
think I'll go feed the chickens
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Ruth wrote:
> BTW, Lyn, nice save at the end of
> your response to my last tirade. : ) : )
Indeed. :-)
>
> First I need to apologize for the way some of my statements sounded.
> In my desire to be as brief as possible a few of my comments did not
> express my total thought
Ah, the problem we always face based on time and the audiences attention
span.
and I see why you may have misunderstood some
> of it.
I hope I didn't misunderstand most. I was using your response to reply
to Owen and others, so some of my comments were not meant as commentary
on yours.
>
> I would like to read the articles that Richard wrote, where can I find
> them? (do I need to order a publication?)
Current Work in Turning: Do High Gallery Prices Make It Art,
in Fine Woodworking, Nov. 1987, Vol 67
also reprinted in The Best of Fine Woodworking: Lathes and Turning
Techniques, 1991 both by Tauton Press
The Resurgence of Woodturning in
Fine Woodworking: 25th Anniversary Issue Winter 2000/2001, Vol 146
again Tauton Press
Wood Turning in North America Since 1930 [Review]
Woodwork August 2002, Vol 64
The latter is the one I referred to the most.
Outside opinion is a good thing, to a point. It sways the
> quality or direction only for someone who knows their work could
> improve. No outside opinion can make your quality worse (can it?).
Oh, how many times I wish I had just listened to my inner voice instead
of paying attention to someone else.
>
> <<< (Lyn) "If you really want to reduce (note that I don't say
> eliminate) the infuence of others, then never share your work. (you see
> very little of my work for this very reason).">>>
>
> I've seen pictures of your work and it is "art". : )
You illustrate my point, woodturners generally go way too easily on each
other. :-)
>
> <<< (Lyn replied) "I find it interesting the underlying (and sometimes
> quite open) disdain for galleries. Of course galleries wish to make
> money, is it really that strange that a gallery owner would wish to be
> reimbursed for their time and overhead costs, and risks (not to mention
> wishing to pay their own mortgage and feed their family).>>>
>
> I am embarrassed you took my words in this vein. Few understand this
> better than I do and never, never would I suggest it's wrong for a
> gallery to make a profit.
Ruth, this is a place where I was really replying to Owen rather than
you. In fact, I think you have a much better understanding of the
circumstances of galleries than most.
>
> <<< "Does this bias them a bit, of course it does. But to focus on
> these aspects to the exclusion of the many good things the Galleries do
> is bothersome to me.">>>
Yes.
>
> Every single business that deals with selling items to the public is
> biased; they have to be or they will be out of business in a wink. I
> owned and operated a quilt/fabric shop, I sold some pretty ugly fabrics,
> I used to tell customers (truth) "I want to provide you with items that
> you will gladly give me your hard-earned money and be happy with the
> exchange."
Yes, and a very good point.
>
> <<< "I suspect that some of the frustration with galleries is that they
> to some extent they exist as gatekeepers, but I would suggest that for
> many a buyer, that gatekeeping role is the very thing the buyer is
> seeking.">>>
>
> I see this as good not a frustration.
I was speaking more generally here, than a specific reply to you.
Example; The owner of the gallery
> that sells my work seeks out artists and craftsmen, accepts works she
> knows her clientel will appreciate (and buy) and sets the prices (fine
> by me, I am getting more after her commission than when I did juried
> shows!). She knows or learns how every craft is done; materials, time
> and basic technique. I admire that, also makes her a terrific
> salesperson.
Yes. This is an understanding which I think is little discussed in
turning circles.
>
> Other side of this: My work was turned down by one gallery owner, he
> said my finish wasn't hard and shiney and people wouldn't like it.
> Fine, that's his type of customer (an outside opinion that is certainly
> not going to sway my work!).
Yep.
>
> We need galleries of all degrees and level of what they think is "art"
> or more honestly, "salable goods" so we have a choice of what we buy.
> I love galleries, really!
Me too, and for many of the reasons you discuss. It is the sort of
enlarged perspective that you show that is what I hoped to make
available to others. From my point of view, the very things you have
shared here can be very helpful to many turners.
>
> I haven't added any inspirational insight, just trying to clear up that
> what I said was not what I meant........do I sound like Arch? ; )
Yes. :-)
> think I'll go feed the chickens
think I'll go help LOML peel potatoes.
Lyn
Darrell Feltmate
I have a few thoughts on gallery and gift shop owners and managers that
I think are germane to the issue of turning, art and sales. One of the
areas of difficulty for many turners is that of pricing. How much is a
turning worth and to whom? It might even be rephrased as "how come no
one is buying my gee whiz bang turning? It sure is purty and look at all
the time I have in it." Some people are convinced that they have seen
Joe Bloggs, famous turner from Lower East Overshoe, selling squidgets at
the local craft fair and knows he or she can turn them cheaper and sell
a hundred a week and make a killing. Then they do not sell.
Gallery and shop owners have either a clientele or are establishing one
or are going out of business. They need product and assuming they handle
craft work or hand made art, they also need quality, dependable
artisans. They are not out to bite the hand that feeds them. If you do
quality work they will tell you what sells and how to price it. If you
can not make it for the price they can pay, do something else. There is
no point in the gallery owner taking something that will not sell or
paying so much they can not afford to sell it. If they can not make a
profit in their acceptable margin, it is too expensive a purchase for
them. They are paying heat , lights, wages, insurance, and assorted
other costs for that vase, bowl, or whatever.
When I need a plumber I want one who know plumbing. When I need a
gallery owner I want one that knows client and price. They may not know
art, but they know what sells in their store. Some things sell in some
places and not others. You know, some people sell turned boxes, not in
my market. Remember, just because you like to turn it, someone else does
not have to like to buy it.