Art Is Thoughtful Workmanship
Clay Foster
http://www.burrows.com/art.html
Clay Foster
www.home.earthlink.net/~claypen/
Arch
read Mr. Lethaby's essay with interest, but I'm glad it was written in
1913 so my disagreement won't insult him. To my mind it echoes the
misguided efforts some wood artists make in trying to ingratiate
themselves with the mass of average workers. A 'pretend' good ole boy
is an embarrassment, and if a person is not the 'common man in the
street', I don't believe he should try to be, whether with words or
works. IMHO, celebrating the ordinary elevates nothing.
My disagreements are too numerous to list, but I'll mention two....I
don't think it's necessary for an object to be beautiful or even well
crafted in order to be art. To some extent, if one asks " how did you
make that?" instead of inquiring "why?", he has missed the message and
its personal meaning for him. He has enjoyed, even been awed, but he
hasn't appreciated. I wish that it would be just as polite to ask "why?"
as to ask "how?"
of those we count as artists,
As with trying to define time, each of us know what art is and means,
but we can't explain it to others.
These are just some gentle musings meant to be a friendly tho differing
take. I believe that _CRAFT should be thoughtful workmanship, and if it
survives over time it may also be art. OTOH.....:) Arch.
Fortiter,
Clay Foster
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't agree with all of Mr.
Lethaby's opinions, but at least they are well articulated, which I
appreciate. I've always enjoyed your posts to this group for the same
reason.
<IMHO, celebrating the ordinary elevates nothing.
<My disagreements are too numerous to list, but I'll mention two....I
don't think it's necessary for an object to be beautiful or even well
crafted in order to be art.
I agree with that. Some of the most powerful art is not attractive,
but scary or angry or sad. Is emotional content what keeps a humbly
crafted object from being ordinary?
<To some extent, if one asks " how did you make that?" instead of
enquiring "why?", he has missed the message and its personal meaning
for him. He has enjoyed, even been awed, but he hasn't appreciated. I
wish that it would be just as polite to ask "why?" as to ask "how?" of
those we count as artists,
Most of the studio woodturners I know would be thrilled to death if
someone asked them "why" instead of "what angle do you grind the bevel
on a bowl gouge." If no one asks "why," is it the maker that has
failed in their attempt to communicate, or is it the fault of the
Philistine viewer for not thinking on a different level?
<As with trying to define time, each of us know what art is and means,
but we can't explain it to others.
My friend Steve Loar says "I don't know anything about what I like,
but I know art when I see it." In the end, we each decide how big to
draw the circle, defining what is included as art and what is not. For
me, the line itself is wide and hazy, with more things falling on the
line rather than in or out.
<These are just some gentle musings meant to be a friendly tho
differing
take. I believe that _CRAFT should be thoughtful workmanship, and if
it
survives over time it may also be art. OTOH.....:) Arch.
I take your comments in the gentle spirit in which they were offered.
The questions I have asked in this post are not rebuttals, but things
I really do ponder about. You are a thoughtful person, so I will give
special consideration to what you have to say. If you are ever in
Krum, please stop by for a visit.
Clay Foster
www.home.earthlink.net/~claypen/
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Lyn
Owen Lowe
al...@webtv.net (Arch) wrote:
> To my mind it echoes the
> misguided efforts some wood artists make in trying to ingratiate
> themselves with the mass of average workers. A 'pretend' good ole boy
> is an embarrassment, and if a person is not the 'common man in the
> street', I don't believe he should try to be, whether with words or
> works. IMHO, celebrating the ordinary elevates nothing.
Hi Arch. Would you be able to clarify this? Perhaps I'm
misunderstanding. What comes to mind is the appreciation in the art
world for the bowl. A bowl is quite ordinary. Most bowls that I've seen,
whether by a known turner in books, shows, collections or galleries, or
by the local guys at my AAW chapters, are quite ordinary. Is this an
example of the type of art and woodworking you are referring to?
> My disagreements are too numerous to list, but I'll mention two....I
> don't think it's necessary for an object to be beautiful or even well
> crafted in order to be art. To some extent, if one asks " how did you
> make that?" instead of inquiring "why?", he has missed the message and
> its personal meaning for him. He has enjoyed, even been awed, but he
> hasn't appreciated. I wish that it would be just as polite to ask "why?"
> as to ask "how?"
> of those we count as artists,
I disagree with your disagreements.
For my tastes, it's imperative for an artist to have as complete command
of the craft and materials as the technology of the day allows. Shoddy
workmanship is a distraction. If a work shows inattention to detail or
lack of understanding of the material, the artist has failed in
presenting the message for my consideration. This doesn't mean the
message is not valid - just that the presentation is poorly executed.
Furthermore, if a viewer initially asks "how", perhaps the artist's
message is not as well-defined or as strongly expressed as he would have
desired. In this case it would imply to me that the artist has attained
a level of craftsmanship unseen by others and that is, in and of itself,
a distraction from the artistic message. The "why" may follow after the
"how" has sunk in - or it may not.
I believe we are each craftsmen of varying degrees of experience and
success but only artists when we are able to manipulate the material in
order to express our message. In other words, a craftsman desires to
make a beautifully shaped and exquisitely executed bowl; an artist
desires to express a thought or idea using the form of a bowl. In order
for the artistic message to be readily accepted and contemplated the
form of delivery needs to be without distraction - and this includes
distraction of innovative technique.
_____
American Association of Woodturners
Cascade Woodturners Assoc., Portland, Oregon
Northwest Woodturners, Tigard, Oregon
_____
Brian Combs
craftsman and artist I appreciate the work as art, craft, and as an object
in itself. As a craftsman I am always interested in the how so that I can
broaden my education and possibly improve my art through it.
Brian
George
century was the century of the "common man" in every manner from mass
education through democracy. Or at least it was supposed to be. Lethaby
and others in the A&C movement were proclaiming that ethic.
In reality, the common are still led by the elite, though with some
exceptions membership in that group in Western society is no longer
hereditary or confirmed by apostolic succession. It is the elite who feel
compelled to declare their greatness in "art" from monumental, as the
pharaohs, through miniatures as the Persian satraps, where the brush was
sometimes a single hair. Virtuosity, however, has never been its own reward.
The term starving artist is one with a long tradition, and for good reason.
It is not the creator of the piece who makes it art, but the purchaser or
patron who is willing to give the piece the aura which devolves from his
status. The piece in the patron's house or on display at public expense
usually will not differ greatly in style or execution from the one which
became a canvas for a second or third attempt to please that patron, with
one exception - it has been accepted. Through history, as now, the price a
piece commanded is pretty much what made it art in the mind of the masses.
That's the constant through fads, phases, and schools of art.
I realize that the producers must market their pieces heavily if they are to
gain entree into the world of art, though I can only laugh at patrons who
buy from those for whom "spitting in the face of the bourgeoisie" or, in
some recent cases, defecating on what others hold sacred is held, on its
own, as art. Bad manners do not make good art in my mind.
Turners are not blameless in this respect. Some of the posters to this
group speak of the necessity of "educating" the masses to accept turnings as
art. Some have even suggested that their status as artists entitles them
to price protection in the marketplace from other turners . That's
certainly not pandering to the common herd. In my opinion it doesn't
elevate them in any way, either.
With nomex covering my entire body, and Copeland blaring in the
background....
"Arch" <al...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4860-3FD...@storefull-2358.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Hi Clay, Thanks for the post and for lending your stature to the ng. I
> read Mr. Lethaby's essay with interest, but I'm glad it was written in
> 1913 so my disagreement won't insult him. To my mind it echoes the
> misguided efforts some wood artists make in trying to ingratiate
> themselves with the mass of average workers. A 'pretend' good ole boy
> is an embarrassment, and if a person is not the 'common man in the
> street', I don't believe he should try to be, whether with words or
> works. IMHO, celebrating the ordinary elevates nothing.
>
Ron Robinson
shaped and exquisitely executed bowl; an artist desires to express a thought
or idea using the form of a bowl. "
I consider myself a bit of a craftsman. The fact that the public willingly
forks over, what even I sometimes think to be, exorbitant prices for my work
probably reinforces that assumption.
I guess that Owen has very eloquently described what sets me apart from the
artist. Through hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of turnings I have
never once had even
the fleeting thought that I was expressing some thought or idea through the
turning.
What I have done, on occasion, is stand at the lathe and marvel at the
beauty unearthed from within a chunk of a tree. But I have never considered
myself an artist. I merely uncovered a natural beauty that was put into
that wood by a power much greater that I.
Ron Robinson
East Texas
Graham
"Clay Foster" <cla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5091e8cb.03121...@posting.google.com...
I think that Ruskin, the great 19C art critic said:
"A man who uses his hands is a labourer.
A man who uses his hands and his head is a craftsman.
A man who uses his hands, his head and his heart is an artist."
I think that just about sums up this never-ending debate.
Graham
Northlink
gallery parties. But relevant!
Phil Brennion
"Graham" <stra...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Yr1Db.707229$9l5.16053@pd7tw2no...
Henry Doolittle
must be called art because most of the pieces serve no other purpose except
to amaze the eye. A single piece art may contain 10 or 20 pieces of spun or
blown glass up to 10 feet across made by 5 or more craftsman. The man
responsible for the designs does not blow glass. He gives direction to the
craftsman working under him.
As he does not work with his hands and is not a master of his craft, does
this mean that he is not an artist. With his vision he could work equally
well in a verity of media if he had the qualified craft for that media.
There are artists who work in dirt and plant plants, build metal sculptures,
and yet do not put their hands to tools.
I agree with Arch that we know what art is but cannot always explane it.
Henry
"Owen Lowe" <onln...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:onlnlowe-F7E645...@corp.supernews.com...
Harry B. Pye
> responsible for the designs does not blow glass. He gives direction to
the
> craftsman working under him.
>
> As he does not work with his hands and is not a master of his craft, does
> this mean that he is not an artist.
Of course he is an artist. Those five glassblowers are his tools.
Owen Lowe
"Henry Doolittle" <h.doo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In Seattle there is a glass shop that makes the most amazing glass art. It
> must be called art because most of the pieces serve no other purpose except
> to amaze the eye. A single piece art may contain 10 or 20 pieces of spun or
> blown glass up to 10 feet across made by 5 or more craftsman. The man
> responsible for the designs does not blow glass. He gives direction to the
> craftsman working under him.
>
> As he does not work with his hands and is not a master of his craft, does
> this mean that he is not an artist. With his vision he could work equally
> well in a verity of media if he had the qualified craft for that media.
I would disagree that he is not a master of the craft - he must have a
thorough understanding of the materials and chemistry in order to
instruct the craftsmen. Is he an artist attempting to communicate an
idea, comment or message? Or is he a master craftsman who sees a vision
of an end product and knows how to instruct others to work the materials
in order to get there?
To throw another wrench in the works, it has been argued that Ansel
Adams was not an artist. He was one who merely documented the scenes he
came upon. His negatives are, reportedly, unexceptional and, contrary to
what one might expect, quite difficult to print. His forte was his
complete understanding of the photographic process and chemistry and he
absolutley mastered the craft of manipulating the materials. Did he
express a message other than "look at this beautiful image"? -- Similar,
in my view, to most wood "artists" who would like us to believe that the
beauty of the material is something he created and brought to our
attention.
<Snip and paste from above>
> > It must be called art because most of the pieces serve no other purpose
> > except to amaze the eye.
Is this one of the goals of art? As the amazement fades with repeated
viewings, does the artistic quality also fade? As others replicate the
effect, is the original's claim of art diluted? Do those who produce
similar work after learning the techniques have as much right to claim
an art label as the original?
> I agree with Arch that we know what art is but cannot always explane it.
Absolutely - and it's a highly individualized determination.
My questions to the original posting would be: Can one be an artist
without being a craftsman? Can one be a craftsman without expressing
oneself and thus inadvertantly becoming an artist? Does the artist
diminish the impact to the audience if the work exhibits shoddy
craftsmanship? Down to the nuts and bolts - Must one master the craft
before one can successfully express their art through the craft?
Ken Moon
"Ron Robinson" <rone...@eastex.net> wrote in message
news:vtp2ih4...@corp.supernews.com...
> SNIP ----
>But I have never considered myself an artist. I merely uncovered a
natural beauty that was put into
> that wood by a power much greater that I.
>
> Ron Robinson
> East Texas
Ron,
You may not consider yourself an artist, but I've seen your work, and I'd
consider a lot of what I've seen as art.
I think art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Ken Moon
Webberville, TX
Dan Bollinger
> must be called art because most of the pieces serve no other purpose except
> to amaze the eye. A single piece art may contain 10 or 20 pieces of spun or
> blown glass up to 10 feet across made by 5 or more craftsman. The man
> responsible for the designs does not blow glass. He gives direction to the
> craftsman working under him.
>
> As he does not work with his hands and is not a master of his craft, does
> this mean that he is not an artist. With his vision he could work equally
> well in a verity of media if he had the qualified craft for that media.
Are you speaking of Dale Chihuly? His works are great. Just becuase he doesn't
blow glass now doesn't mean he didn't use to or can't now. Right? And, in the
world of art and glass, no one would not call Dale a master craftsman and many
call him an artist. On a university campus, Dale would be called an artist
working in the craft department. What others call him doesn't matter much except
to the person speaking. I'm sure his Mom just calls him Dale.
Nova
> Are you speaking of Dale Chihuly? His works are great. Just becuase he doesn't
> blow glass now doesn't mean he didn't use to or can't now. Right? And, in the
> world of art and glass, no one would not call Dale a master craftsman and many
> call him an artist. On a university campus, Dale would be called an artist
> working in the craft department. What others call him doesn't matter much except
> to the person speaking. I'm sure his Mom just calls him Dale.
And I bet the people at his bank call him Sir.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Leo Lichtman
Ken Moon wrote:
Ron,
> You may not consider yourself an artist, but I've seen your work, and I'd
> consider a lot of what I've seen as art.
> I think art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Ken, your words characterize a feeling I have always had: Those who refer
to *themselves* as "artists" are often just pompous egotists. The term
"artist" is best applied by others.
Leo Lichtman
Arch wrote: (clip) To some extent, if one asks " how did you make that?"
instead of inquiring "why?", he has missed the message and its personal
meaning for him.
If you ask the maker of an object, "How did you make that?" he/she will take
it as a compliment of the craftsmanship. If you ask him/her "Why," the
question will be offensive, suggesting that the object does not communicate.
If you ask yourself this question, it suggests that you are having
difficulty understanding the intent of the piece. In my opinion, if a piece
is really "talking to you," the question will not come up.
Leo Lichtman
Henry Doolittle wrote: (clip) The man responsible for the designs does not
blow glass. He gives direction to the craftsman working under him. As he
does not work with his hands and is not a master of his craft, does this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He is just as much an artist as an orchestra conductor or architect.
Leo Lichtman
Dan Bollinger wrote: (clip)I'm sure his Mom just calls him Dale.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Until she gets together with her neighbors, or her former classmates at a
reunion, and then, I am sure, she talks about how well her son is doing in
the field of glass art.
Owen Lowe
cla...@earthlink.net (Clay Foster) wrote:
> <IMHO, celebrating the ordinary elevates nothing.
>
> <My disagreements are too numerous to list, but I'll mention two....I
> don't think it's necessary for an object to be beautiful or even well
> crafted in order to be art.
>
> I agree with that. Some of the most powerful art is not attractive,
> but scary or angry or sad. Is emotional content what keeps a humbly
> crafted object from being ordinary?
Clay, this thread seems to have devolved once again towards attempting
to define art vs. craft - and I'm just as guilty. I'll attempt to get
back to Lethaby's commentary.
In your statement above, are you co-mingling works that are poorly
crafted with those that carry a negative statement and giving acceptance
to both? I agree art does not have to be pretty or likable. But, I do
believe it has to be well executed in the chosen medium to gain serious
thought and acceptance. I believe we should each strive to the highest
level of craftsmanship our mind, body, and economy allow for any work we
create. The audience will then bestow whatever label it desires; Good,
bad or, heaven forbid, indifferent. We also need to be mindful that
there is no _one_ audience.
If the creator's intent is to express emotion, then I believe that as
long as the emotional content is stronger than any defect apparent in
the humbleness of craftsmanship then the delivery is successful. That is
not to say that the emotion wouldn't be stronger should the defects of
craftsmanship be less distracting. Should one refrain from attempts at
expressing emotion before attaining mastery of a craft? Of course not.
But one should strive for the absolutely best craftsmanship they are
able and continually strive to better one's abilities so that the
message is presented more effectively.
Owen Lowe
<e7cDb.458748$0v4.21...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lic...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> If you ask the maker of an object, "How did you make that?" he/she will take
> it as a compliment of the craftsmanship. If you ask him/her "Why," the
> question will be offensive, suggesting that the object does not communicate.
> If you ask yourself this question, it suggests that you are having
> difficulty understanding the intent of the piece. In my opinion, if a piece
> is really "talking to you," the question will not come up.
Yes Leo, I agree. If one has to ask why, then the message is weak or
some other distraction pulls the eye from the artist's intent. This, I
believe, is where expert craftsmanship plays a role in successful art.
One striving to be artistic ought to strive for the highest level of
craftsmanship they are able. Can successful art, by which I mean that
which is revered through the ages, exist independent of the highest
levels of craftsmanship available at the time of completion?
Arch
on. Clay's thread provoked some differing, but all good, takes on a
supposedly forbidden subject. Happily, there are no always or never
threads here, or this ng might succumb to irrelevant conformity.
Consistency rarely restrains my opinions, which usually are nothing more
than 'can openers', anyway.
Subject to change tomorrow, but right now my analogy: The Gettysburg
Address would lose nothing if it had been written on a used envelope.
The same if the . . . _ of the 5th symphony had been scrawled on a
tablecloth. OTOH, David wouldn't have been much if he had been sculpted
in mud instead of being released from a block of marble. In our
discussions about art vs craft, exceptions abound. Like watching TV
trash, we all deplore the art-craft thing while avidely joining the
argument. Well, why not?
Social climbers can never be high class because aspiring to be or
claiming to be is an automatic disqualification. I think it might be the
same with being a true artist.
Just musings (mouthings) from Chairman Know Naught. Others are allowed
to differ. Arch
Fortiter,
Owen Lowe
al...@webtv.net (Arch) wrote:
> Subject to change tomorrow, but right now my analogy: The Gettysburg
> Address would lose nothing if it had been written on a used envelope.
> The same if the . . . _ of the 5th symphony had been scrawled on a
> tablecloth.
However, keep in mind that the method of presentation for either is not
the envelope or the tablecloth. Would the G. Address even be remembered
had it been spoken by Aunt Bessie at the church social? Would the 5th
symphony have been as successful had it been composed for kazoo?
> OTOH, David wouldn't have been much if he had been sculpted
> in mud instead of being released from a block of marble.
Agreed. And I reiterate once again that the powerful and most revered
art is that which exhibits the highest levels of skill with the chosen
materials. Back once again to Lethaby's comments.
Bill Day
I've always liked the definition I heard once..."An artist is someone
who makes a supply, whether of NOT there is any demand."
a craftsman might not bother.
so....I am an artist. Whether or not I am a 'good' artist is what
others need to decide.
Kevin & Theresa Miller
Dang! You're on to me. Rats...
...Kevin
--
Kevin & Theresa Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Dave Mundt
And from a Smithsonian Magazine article about him a few years
ago, the only reason he DOESN'T blow any more is that he lost an eye
in an accident, and, "when one is swinging 60 lbs of red-hot glass
around, one REALLY needs depth perception" as he so wisely observed.
Regards
Dave Mundt
PukeTarget
Great! Thought provoking!
Patty clipped this out of a newspaper for me and I have kept it and refer to it
often:
"A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands
and his brain is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain
and his heart is an artist."
Louis Nizer
American lawyer (1902-1994)
I look forward to seeing you in January.
Bill Sullivan
Fort Myers, FL
Clay Foster
That quote is pretty popular with craftsman/artists. Here are a few
that may not be as familiar.
"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
Imagination encircles the world. "
-- Albert Einstein
"Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful
objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill
gives us modern art."
- Tom Stoppard
"Artists can color the sky red because they know it's blue. Those of
us who aren't artists must color things the way they really are or
people might think we're stupid."
- Jules Feiffer
"Things men and women have made with wakened hands,
and put soft life into
Are awake through years with transferred touch,
and go on glowing for long years."
-D. H. Lawrence
puket...@aol.com (PukeTarget) wrote in message news:<20031217141535...@mb-m27.aol.com>...
Peter Teubel
>"Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful
>objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill
>gives us modern art."
> - Tom Stoppard
This is my favorite!
Peter Teubel
Milford, MA
http://www.revolutionary-turners.com
J Pagona aka Y.B.
As I see it Dale Chihuly is an artist, but he's not a craftsman.
_____________________________
IMNSHO:
Art relates to the design.
Craft relates to the workmanship.
A piece can be fine art, fine craft, neither or both.
There are plenty of excellent craftsmen who make pieces of common design or
others' design. There are also lots of artists who create original designs in
crafts they haven't mastered. Obviously, it is the people who are both fine
artists and craftsmen (craftspeople? crafters? craftH.Sapiens? craftcritters?
craftfolk? whatever!) who are the most inspiring.
David
remove the key to email me.
Dan Bollinger
> objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill
> gives us modern art."
> - Tom Stoppard
What claptrap. Sour grapes, Tom? Tom is either trying to be sarcastically funny
or is making a derogatory statement about artists. Picasso was a modern artist.
He was also one of the best draftsman I've ever seen. He could realistically
sketch an object better than just about anyone on the planet. So much for Tom's
observation.
Don
> Picasso was a modern artist.
> He was also one of the best draftsman I've ever seen. He could
realistically
> sketch an object better than just about anyone on the planet. So much for
Tom's
> observation.
A *sketch* does not make one a draftsman.
They are two completely different subjects.