Are We Artists?
Pat
there's a picture on it. However, if we're following a pattern that
was designed by someone else, can we call ourselves artists?
Sonya Cirillo
*you* are the one that gets the materials together,
and threads the needle. It is your skill that determines
the tension and the lay of the stitches. It is your skill
that makes the stitching go all the same direction and is
careful to not leave lumps on the back to show when framed.
. . .
So, yes you're an artist - even if you do the design
*exactly* the way the designer suggests!!!!
Sonya
Scarlet Apex
called for. It takes skill and love and patience to stitch. And I know for
me, I almost never follow the supply list exactly, so I also know that I
need to have a good eye for color and fabric and threads. So yes, I'd say
we are artists.
Isabel
--
Essence Bottles
Self-Designed Project
Bird Quilt
Two Christmas Ornaments
"Pat" <ch...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d29bd864.01072...@posting.google.com...
CASin43
Where would all these wonderful artists be if there were not excellent
technicians like me to execute their work:))
I've never had the urge to design. I just want to stitch stitch stitch.
I sometimes feel sorry for the designers who never get time to stitch.
Carol-Ann
10 miles NW of London England
Christmas
my opinion is an accurate term for those of us who cross stitch or
embroider, but I prefer to call myself an artisan or craftsman.
Pat <ch...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d29bd864.01072...@posting.google.com...
Martha Fletcher
do think of myself in the literal sense as an accomplished needle woman.
I think this term covers what we are any way.
Not everyone has the skills or patience to work with textiles in
whatever form they take. Maybe you do crochet or card weaving. These all
take skill and diligence and give the person an immense amount of
personal satisfaction.
Martha Fletcher
Jacqueline Cahoon
No, I don't think so. Although many of us *are* creative enough to design
an original piece, I don't think we can call ourselves artists when
stitching someone else's design, no matter how we alter it.
Several people have mentioned how skillful we need to be to do needlework
well, but there's a world of difference between skill and creativity. One
can be highly skilled but have absolutely no imagination. And although I
often exercise
creativity & imagination by changing designs & materials, the *original*
idea was not my own.
--
Jacqueline in Morgantown WV
Cheryl L. Perkins
: We start with a blank piece of cloth. When we're finished stitching,
: there's a picture on it. However, if we're following a pattern that
: was designed by someone else, can we call ourselves artists?
I don't think so, I consider it a craft. Being a fine needleworker is
something to be proud of, and a worthowhile ambition, but it isn't quite
the same thing as being an artist. I see being an artist as including the
ability to be original.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
KDLark
If I had come up with the design from scratch, that would be different.
Katrina L.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
thought processes. If I embroider from a chart I consider myself a
craft person. This is a good enough label for me.
Joan in Philly
Cheri Fulmer
I often hear stitchers turn away compliments about their work by saying that
they just followed the chart.
But consider the seamstress who makes a dress from a pattern. When she is
asked where she bought the dress, she proudly states "I made it myself!"
There is no mention of only following a pattern.
And how about the man who builds his own house, following the architect's
blueprint?
A chart is only a piece of paper.
It is the stitcher who brings it to life.
"I made it myself!" is always something to be proud of.
Cheri Fulmer
FulmerCraft / National Park Needlework
Sonya Cirillo
Frankly - I don't think the artist that copies someone else's
paintings (like those employed by Thomas Kincade to produce
all those copies of his 'originals') are any less an artist
than Thomas Kincade himself. This person has to have the skill
and talent to produce that painting just like Mr. Kincade - well
enough that Kincade is willing to sign it!!!!! Kincade is
definitely more creative!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whereas the buyer is more
likely to want that 'Kincade' than something else the 'copy'
artist might have come up with on his own.
In my mind it's the same thing! The 5 year old making a picture
for Mom or teacher isn't any less an artist than a student recently
graduated from an Art College. Just less skilled :) and the
5 year old may *never* become very skilled at drawing but his
Mom will treasure that picture forever!
A designer is an artist of the upmost skill and creativity - I'm
sorry but not everyone can or wants to be a stitcher. Some do
all sorts of techniques and others stick to just one. But in
all I believe it is a creative yearning within one that pulls
one to become a stitcher.
I do fantastic ceramics but lousy paintings. Why? I don't care -
I have searched and found my means for expressing/letting out that
creative nature. I can design - but I would never compare myself
to MLI or TW . . .
Think about it!!!
Sonya
Cross Stitch
One craft lies within the design by one artist. (MLI, TW, etc.)
The other craft is an artist with the needle. We all have various skill
levels with our talents.
So the answer is "yes", but it is with the artistry created by the
needle rather than by the creation of the design.
JanM/Texas
Tom & Rita Liesch
have no sense of design, no sense of which colors go with which other
colors, no sense of proportion, etc. I am a talented craftsman and
technically gifted. I can execute an artist's design, but I am not an
artist.
Rita Liesch
Jacqueline Cahoon
>A chart is only a piece of paper.
It is the stitcher who brings it to life.
"I made it myself!" is always something to be proud of.<
You're absolutely right! I'm extremely proud of the needlework that I do,
but I don't consider myself an artist. There's still a creative difference
between someone who's highly skilled and an artist.
Carolyn Potts
"Pat" <ch...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d29bd864.01072...@posting.google.com...
PaulaB
> We start with a blank piece of cloth. When we're finished stitching,
> there's a picture on it. However, if we're following a pattern that
> was designed by someone else, can we call ourselves artists?
I'm not. Even the original designs I've done would not be called art.
(You should see them! :-P ) I hope I am a decent craftsperson,
though. I don't really care...I'm happy! Paula B.
Sally
>
> Gee - I think you're all selling yourselves short!!!!!!!!!
>
> Frankly - I don't think the artist that copies someone else's
> paintings (like those employed by Thomas Kincade to produce
> all those copies of his 'originals') are any less an artist
> than Thomas Kincade himself. This person has to have the skill
> and talent to produce that painting just like Mr. Kincade - well
> enough that Kincade is willing to sign it!!!!!
Hiya Sonya..
Well.. (somebody correct me if I'm wrong)... but there are not other
"painters" making those Kincaid reproductions.. they are done mechanically,
AFAIK.
Unless it's *your* idea and creativity that the item was borne out of,
stitching a design is "craft", not "art".
I consider the finished item to be a "work of art".. but it would be quite
dishonest to not consider that finished item a "joint effort" between the
artist and the craftsperson that stitched it. And, IMHO, the "art" part of
it came from the "artist" not the stitcher. <G>... so a "work of art" is a
collaboration of your _work_ and the artist's _art_. <G>
All the creativity and thought process was done by the "artist" which are
the designers in needlework.
By calling yourself an "artist" you are selling the designers short IMHO. I
don't know how you can hang the same title on yourself that also encompasses
those that have taken years to hone their aptitude in turning a concept into
a finished item that is so desirable that we are willing to spend many hours
completing the design on fabric. Think of the many, many hours it takes a
designer to put the whole thing together.. from the multitude of
possibilities in their heads, they take it down to a single design. And
then that design also has to be turned into an easy to follow pattern for
those of us that enjoy this craft. That effort and skill doesn't compare
to just learning how to make a neat stitches. <G>
There is nothing artistic about going to Walmart and buying floss (that the
designer recommends) and taking it home and following a "paint by number"
kind of project. (as all needlework charts are, IMHO).
Now, if you take great care in the production of your work, that makes you
an "artisan" or "craftsperson".. which is still something quite honorable..
as most people lack the patience, interest, or skill to carry out making a
thing of beauty.
However, that being said, unless you take a concept of your own and turn it
into a finished item (which may only be the chart.. the "artist" doesn't
necessarily have to stitch *their design*)... well.. I don't know how you
can consider yourself an artist.
There are times I do my own creating (not in needlework), and then I can
honestly and proudly say that I'm an artist.. but for me to call myself an
"artist" when I relax and stress-freely stitch *someone else's* design,
IMHO, be quite arrogant of me. Lastly, I don't feel the same level of pride
when I stitch something from chart compared to something I've created "from
scratch".
No anger here... just my very strong opinion on the subject from my
perspective as an artist, craftsperson, and shop owner. <G>
Have a super week!
Sally
--
my secret stitchy page: www.beadsbeads.com/sallysstitchystuff.ivnu
WIPs-Celtic Banner ~*~ Angel of Cross Stitch ~*~ The Nativity ~*~
Nature's Home Afghan ~*~ Birds of the Air (Stoney Creek) ~*~
Woodland Walk ~*~ Home Is Where My Garden Is ~*~ Dog Bone Wisdom ~*~
Be Scary ~*~ Garden of Kindness ~*~ Nordic Angel
Summer Stevens
>We start with a blank piece of cloth. When we're finished stitching,
>there's a picture on it. However, if we're following a pattern that
>was designed by someone else, can we call ourselves artists?
I absolutely do NOT consider myself an artist.
A skilled craftswoman, yes, an artist, no.
--Summer
------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Lewandowski
create things ourselves (from scratch and our own vision) and either
execute it ourselves or direct its execution.
First we need to understand what the term "artist" means. And no matter
how you feel about it, we need a thorough grasp of the meaning. You
can't say: well, I looked it up and it means this, but I don't care.
I say this because it's what we teach youngsters today. Nobody fails.
Everybody wins.
Not disputing any persons point of view here - just trying to get you
all thinking.
Dianne
Sonya Cirillo wrote:
>
[snip]
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum
When I do personal appearances I write on the back of the framed
design......
I can imagine 10,000 butterflies coming over the hill.....
I can write the directions for 10,000 butterflies coming over the hill..
But it is the stitcher who makes those butterflies real and creates them
for all to see.......yes you are artists!
When I have 4-5 models made of a single design I wish you could stand
beside me and I would show you which ones are artists and which ones are
not....it is like black and white...some are pulled so tight the threads
make the linen look like plastic...the holes are bigger than the colors
of stitches! The faces are contorted and nothing like what I sent on the
directions. Then you will see the one that is a miracle! The floss lies
as if every stitch happened in a row, perfect and full and connected so
smoothly and it sings! This is the stitchers art and it shows and it has
great value as all things done by the hand do. The human touch of the
details creates the joining of hands as we all do our parts so that the
viewer can add the final part which is their own vision and
interpretation.
It's true!
Marilyn
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Cheryl L. Perkins
: I have a question: Why do we need to use the term "artist" if we don't
: create things ourselves (from scratch and our own vision) and either
: execute it ourselves or direct its execution.
: First we need to understand what the term "artist" means. And no matter
: how you feel about it, we need a thorough grasp of the meaning. You
: can't say: well, I looked it up and it means this, but I don't care.
: I say this because it's what we teach youngsters today. Nobody fails.
: Everybody wins.
: Not disputing any persons point of view here - just trying to get you
: all thinking.
: Dianne
I think that artists are more creative than artisans, and that creativity
is often misunderstood.
Creativity is emphasized a lot in education today, in spite of the fact
that it is difficult to define, and, since it can be expressed in so many
ways, almost impossible to measure in any one way. Now, this is fine, I
think everyone is creative to some degree, and it sure can't hurt to
encourage it. But some people act like all creative impulses are of equal
strength and value. I don't agree. For one thing, you can be a creative
genius in, say, music, but hopeless in writing. For another, we vary. I
have some creative abilities, sure. I could probably develop them more if
I worked on them, and enjoy myself a lot. But no matter how hard I work, I
am not going to be a visual artist such as a needlework designer. I simply
don't have the talents, and I doubt if I could ever develop them. I don't
have a good eye for colour or shape or proportion. I can admire beautiful
designs, learn to be an excellent craftswoman (although I've got a way to
go on that one), learn techniques and history....but design? I might as
well decide to enter the next Olympics and win a gold.
We all have different gifts, and not all of us have the levels of
creativity and skill that make an artist, and creativity is, at least
partly, something you are born with, like we are born with varying
abilities in sports, or music or other abilities.
Kim Brown
<snip>
> Mmmm, well, I don't know about that. Art, or should I say High Art is really
> very subjective. I'm not talking about bona fide artists like Van Gogh or
> Matisse. I mean, well take Andy Warhol. Sure, what he did is called art, but
> in my opinion, it's nonsense. I feel the same way about abstract of all sorts.
> It's not appealing to me, but it is called art.
<snip>
>
> Victoria
I used to think that way too, until DS did his Diploma in Fine Arts! He
had to learn a great deal about a lot of modern artists whom I wouldn't
have looked at twice. In helping him find resources, I did a lot of
reading about the styles and techniques. Suddenly, the penny dropped and
I found I could 'see into' a lot of paintings which I had once dismissed
as children's daubing! It really was like a light coming on! Much later,
I realised I had 'learned art' in pretty much the same way as I 'learned
classical music': continued exposure and an open mind really allows you
to see worth where you thought there was none!
And Oh! The amount of enjoyment you can derive from both art and music
when you broaden your tastes!
Only thing is, can anyone help me to see something good in the works of
Bartok or Schoenberg? I've tried, I really have, but for the life of me
all I hear is noise!
Oh! Just before I shuddup: one of the artists I discovered with DS was
Frida Kahlo (I've talked about her before here at rctn). Her paintings
are *really* powerful and when viewed after you read her life story,
have a haunting 'gets under your skin' quality that set them quite
apart! I reckon the works of Frida Kahlo lend themselves *extremely*
well to needlework and would look fine worked with special attention to
stitches and texture! Along with Ms Kahlo's work, the Mexican Muralists
also lend themselves to expression in needlework (or at least I think
so). I've often wondered why companies spend so much time and effort
trying to persuade people to stitch Monet's Waterlilies (which I reckon
would be the PFH with all those muted colours and perpetual changes!).
Why don't they market these (IMHO) much more suitable artworks as
stitched masterpieces?
--
Trish {|:OI}
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
KDLark
>I have a question: Why do we need to use the term "artist" if we don't
>create things ourselves
I've been thinking about this question, myself, since it first came up.
Personally, I don't consider myself an artist in needlework, because I'm simply
following someone's else's directions. I think "art" is something that is the
artist's own, from conception to finish.
There was a time when I wanted to be an artist (a children's book illustrator,
to be exact) -- when I was in elementary school, I was easily the best "artist"
in my grade -- my dinosaurs looked better than everyone else's, my people were
more "real," I had some idea of perspective, etc. In middle school, there were
maybe five people better than I was. In high school, maybe ten. In college --
well, there were enough people better than me (although I was still in the
upper ranks) that I decided that illustration wasn't the job I wanted, after
all.
I had no interest in "fine" art -- I'm still puzzled as to what makes "fine"
art to this day, because....well, I visited a friend of mine who works at an
art gallery, and she showed me around. Some of that stuff was not only
distasteful in the subject matter, but poorly executed, to boot! Yet the
"artist" had the gall to try and foist it on people...I was pleased when my
friend said the artist in question wasn't very sucessful at selling it. So to
this day I can't figure out where the line is between "illustration" and "art,"
and I leave that to wiser heads.
To me, calling someone an artist implies some degree of professionalism -- they
sell the stuff, or could. A kid in school might be a "budding" artist, but
certainly not one in full bloom. It's the same thing with "young authors"
programs where the kids make their own books -- are they really "authors?" Not
quite; not yet.
I've always be annoyed by this silly "self-esteem" stuff. You get self-esteem
by doing something FIRST, then being recognized. Kids aren't so stupid that
they don't see through bogus awards for "nicest smile," etc. Give everyone a
chance to find something they are honestly good at, yes, but you don't have to
lie about it. Naturally, a kid should get a lot of praise, but I've found that
you can always find good stuff the kid is doing. My mother was very stingy in
her praise, so I decided to be liberal -- only when it was deserved, of course.
Now my mother doesn't understand why my daugther and I get along so well...
This doesn't mean I think discipline should be harsh, of course. It SHOULD be
no-nonsense and (hopefully!) non-emotional. (I'm not as good at this, I've got
to say.) It's more fun to be bad if Mommy REALLY blows up, and then you can
make her feel guilty! Yes, I guess I was a sneaky kid...but I'm OT for OT
here.
Katrina L.
Pat Porter
Pat P.
victoria wrote
> What I do with needlework is that of an artisan. If I designed and worked
up
> the design I may be able to call that my art, but when I stitch someone
else's
> design, I believe I can call myself artisan with comfort.
> And I don't think it's any less than if I called it artist. Just
different.
>
> Victoria
>
>
> http://www.freetibet.org
Karen C - California
>Bartok or Schoenberg? I've tried, I really have, but for the life of me
>all I hear is noise!
I could add a few more names to your list of "noise". :)
Several years ago, our symphony debuted Corigliano's "AIDS Symphony". I lasted
5 minutes before I had to leave, and was informed by someone who stayed "it got
worse". I cannot even begin to imagine how!
--
Finished 6/12/01 - June Gemstone Dragon
WIP: Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler, Holiday Snowglobe
Paralegal - Editor - Researcher
http://www.craft-searcher.com/kmc/index.html
Don't risk your on-line privileges! I report all Spam.
Susan
>It's true!
Marilyn,
THanks for sharing your perspective on this... it's been an interesting thread.
:)
It's nice to hear a designer say we as stitchers are artists... I completely
agree with how you said it :)
Susan
Louisiana
Kathy Koestner
>We start with a blank piece of cloth. When we're finished stitching,
>there's a picture on it. However, if we're following a pattern that
>was designed by someone else, can we call ourselves artists?
IMO, no. The difference between an artist and an artisan or craftsman is that
spark of creativity, of originality. I don't have it. No matter how well I
execute my stitches, what *I* am doing is reproducing someone else's art, not
creating my own. But that's OK - there's nothing wrong with being a skilled
craftsman instead of an artist.
Kathy K
--
X/USA/S/-/-/-/27B/Monolog in Blue/X,Bw,D,P/E,L/D,S,Od/:-P~
/S/M+/B/b/R-/S/K-/E+/L/G-/Wo/Sam Elliott/David Weber/pizza
Kathy Koestner
>I had no interest in "fine" art -- I'm still puzzled as to what makes "fine"
>art to this day,
A friend who majored in art once told me that fine art is art which is intended
to *be* sold, and commercial art is art which is intended to sell other things.
Janine
A labourer works with his hands.
A craftsman works with his hands and his head.
An artist works with his hands, and his head and his heart.
Works for me!
Janine in Nottinghamshire
Sally
> From: j9...@aol.com (Janine)
> Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
> Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
> Date: 23 Jul 2001 15:10:21 GMT
> Subject: Re: Are We Artists?
Nice phrase..... I'm gonna hang that one in my shop.
Sally
PaulaB
> this day I can't figure out where the line is between "illustration" and "art,"
> and I leave that to wiser heads.
>
> To me, calling someone an artist implies some degree of professionalism -- they
> sell the stuff, or could.
I really wasn't going to jump in here because I'm so swamped
today...but, did you know that Norman Rockwell (one of my favorite
ARTISTS) was not called an artist during his lifetime, but only an
illustrator? We have several books about him, and from what they say
there was apparently little debate about it. Granted, he was the best
illustrator most people had ever seen, but still an illustrator, not
an artist.
If he's not an artist, then I, stitching someone else's charted
designs, certainly am not either. LIS, that doesn't bother me a bit!
Paula B.
Jennifer Millsap
I do not agree with people who say that when they reproduce
a pattern that is designed by someone else, then the stitcher is an
artist. We can call ourselves artists if we want to but the actual
"art world" would strongly disagree....no gallery would take
your work, you would not be recognized as an artist.
An artist is a designer who came up with a unique idea. They used
their own creativity to come up with a unique design. A craftsperson
is a person who is skilled at something but knows beforehand how the
finished piece will look because they are reproducing something; there
was no creativity involved.
It is flattering to our ego to be called an artist but I disagree with
MLI [much as I love her designs]. MLI is the artist. We are
the artisans/craftsperson]. I do think that though we may not all
be artists we CAN be proud to have reproduced a design with
the skill and patience necessary to produce something of quality.
An *artist* goes through a creative process that I call the "What
happens if" stages. I am a goldsmith. When I do my own designs,
I ask myself what happens if I add this? What happens if I change
that? What happens if.......etc...until I finally come to the point
where I am excited about a design which is unique my own.
When I have a customer who brings me their own idea, I am
the artisan/craftsperson who made the piece of jewelry for them
but I am not the artist who designed the piece. There is a
difference between an artist and an artisan and there is nothing
wrong with being a skilled artisan.
Jennifer
NW Oregon
Maria
>I've also seen some pretty angry designers who, even at the thought of
selling a
>completed work from their design, would call a lawyer.
Oh?
Those are designers who would be put on a
"NEVER buy these patterns" list real fast in my house.
Not that I sell anything that I stitch, but I don't see the designers
buying my supplies for me either, not to mention compensating me for my
time in stitching the pieces.
If they didn't want their designs reproduced they shouldn't have
bothered to go into the business of producing or teaching their
*patterns.*
I'm not talking about infringing on copyright, nor the sweatshop
reproduction and sale of 10 angels from 1 pattern for a church rumble.
I'm looking at this more from a standpoint that if the day ever came
that my stitched work needed to be sold, I fully intend to be to sell
it. I'd have to be really really desperate or really come to hate the
designer of the piece so that I want to rid my house of all traces of
said designer. I hope that day never comes, but one never knows.
jmo
--
maria from MA
remove the munge to reply
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
interesting , could I ask you some thing ? has your taste always been
in the same [ general] direction or has it changed with life ?
I found that Mine changes from time to time ,
thank you mirjam
.
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum
Once you complete a stitch design you may sell this for as much as you
can get. Some of my designs have brought donations of upwards of $2,000
for a completed framed piece.
If not for a charity I would think (and I do insure because of mailing)
finished designs are worth at least $800 before the frame and materials.
Since I was at the point in my life when I looked at my needlework and
did have to sell it, I know how it feels to value not only your time but
the moments of your life wrapped up into the stitching.
I had a collection of dolls that I hand dressed and had to sell for $35
apiece...some of them were authentically dressed amish children. I would
gladly pay $1,000 to get them back or more.(I had repaintd the faces and
they say "Leavitt" at the neck)
So looking at your walls and thinking "If worse comes to worse I can at
least get $$ for these stitched designs" is a true way to consider all
of your time and effort.
Marilyn
victoria wrote:
>
> I've also seen some pretty angry designers who, even at the thought of selling a
> completed work from their design, would call a lawyer.
>
> Victoria
Ericka Kammerer
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
>
> I have a question: Why do we need to use the term "artist" if we don't
> create things ourselves (from scratch and our own vision) and either
> execute it ourselves or direct its execution.
>
> First we need to understand what the term "artist" means. And no matter
> how you feel about it, we need a thorough grasp of the meaning. You
> can't say: well, I looked it up and it means this, but I don't care.
Well, I can tell you my personal definition of "artist,"
which is one who creates something of aesthetic value. But
that then begs the question of what "things" are eligible!
In the case of needlework done from a chart or in the case
of music performed (but not composed) by a musician (I am
also a musician), the finished work is co-created by the
designer/composer and the needleworker/musician. Now,
some artists are *better* than others. Some musicians
add little, some add a lot (and some probably subtract! ;-)
Same with needleworkers. To call one's self an artist
does not necessarily require that one be responsible for
the entirety of an artistic effort. The world of art is
*full* of things that require multiple people. To call
one's self an artist also does not imply any particular
level of quality. There are good artists, great artists,
and abysmal artists ;-) When one is involved in the creation
of a thing of aesthetic value, one is an artist. No need
to be so self-effacing as not to realize that. But it
also doesn't mean that one is good or even primarily
responsible for the end results.
Best wishes,
Ericka
--
The return address on this message works, but it goes to an
account I weed out only on occasion. To send me email, send to
my first name dot my last name at home dot com
and watch the spelling ;-)
Sonya Cirillo
How many of you started or bought projects/patterns while pregnant -
and later went back and said - Yuck!!! How could I have picked this!!!
I'll start - when I was pregnant with my first born I started this huge
latch hook rug. It had blue birds, and hearts and flowers . . . very
Victorian and very NOT me! I didn't get it done while pregnant, my
first born had major medical problems - so I didn't get back to it
until a year or so later and YUCK!!!!!!!
Thankfully that's all I started while pregnant!!!!
Sonya
JennyWren
> beside me and I would show you which ones are artists and which ones are
> not....it is like black and white...some are pulled so tight the threads
> make the linen look like plastic...the holes are bigger than the colors
> of stitches! The faces are contorted and nothing like what I sent on the
> directions. Then you will see the one that is a miracle! The floss lies
> as if every stitch happened in a row, perfect and full and connected so
> smoothly and it sings!
But, Marilyn, what you are describing is needle-skill, not artistic vision.
skill with a needle is a great thing, an impression thing, but it is not
art. If you wish to consider a completed piece art, then you must
acknowledge that there was an artistic team, not on artist. That team is
comprised of the designer and the needlewoman (or man) who executed the
design. But alone, the needlewoman is a incredible skilled artisan, which
is no mean feat in itself.
Was Stadivarious a skilled craftsman or an artist?
The Wren
JennyWren
original works. I interpret someone else's original concept. Craft is
something you study and improve and build. Thus classes. Even artists
study to improve their technique with the media they work in. But Art
is original ideas. How do you train in that? You may practice
communicating original thought, but not giving birth to the ideas
themselves.
I think that it is very interesting that there are more "artisan" votes
in this round of this discussion than "artist" votes. If I remember
correctly, the last time we batted this around, votes fell the other
way. Hmmmm.....
The Wren
Ericka Kammerer
Kim Brown wrote:
> Only thing is, can anyone help me to see something good in the works of
> Bartok or Schoenberg? I've tried, I really have, but for the life of me
> all I hear is noise!
That one is a tall order. The problem is that it's hard to
train your ears. Tonal music is based on a system that you've
been exposed to from your first lullaby. Your ear is trained
to hear that tonic, and to respond to being pulled away from
that tonic, and then to feel a sense of completion when you
return to that tonic. Nearly every bit of music you've ever
heard follows those rules. You can take a bunch of kids
who know nothing about music theory, play a chord progression
and omit the final tonic, and ask them to sing the next note
and they'll get it right every time.
What Schoenberg did was work with a *totally* different
system. Instead of a system that privileges the tonic, he
created something called the twelve tone system. In that
system, he started with a "tone row," which is a series of
notes that contains *each* of the twelve notes in the
chromatic scale. Twelve tone music is composed using
this tone row and various permutations of it, including
the retrograde (play it backwards), the inversion (invert
the intervals between notes), and the retrograde inversion
(play the inversion backwards). What this does is refuse
to allow a single note to achieve the kind of prominence
that the tonic does in tonal music. Shoenberg's music
has a kind of internal logic that does lead to a sense
of movement and completion, but it is a very different
logic than what your ear understands naturally. It takes
a lot of training and exposure to begin to hear that
logic so you can understand how the music fits together
and where it's going. It's much more demanding. And,
of course, once you "get" it, there's still no guarantee
you'll *like* it ;-) It does make a lot more sense at
that point, however.
Bartok is a bit of a different story, however. His
early works are quite tonal and accessible. In the middle
of his life, however, he became fascinated with Hungarian
folk tunes. After many years of collecting and studying
them, he was composing music that was based on a different
tonal system than traditional Western music--which again,
is probably what gives you heartburn. He wrote a lot of
modal and pentatonic music and a lot of polytonal music,
which is quite unfamiliar to most Western ears and can
get quite complicated.
You would probably find that there are a number of
ethnic musical systems that your ears don't "get," including
most Asian music. Your ears are set up to have some
very strong expectations, and when music doesn't follow
those expectations, it's hard for it to have that satisfying
feeling that traditional Western tonal music does.
Sonya Cirillo
dexterity or skill in a trade.
Artist: One who professes and practices an imaginative art or
a person skilled in one of the fine arts
Fine Art: art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned
primarily with the creation of beautiful objects.
Well that can be read - just about anyway you want too :) so
we may have to add this to the list of things we all agree to
disagree on!
Sonya
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum
I'm impressed!
The closest I can come to the tuning of the ear is when I went from a
$50 record player to a Bang and Olufson system. At first I thought
"Pretty package...no scratches...old records can't be played with the
diamond needle" After 6 months of having it in my studio any other
sounds from radios and records just "scratched" my ears! I had
"learned" the fine notes as if I were there for a live concert.
Now the CD's are coming closer to that quality....but a good musician on
my Bang still sounds like I can touch the stars.
Am I close?
Marilyn
ps. I give my children good but older sable brushes to paint with and
good oils to "Play" with because I think the best way to create what
they feel is to have the best tools.
pps. I did so love Paul McCartneys attempt at classical music...so many
images came to my mind.
Kim Brown
>
> Kim Brown wrote:
>
> > Only thing is, can anyone help me to see something good in the works of
> > Bartok or Schoenberg? I've tried, I really have, but for the life of me
> > all I hear is noise!
<snipped excellent post explaining differences between
tonality/atonality/different tonalities>
> You would probably find that there are a number of
> ethnic musical systems that your ears don't "get," including
> most Asian music. Your ears are set up to have some
> very strong expectations, and when music doesn't follow
> those expectations, it's hard for it to have that satisfying
> feeling that traditional Western tonal music does.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka
Yes! My dear friend, Muso, and I have had many a very fine argument
about the values of various tonal systems and what sounds good or bad.
Muso, of course, did his degree in Music and is much more critical than
me! he has taught me an enormous amount about Music, but could never
teach me to enjoy the abovementioned composers!
At our University, we had a Gamelan orchestra which sounded, to my ear,
bl**dy awful! We also had a Master of the Japanese Koto and Shami-sen
who practised just up the corridor from my place. I never could enjoy
those musical styles, no matter how hard I tried! There's a wonderful
program called 'World of Music', which is played and replayed all the
time on our national education TV station. It examines all sorts of
different musical forms, from the Throat Singers of the far east to the
(formerly) Yugoslavian group singing forms to Australian Aboriginal
chanting to the communal singing patterns of the Appalachian Mountains.
*Dear* it's interesting: just as interesting as examining the
differences in language between nations!
Dianne Lewandowski
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
> The world of art is
> *full* of things that require multiple people.
But the "artist" in this case (and Judy Chicago is the easiest example
to give), is one person - the rest are under her direction. There are
metal sculpters who employ lots of artisans to help with the finished
work - but the original "artist" (sculpter) directed and envisioned the
original work.
According to the dictionary - artist has to do with fine art. That
includes paint, music, ballet, sculpture, poetry and probably others I'm
not thinking of at the moment. In ALL these cases, the number of truly
great "artists" are low. VERY low. The number who fall below the
finest is low, also. The number who fall in the middle are far more
vast. But still a small number (when you think of the number living in
the world).
Artisan means craftsman. Metal, pottery, etc. This includes
needlework. You can fall in the not-so-skilled area or the highly
skilled. And highly skilled artisans make LOTS of money. Their work is
asounding. Beautiful. All the adjectives you can think of.
There is nothing wrong with being an artisan.
My question remains: why do we need the moniker "artist". Isn't it an
inflated sense of self? Why do we need to change the meaning of the
word "artist." And why can't we accept (if we accept this premise) that
artisan is a sought-after goal. For, to be truly gifted as an artisan
is an extremely high honor and gift.
Dianne
Sally
> From: Sonya Cirillo <scir...@dsl-173-k.resnet.purdue.edu>
> Organization: Purdue University
> Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:00:14 -0500
> Subject: was Re: Are We Artists? Dictionary definition
Well... I don't see much grey area here....
the first definition definitely fits what we do....
the second hinges on the word "imaginative" which we don't do (unless you
also designed the pattern)
and the last one... well.. although needlework is a beautiful object, there
isn't a "fine art" show in the country that would ever accept needlework to
be exhibited.
So.. there's your answer. <G>
Sally
Sally
> From: victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
> Organization: http://www.freetibet.org
> Reply-To: ani...@animaux.net0
> Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 21:51:39 GMT
> Subject: Re: was Re: Are We Artists? Dictionary definition
>
> Art in any form is always, unwaveringly subjective. What is art to me, may be
> disgusting, or worse, ugly, rank, or displays a rancor idea to someone else.
> IT
> can be beautiful for its subject, or vapid. People have their own ideas what
> art is.
Boy.. no doubt! (but the imagination word still seems to be the kicker
here)...
but anyway.. do you remember the "art" that some museum displayed that was a
sliced up cow (as I remember)????
Shhhhhheeeeeeesh... talk about *nasty*... but it was "imaginative".
Gag. But.. because of the "imaginative" thing... it was still considered
"art".
Compared to that kind of "artist", I'd rather be a craftsperson any day !!!!
Sally
Sally
>
> There is nothing wrong with being an artisan.
>
> My question remains: why do we need the moniker "artist". Isn't it an
> inflated sense of self? Why do we need to change the meaning of the
> word "artist." And why can't we accept (if we accept this premise) that
> artisan is a sought-after goal. For, to be truly gifted as an artisan
> is an extremely high honor and gift.
>
> Dianne
Well said!!!!!
I think the common perception of the term "craftsman" has gone downhill
greatly in the last 100 years or so (at least in the US).
My grandfather (Mom's side) was a great woodworker... (beautiful Norwegian
hand scrolled woodwork).. and my Dad was also a precision carpenter... both
of these men were fabulous craftsmen.
"Craft" used to denote intricate, beautiful things made with great care...
and now, sadly, many people connect that word to
pink-poodle-plastic-canvas-tissue-box covers. (or as my friend would say -
"crocheted chickens that poop plastic eggs") <G>
What a shame. (not that crocheted chickens can't be fun <G>.. but they just
aren't "craft" in the true sense of the word <G>)
I am still quite proud of the crafts that I take part in (my stress-free
needlework that I enjoy to wind down from very stressful days)... and I am
even more proud when I create something on my own from scratch so I can feel
good about being an "artist" at times. <G>
I appreciate your view on this, Dianne... because it's exactly how I feel.
Sally
RadioStmpr
there have electrostatic speakers? They produce the truest sound I've ever
heard. Close your eyes, and it sounds like you have a band in front of you.
Mandy
Sonya Cirillo
with the stuff I do.
Anyway - I maintain that needlework is a beautiful object
(other people do too - see MLI's report of people paying
$2000 for one needlework picture) therefore needlework
can fit into the definition of Fine Art - which I have
seen in Art Galleries! But I certainly won't and cannot
say they are in every one in the country.
Anyway - if needlework is a beautiful object - than the
person creating can call themselves an artist by definition.
If others don't want too that's OK, but words can be worked
around many different ways and come out meaning a totally
different thing - if you want it to.
I even use to have a proof that showed that 2 + 2 doesn't
equal 4 but instead it equalled 3.xxxxx don't have it
anymore but it's an eye opener in the world of absolutes
- or are they?
Sonya
Sonya Cirillo
an artisian is as opposed to an artist. I looked in several
different dictionaries and they all relate artisian with
plumbing, carpentry and that sort of thing. Whereas an
artist creates (of is skilled in creating) 'fine art' defined
as beautiful objects.
I feel that I'm an artist since I feel that I create beautiful
objects and don't related my work to be utilitarian like plumbing.
:) If I only created items to be used around the house, like
coasters and the like than I guess I should call myself an artisian.
My knitting and crocheting are artisian type works as they are all
items to be used - not works of arts.
But my needlework is almost all strictly meant to be artwork - not to
be used in everyday life. . .Of course beauty is in the eye of the
beholder :)
Sonya
Cheryl L. Perkins
<snip>
: What a shame. (not that crocheted chickens can't be fun <G>.. but they just
: aren't "craft" in the true sense of the word <G>)
Well, if they were very well-made crocheted chickens, they'd be produced
by an expert craftsman or woman!
I agree, but I suspect that there's a certain bit of snobbishness
involved. There's an old idea that something produced for its own sake is
superior to something that's produced to sell or trade for food. I have a
vague idea that it goes back to the Renaissance, because at one point, of
course, craftsmen and women produced everything, because they didn't
have mass production of goods. Of course, even then, there would be a
difference between someone who embroidered for her family, and the people
who created the masterpieces for the wealthy. There's a book discussing
this, 'The Subversive Stitch' or something like that.
<snip>
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@stemnet.nf.ca
Sally
>
> Speak for yourself then - I mostly certainly get imaginative
> with the stuff I do.
Well... we disagree *big time* if you believe it takes imagination to take a
list of DMC colors to Walmart, buy them, and then stitch them in the places
that the designer designated. <G> There is nothing there that you can take
the "imaginative" credit for. (Do you get all upset and frog areas if
you're off by a stitch? Most of us here would.. which proves how precise we
follow the designer's directions.. which obviously proves we aren't
implementing "imagination" into the work when being off a little sends us
frogging. <G>)
Sincere question here.. where do you see any imagination involved here?
You've got yourself a picture of the finished item (no imagination involved
there) before you ever start.
Are you "imagining" the finished item on your wall when it's done? If so,
you're still not "imagining" the finished item.. you're "remembering" it
from the picture on the pattern. <G>
There is nothing borne out of your own heart and "imagination" that created
the design.
About the only "imagination" involved is picking your mats and frame for the
finished thing.
Now, as has been said here before, there is something to be quite proud of
in being an "artisan". "Artisan doesn't mean "plumber". If you've ever
seen great woodworking or tailoring done, it is something to really be
amazed by.. and I've never heard of a fine woodworker or a tailor being
called an "artist".
>
> Anyway - I maintain that needlework is a beautiful object
> (other people do too - see MLI's report of people paying
> $2000 for one needlework picture) therefore needlework
> can fit into the definition of Fine Art - which I have
> seen in Art Galleries! But I certainly won't and cannot
> say they are in every one in the country.
There is also a difference between "Fine Art" and "Fine Craft". Both things
of beauty are found in art galleries. The next time you happen to be at a
magazine rack in a Barnes & Noble or Borders, check out a publication called
"Sunshine Artist" or "American Craft" (I think that's what it's called) both
of these are trade mags that define these terms. You will *never* find
needlework in the "fine art" category... although it has a place within
"fine craft" (as long as they are not chickens that poop plastic eggs <G>).
>
> Anyway - if needlework is a beautiful object - than the
> person creating can call themselves an artist by definition.
No.. because it isn't done with "fine art" materials, nor is the person
creating it using any "imagination".
And.. for the record.. as has been said here before.. "fine" as used here,
has nothing to do with the desirability of the object. It does require
"imagination" though.
>
> If others don't want too that's OK, but words can be worked
> around many different ways and come out meaning a totally
> different thing - if you want it to.
As you are doing here, obviously <G>.
>
> I even use to have a proof that showed that 2 + 2 doesn't
> equal 4 but instead it equalled 3.xxxxx don't have it
> anymore but it's an eye opener in the world of absolutes
> - or are they?
I'd like to see that one... <G>
Sally
Angelia Sparrow
Most of the time when I crochet, I follow a pattern, especially for
something specialized, like baby booties or sweaters. Afghans, I let go a
little more on.
When I embroider, all I have is the outline of a figure, or a B&W chart. I
determine size, color and placement.
I am slowly mastering the techniques that will allow me to draft my own
patterns for the Celtic embroidery I do.
When I start with nothing but a blank sheet of loose-weave cloth, some floss
and felt, and freehand transform it into a banner that advertises my booth,
I am an artist.
When I start with only an outline of a figure, transfer it to the cloth,
choose my colors and embroider it, I am an artist.
When I count out the number of stitches to finish the segment of sweater I
am working on, I am a craftsperson.
Those are just my thoughts.
(for a look at my embroidery, check the valarltd site)
--
Angel
Naked dancing girls aren't the answer to everything.
They are if you're asking the right question. --Laugh-in
Home; http://www.geocities.com/valarltd
Stories: http://www.geocities.com/lady_aethelynde
"Sally" <bead...@rmi.net> wrote in message
news:B7823012.B191%bead...@rmi.net...
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
dictionaries have not included in their lists? that is another part of
this question , Artist ? Artisan ?
mirjam
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
was shown in the MOMA ????
Rada Amar , that was shown in The Venetia Biennalle etc ??
The Pompidou , showed many Fibersrt items amonst other `conventional`
art , in the great show " Made in France" , several years ago.
many regular museum now show fiberart works .
mirjam
PaulaB
Hi, Mirjam...Yes, there are fiber artists who do wonderful original
work! Yourself among them. The majority of us here on the ng (from
what I gather, at least) do charted, counted thread embroidery
designed and marketed by professional designers. Not original, not
imaginitive, not expressive of ourselves except to the extent that our
ideas and those of the designer jive. I think this is what Sally is
trying to say. I don't think she would say that there are *no*
stitchers who are artists; just that most of us don't fall into that
category. (Right, Sally, or am I misunderstanding you?!) I believe
one can be an artist in any medium, including textiles, but in any
medium few who work with it achieve the right to be considered
artists. I don't know the people you referred to in your other post,
but I noticed my name wasn't in your list! <BG> And rightly so!
Not trying to fan the flames, just trying to clarify. Paula B.
Dianne Lewandowski
"craft": A trade or occupation that requires skill in the use of the
mind and hands (the craft of painting); an art viewed as a making that
requires developed skills (the craft of fiction)
I agree wholeheartedly with Sally. The word "craft" has been debased to
the point that we don't want our friends thinking we make painted Santa
Clauses of paint-stir sticks.
What we need to do is find a word for this junk. Or, we need to get
real as a society and stop making it. <big grin: I know I'll get flamed
for that last sentiment. But really, do we need to keep heaping praise
on normal adults who spend hours making witches out of brooms?>
Dianne
Sally wrote:
> I think the common perception of the term "craftsman" has gone downhill
> greatly in the last 100 years or so (at least in the US).
>
> "Craft" used to denote intricate, beautiful things made with great care...
> and now, sadly, many people connect that word to
> pink-poodle-plastic-canvas-tissue-box covers. (or as my friend would say -
> "crocheted chickens that poop plastic eggs") <G>
>
> What a shame. (not that crocheted chickens can't be fun <G>.. but they just
> aren't "craft" in the true sense of the word <G>)
> Sally
j walker
needs to be said in defence of doing something well. To my mind, there is
beauty in anything that is done as well as it can possibly be done. Whether
that is a smoothly done plumbing joint, a well cut dovetail joint on a piece
of furniture, a hand whittled bird, a well dug flower bed, and on and on.
These things may not qualify as "fine art", they may be done/made by
artists, artisans or craftsmen (craftsperson); but my mind/soul responds to
the clarity and the skill with which they executed
jean w, Toronto
"Sonya Cirillo" <scir...@dsl-173-k.resnet.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3B5CC498...@dsl-173-k.resnet.purdue.edu...
Dianne Lewandowski
around here (most of the time). This topic comes up at least twice a
year <very big grin>. Probably so we'll argue/debate needlework rather
than "do you make your kids use a fork?".
All the things you listed, (I left your post mostly intact), is the
definition of a craftsman. My brother restores antique boats. He
decides how far to sand, what color stain and where, where to put the
brass and what color brass to use, how many coats of varnish, what type
and when to replace boards, and makes the molds for the stairs, etc.
etc. It is an exacting skill, which needs training and years of
experience. He makes lots of decisions, and could build his own boat
(which he's done). But he's not an artist. Boats are as old as
history. So, even though he'll build a new one, it's an engineering
feat, not an imaginative one. The FIRST boat made by man, maybe <grin>.
Now, if you get to the point that you can draft a Celtic pattern that is
so imaginative that it stops people in their tracks, and the needlework
is so unusual and used in such an imaginative way that it takes a team
of people to figure it out (literally & figuratively), then MAYBE you've
created art and you can be called an artist. There ARE textile artists,
and Judy Chicago is one who is world renowned. Look for her on the web.
By studying her work, you'll understand (somewhat) artist/artisan.
Dianne
Dianne Lewandowski
artists. It is fine art. It ain't what we do here on RCTN (unless
there are some fiber artists out there who are lurking <big grin>). It
ranges from the mediocre to the sublime - just like paintings, just like
music.
Dianne
mak
who stitch it are artists or not, seems to come from the fact that each
group is picking ONE meaning of the word 'art' as being the ONLY meaning of
the word 'art'.
After looking through several of my dictionaries, I think both groups are
actually right. Here are some examples of the definitions of the word
'art':
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1957: art - [base
*ar, to join, fit together, as in L. artus, joint; cf. ARM, ARTICULATE]. 1.
human ability to make things; creativeness. 2. skill. 3. any specific
skill or its application. 4. creative work generally, or its principles;
making or doing of things that hve form and beauty: art includes painting,
sculpture, architecture, music, literature, drama, the dance, etc.: see also
fine arts. 5. any branch of this, especially painting, drawing, or work in
any other graphic or plastic medium. 6. products of creative work;
paintings, statues, etc. 7. usually in pl. any of certain branches of
academic learning, as literature, music, and mathematics: in this sense the
arts are usually distinguished from the sciences. 8. any craft, trade,
etc., or its principles: as, the cobbler's art. 9. artful behavior;
cunning. 10. usually in pl. a trick; wile.
SYN. - art, THE WORD OF WIDEST APPLICATION IN THIS GROUP, DENOTES IN ITS
BROADEST SENSE MERELY THE ABILITY TO MAKE SOMETHING OR TO EXECUTE A PLAN;
skill implies expertness or great proficiency in doing something; artifice
usually stresses mechanical proficiency in executing a plan but implies a
relative lack of ingenuity or inventiveness; craft implies ingenuity in
execution, sometimes suggesting trickery or deception; in another sense,
craft is distinguished from art in its application to a lesser skill
involving little or no creative thought.
Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language,
Volume One, 1955: art: 1 The skilful and systematic arrangement or
adaptation of means for the attainment of some end. 2 The practical
application of knowledge or natural ability; skill; dexterity; facility;
power. 3 A system of rules devised for procuring some scientific, esthetic,
or practical result; a branch of learning to be studied in order to be
applied; as, the art of arithmetic. 4 The principles of artistic
contruction and esthetic criticism, or their application. 5 The embodiment
of beautiful thought in sensuous forms, as in pictures, statues, music or
speech, or the works thus produced; as, a museum of art. 6 Artistic mastery
or skill. 7 Craft; cunning. 8 An organized body of men trained in some
trade or vocation; a guild. 9 (obs.) The black art; magic. - Liberal Arts:
The higher branches of learning, embracing the languages, history, science,
philosophy, etc. - Household Arts: The duties involved in managing a
household. Synonyms: address, aptitude, artifice, business, cleverness,
dexterity, esthetics, ingenuity, knack, science, skill, tact. In the
highest sense, art has no synonym. The term esthetics denotes the theory of
the beautiful which furnishes the basis of art.
Webster's Dictionary, 1966: art: human skill as opposed to natural
agency: skill, knack acquired by study and practice: taste and skill,
artistry: the rules, methods, general principles of a branch of learning or
an activity: learning as opposed to the natural ability: a branch of
learning, esp. used of certain departments or faculties of academic studies,
as in the phrase 'Master of Arts': a trade or craft: contrivance, cunning.
The Grosset Webster Dictionary, 1970: art: 1 Specialized skill or
knowledge; facility; knack. 2 A medium of aesthetic expression unified by
its own body of principles and historical development, as sculpture or
music. 3 The representational arts; graphic or plastic art; painting,
sculpture, and architecture. 4 A branch of academic learning. 5. Cunning;
craftiness.
Thorndike Century Junior Dictionary, 1935: art: 1. skill. 2. human
skill. This well-kept garden ownes more to art than to nature. The pupil
tried to learn his master's art. 3. some kind of skill or practical
application of skill. Cooking, sewing, and housekeeping are household arts.
4. a branch or division of learning. History is one of the arts; chemistry
is one of the sciences. 5. a branch of learning that depends more on
special practice than on general principles. Writing compositions is an
art; grammar is a science. The fine arts include painting, drawing,
sculpture, architecture, literature, music, and dancing. 6. drawing,
painting, or sculpture. Nell is studying art and music. 7. principles or
methods, as the art of making friends, the art of war. 8. skilful act;
cunning; device; trick. She deceived the youth by her arts. Black art
means evil magic.
Aren't words wonderful?! Can you tell I'm the daughter of a retired high
school English AND Spanish teacher????
Margaret
mak...@tir.com
Joan Erickson
> [from the Funk and Wagnall's definition] In the highest sense, art
> has no synonym.
I found this interesting. Maybe this is why we have such a hard time
deciding where we fall!
Joan
Ericka Kammerer
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
>
> Ooooh - such a thoughtful reply.
>
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
> >
> > The world of art is
> > *full* of things that require multiple people.
>
> But the "artist" in this case (and Judy Chicago is the easiest example
> to give), is one person - the rest are under her direction. There are
> metal sculpters who employ lots of artisans to help with the finished
> work - but the original "artist" (sculpter) directed and envisioned the
> original work.
>
> According to the dictionary - artist has to do with fine art. That
> includes paint, music, ballet, sculpture, poetry and probably others I'm
> not thinking of at the moment. In ALL these cases, the number of truly
> great "artists" are low. VERY low. The number who fall below the
> finest is low, also. The number who fall in the middle are far more
> vast. But still a small number (when you think of the number living in
> the world).
Well, I would take music as a prime example of what I'm
saying. It is only the composer who actually "designs" the
music. However, the musician who *performs* the music is,
in my opinion, every bit the artist. A different *kind* of
artist, of course, and one who can only create in partnership
with the composer, but an artist nonetheless. The music has
no expression without the interpretation and execution of
the musician. It is a truly collaborative artistic effort.
Also, I sense that you attach a value judgement to the
term "artist." Personally, I don't. There are great artists,
good artists, and awful artists. I don't think you have to
achieve some special level of vision or talent to be an artist.
You just have to create (or attempt to create) something of
aesthetic value. You might be lousy at it--but you're an
artist ;-) I consider the child who does finger painting
to be as much of an artist as Michaelangelo--just one who
has a lot less talent and experience! My flute students
are artists, but inexperienced ones who have a long way
to go before anyone will pay money to hear them--if ever.
> Artisan means craftsman. Metal, pottery, etc. This includes
> needlework. You can fall in the not-so-skilled area or the highly
> skilled. And highly skilled artisans make LOTS of money. Their work is
> asounding. Beautiful. All the adjectives you can think of.
>
> There is nothing wrong with being an artisan.
Of course not, and if someone prefers to label themselves
that way, they've got plenty of leeway to do that.
> My question remains: why do we need the moniker "artist".
We don't.
> Isn't it an inflated sense of self?
Only if you accept that being an artist implies a certain
level of talent, ability, rarity, value, or whatever. I don't.
I take it at its most basic meaning of the creation of the
aesthetic. While needlework is a co-created aesthetic item,
I do see both the designer and the needleworker as having
a creative role. Obviously, there is a continuum. In some
situations, the needleworker has virtually no leeway for
expression, in which case you might have to stretch the
definition of artist to include that situation. In other
situations, the needleworker has a *great* deal of leeway
in the execution of the piece--with the resulting product
being at least as much "her own" as any musical performance
belongs to the musician. I don't think there's any debate
at all in that situation. And, of course, there is a lot
of territory in between.
> Why do we need to change the meaning of the word "artist."
I don't think I am. I think you are artificially
imbuing the term with a value judgement that isn't required
by the definition.
> And why can't we accept (if we accept this premise) that
> artisan is a sought-after goal. For, to be truly gifted as an artisan
> is an extremely high honor and gift.
Of course it is. I have no problems with people using
that term if they prefer it for themselves. For myself, I
don't much care either way. I have my own assessment of
my abilities and contributions to my finished pieces that
is independent of the labal one might hang on them (or me).
But speaking strictly from an interpretation of the definition
of "artist" I do not believe that it excludes most needleworkers
per se.
Ericka Kammerer
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum wrote:
>
> Dear Ericka,
>
> I'm impressed!
>
> The closest I can come to the tuning of the ear is when I went from a
> $50 record player to a Bang and Olufson system. At first I thought
> "Pretty package...no scratches...old records can't be played with the
> diamond needle" After 6 months of having it in my studio any other
> sounds from radios and records just "scratched" my ears! I had
> "learned" the fine notes as if I were there for a live concert.
>
> Now the CD's are coming closer to that quality....but a good musician on
> my Bang still sounds like I can touch the stars.
>
> Am I close?
Partly! You've trained your ears to understand the
distinction between certain noises and music. It's amazing
how the ears learn! To move on to an understanding of
different musical systems, you have to train your ears to
understand music created by a different underlying logic.
It's almost like teaching your eyes the difference between
black and white and color photography. Some people can only
see black and white as the absence of color, and cannot
appreciate it for its own internal logic and beauty--which
is just plain *different* from color! You can't judge
black and white by color standards, because if you do, it
will always come up wanting. But if you learn to understand
and appreciate the beauty of good black and white for what it
*is*, you can deal with it on its own terms. Same with music
that is not tonal in the sense of traditional Western tonality.
It has its own underlying logic that is valid, but *very*
different from what one is used to. It can take a very
long time to be able to appreciate it on its own terms at
a gut level. There's often a very long time between developing
an intellectual understanding of the music and being able
to truly *enjoy* it at a gut level. All music (all art,
really) plays on your expectations. All contrast, conflict,
tension, resolution, etc. can't exist without your expectations.
When you don't know a system well enough to *have*
expectations, then you can't feel the emotions, and the
piece feels flat to you. In music, it just sounds like
"noise."
> ps. I give my children good but older sable brushes to paint with and
> good oils to "Play" with because I think the best way to create what
> they feel is to have the best tools.
I think that is *so* important. Goodness knows that
I haven't got any skills in terms of painting or drawing,
but even I can tell that those crappy paintbrushes they
design for kids are *not* going to be very effective at
allowing the child to gain some mastery over the medium.
The poor children spend half their time fighting with
the brush because it won't do anything they want it to do!
Same with bad paints.
Ericka Kammerer
Sally wrote:
> and the last one... well.. although needlework is a beautiful object, there
> isn't a "fine art" show in the country that would ever accept needlework to
> be exhibited.
Um...there are actually quite a few galleries that have
significant holdings in textile arts.
Susan in Alabama
Don't have kids yet myself, but I can confirm that all my pregnant
friends and relations do this sort of thing. DH's cousin Krista (who
had a lovely baby girl yesterday evening) doesn't stitch, but she does
have very strong tastes. And those tastes generally run to the
tailored, the muted, the soothing ... you get the picture (her
favorite colors are taupe and dove gray). But the baby's nursery is
done in pepto bismol pastels and covered with bunnies.
I got annoyed with Krista's DH early on because I felt his initial
disappointment at not having a boy was dragging on a bit and and
getting out of hand. Seemed as though he wanted the nursery done in a
dark, macho style just to assuage his hurt feelings. So you're
conservative and traditional? Well pink is traditional for girls. Get
over it! But when I realized how drastic the change was in Krista's
tastes, I began to have a bit more sympathy for his position and
realize that it *wasn't* all about wanting a boy. I have a sneaking
suspicion that Krista is going to get tired of the cutesey-pie thing
in pretty short order, and she is *very* strong willed ... which means
another huge redecorating project, this time with the baby actually
here and needing attention, etc.
Susan
Sonya Cirillo <scir...@dsl-173-k.resnet.purdue.edu> wrote in message news:<3B5C8D27...@dsl-173-k.resnet.purdue.edu>...
> OK all I have a question along this line.
>
> How many of you started or bought projects/patterns while pregnant -
> and later went back and said - Yuck!!! How could I have picked this!!!
Christmas
news:3B5D6B13...@heritageshoppe.com...
> I agree wholeheartedly with Sally. The word "craft" has been debased to
> the point that we don't want our friends thinking we make painted Santa
> Clauses of paint-stir sticks.
>
> What we need to do is find a word for this junk. Or, we need to get
> real as a society and stop making it. <big grin: I know I'll get flamed
> for that last sentiment. But really, do we need to keep heaping praise
> on normal adults who spend hours making witches out of brooms?>
>
> Dianne
I couldn't agree more. Junk seems like an appropriate word. When I'm at the
bookstore wading through all of the crap, err I mean craft magazines
desperately looking for something, anything to do with needlework, I can't
help but wonder who buys those magazines?
Leah
Sally
> From: Ericka Kammerer <eek...@home.com>
> Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
> Reply-To: eek...@home.com
> Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:45:42 GMT
> Subject: Re: was Re: Are We Artists? Dictionary definition
>
>> and the last one... well.. although needlework is a beautiful object, there
>> isn't a "fine art" show in the country that would ever accept needlework to
>> be exhibited.
>
> Um...there are actually quite a few galleries that have
> significant holdings in textile arts.
Did I say "Galleries"?
I'm talking about "fine art" shows... where artists must satisfy a jury to
be admitted to show.
Many of these also admit "fine craft".. which is where "original"
needlework/textiles would be considered.
Galleries are another whole ball game.
Sally
Ericka Kammerer
Sally wrote:
>
> > From: Ericka Kammerer <eek...@home.com>
> > Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
> > Reply-To: eek...@home.com
> > Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
> > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:45:42 GMT
> > Subject: Re: was Re: Are We Artists? Dictionary definition
> >
> >> and the last one... well.. although needlework is a beautiful object, there
> >> isn't a "fine art" show in the country that would ever accept needlework to
> >> be exhibited.
> >
> > Um...there are actually quite a few galleries that have
> > significant holdings in textile arts.
>
> Did I say "Galleries"?
>
> I'm talking about "fine art" shows... where artists must satisfy a jury to
> be admitted to show.
There are also fine art shows that admit textile arts.
A lot of people, even in the fine art world, are not as
hung up on fuzzy distinctions between media as others are.
Meredith Dill
interesting to look at, I have no doubt that I could reproduce the
samplers there if I tried.
Meredith
--
Meredith
To email me, drop the spam.
Ericka Kammerer
Meredith Dill wrote:
>
> The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has a textile archive. While it is
> interesting to look at, I have no doubt that I could reproduce the
> samplers there if I tried.
Does something need to require a level of skill unattainable
by the vast majority of people in order to be art? To me, that
seems an unnecessary restriction of the term. Obviously, some
people *do* make that distinction, but I do not think it is
*required* by all definitions of "art"--or even most definitions
relevant to the subject at hand.
Meredith Dill
anything that I can reproduce doesn't seem to be art to me. i.e.,
unless it's done really well, I won't pay for it. I bought a print of a
gorgeous painting of a white magnolia on red velvet this weekend,
because I know I can't paint that well...
Meredith
--
Sally
> From: Ericka Kammerer <eek...@home.com>
> Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
> Reply-To: eek...@home.com
> Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:51:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: was Re: Are We Artists? Dictionary definition
>
> There are also fine art shows that admit textile arts.
> A lot of people, even in the fine art world, are not as
> hung up on fuzzy distinctions between media as others are.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka
You're right... (and so am I <G>)... the ones that I have seen that admit
fiber/textile/wearables, etc.. are admitting them under the "fine craft"
category.
The debates about what is "fine art" have been going on forever.. and I've
never seen needlework make it's way into that category.
Now.. it's been about 3 years since I really studied what shows were
admitting what art/craft.. but that's the way it was then.
And, of those, there were *none* that would have accepted some needlework
piece derived from someone else's design... these must be original works.
I didn't create the terminology... it's just how I've seen it defined in
numerous show applications, trade magazines, etc.
Sally
Sally
> From: Ericka Kammerer <eek...@home.com>
> Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
> Reply-To: eek...@home.com
> Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.needlework
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:03:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: was Re: Are We Artists? Dictionary definition
>
> Does something need to require a level of skill unattainable
> by the vast majority of people in order to be art? To me, that
> seems an unnecessary restriction of the term.
No... but it does need to be original to be considered *your* art.
Sally
Ericka Kammerer
Meredith Dill wrote:
>
> That's true. I guess it's that I don't think of myself as an artist, so
> anything that I can reproduce doesn't seem to be art to me. i.e.,
> unless it's done really well, I won't pay for it. I bought a print of a
> gorgeous painting of a white magnolia on red velvet this weekend,
> because I know I can't paint that well...
I think many people feel that way. I just wanted to
point out that *that's* the root of the issue ;-) I think
people who make a value judgement that art has to be
"important" or incredibly difficult to do or only of the
highest quality are understandably reticent about calling
themselves artists. On the other hand, those who see
art as something more attainable by the average human
being are more comfortable calling themselves artists
because it involves considerably less hubris ;-)
Perhaps I am a bit desensitized to the issue, having
gone to music school (one set of artists) and hanging out
with art and architecture school studenst (another set
of artists). While I admire their talents, and don't share
all of them, I don't see all that much difference between
them and me. I have my skills, and they have theirs.
We all have the opportunity to create an aesthetic.
Some needleworkers choose to seize that opportunity,
and, of those, some see themselves as artists. Other
needleworkers never choose to bend their skills in the
direction of co-creation and don't see (or value) that
they add to the process (if indeed they do--I think it
is *possible* to practice needlework in such a way that
one does not contribute to the aesthetic ;-)
Ericka Kammerer
Sally wrote:
> The debates about what is "fine art" have been going on forever.. and I've
> never seen needlework make it's way into that category.
>
> Now.. it's been about 3 years since I really studied what shows were
> admitting what art/craft.. but that's the way it was then.
I have seen some variations where textile arts were not
labelled "craft" in any way. But then again, these things
almost always put things in groups by media, so sometimes the
only label on the textile arts was "textile arts" ;-)
> And, of those, there were *none* that would have accepted some needlework
> piece derived from someone else's design... these must be original works.
Well, that I'll agree with ;-) And I do think there's a
distinction between original needlework and execution of another's
design. *However*, I see an entire continuum of collaboration, not
just a black and white distinction between artist-designer and
non-artist-executor. Also, while things that make it into
juried shows and galleries and museums represent the *best*
art, I don't think that something has to make it into that elite
category to be called art.
Dianne Lewandowski
>
> The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has a textile archive. While it is
> interesting to look at, I have no doubt that I could reproduce the
> samplers there if I tried.
>
> Meredith
>
Hi, Meredith. Some of the offerings in tetile archives are there to
preserve history - not necessarily because they are "fine art".
But playing devil's advocate with myself: Perhaps they are in the
archive because they were "original" at the time they were made? I
doubt that, but thought I'd throw it in.
There ARE textile artists and textile arts that are in galleries. I
don't appreciate (under-educated) the more modern works, but do
appreciate the willingness of creative artists who use textiles as a
basic medium.
Speaking of under educated: When I was taking music theory and
composition classes, we talked about Schoenberg and Hindemith and their
ilk. One of my teachers (PhD) debated with our class about the value of
their (and other similar) works. It was his opinion (certainly not
because he was under educated) that the reason these compositions don't
make it is that they don't talk to the common man. He felt the fine
arts has to speak to people - or most people. If it only touched an
elite few, then perhaps it wasn't worth what those select few thought it
was. In past centuries, the music appealed to the masses. And even if
it didn't immediately (thinking of late 19th century works), it soon
caught on with the masses. I tend to agree with my professor. That
doesn't make me right <grin> - just that I have a gut feeling about it.
Dianne
PaulaB
DICTIONARIES! I could justify just about anything with this! The
part about the "sensuous forms" cracked me up...I thought of Jim's
maidens. So he's an artist and I'm not because the Adams and Eves on
my reproduction samplers aren't sensuous enough! I got a good laugh
out of this, but it just goes to show that what means something to one
person probably will not mean the same thing to another. Thanks for
going to the trouble to post all that!
And I still don't think I'm an artist with the needle, but maybe by
your definition I could be a domestic artist - I have worked at making
my house unique, I feel it expresses myself, and people generally seem
to respond the atmosphere I try to cultivate when they come in.
(Except for needleworkers, who generally have their noses an inch away
from the stuff on the wall within a minute of when they come through
the door!) <G> Paula B.
Sonya Cirillo
to show how the same words can be taken to mean something else.
We were at the 'big' library today, so just for fun (and to maybe
add to the discussion) I looked up artist, fine art, artisian
in several art dictionaries.
There were 8 different ones - half didn't even have any of these
words <guess you're suppose to *know* what they mean> the others
were split. The newest one (1988 - not very new)
gives two definitions for 'Fine Art'
1. Essentially, those arts which can be enjoyed for their own
sake: painting, drawing, sculpture and architecture, including
some minor arts.
2. Referring to the creation of beautiful objects.
Now: Minor arts: A special group that involves the use of solid
materials , such as textiles, glass, wood and gems, to produce
useful items.
Artist: A person who is SKILLED in one of the fine arts or the
creator of composite images.
It seems that most deemed 'Fine Arts' to be something "not useful" ie.
a picture, or some other decorative object. . . whereas Minor arts
and/or
Decorative Art is used to describe 'useful' items (tablecloths,
clothing,
pillows???. . .) Some (about half) are accepting the previously
referred to Minor art
objects to be Fine Art too and the rest way NO way!!! :)
Does this sound familiar????
By the way - to answer Sally's question. No I don't consider it to
be creative if a person follows the directions exactly to the letter
. . . but than again I didn't say that in the first place, just that
*I* most certainly get imaginative and creative. Yes, you would most
likely be able to pick out the picture of the original that I started
with, but mine won't be exactly alike (in some cases - you might be
a little hard pressed to find it's original).
I'm saying that imagination and/or creativeness is in there somewhere -
whenever 'you' change the background colors. Or change thread colors
and/or
type <not brand mind you> Or any of the various things people do to
a design that 'they' saw in there. . .the original design was their
inspiration.
I not saying that I'm as 'great' an artist as the designer!!!!!! NO WAY
-
without the designer - I would have a much harder time expressing
myself.
There are still imagives inside me that want to come out and I haven't
completely acquired all the skills I feel necessary to bring them out
into the open - and I haven't found a designer close enough to help with
them :)
Just as I consider myself at very good photographer - but in no way
would
say any of my photos should be considered Fine Art - but some photos are
now considered 'Fine Art' . . .(not mine - people like Ansel Adams)
Ansel Adams 'created' his photos many times by manipulation in the dark
room -
by his skills in using the media to achieve the picture of what he saw
with
his eyes - which is sooooo hard to capture on film. . .so some say he
was an
artist and others say he was an artisian and others still say he was
just a
great photographer. :) Who's right - no one and everyone, I guess.
Thanks everyone - I've really enjoyed this debate/discussion. It's
really
nice to have something like this without anyone getting nasty or
shouting!!!!
I feel like I've learned something too - in particular, some of the
things
said here - gave me reason to stop and think about how I think about the
subject and forced me to organize it and try and write it so others
could
see my viewpoint!
Sonya
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum
But really, do we need to keep heaping praise on normal adults who spend
hours making witches out of brooms?
ppppsssssttttt.......Diane.....Only when they get on the brooms and fly!
Couldn't resist!
Marilyn
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
>
> Thanks, Sally. I took the time, this morning, to look up the word
> "craft": A trade or occupation that requires skill in the use of the
> mind and hands (the craft of painting); an art viewed as a making that
> requires developed skills (the craft of fiction)
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with Sally. The word "craft" has been debased to
> the point that we don't want our friends thinking we make painted Santa
> Clauses of paint-stir sticks.
>
> What we need to do is find a word for this junk. Or, we need to get
> real as a society and stop making it. <big grin: I know I'll get flamed
> for that last sentiment. But really, do we need to keep heaping praise
> on normal adults who spend hours making witches out of brooms?>
>
> Dianne
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum
Jean!!!!!!!
(standing ovation)
Perfect answer my dear!!!!!!!!
Marilyn (Now let's all stand up and take a bow!)
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
Both women i mentioned are basicly Embroiderering ladies , who Show
their Embroidered Work in `conventional` Museums and it is Accepted as
ART [ female art ] .
>work! Yourself among them. The majority of us here on the ng (from
thank you !!!!
mirjam
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
My Fiberart Exhibition which includes works in various Techniques ,
Will be shown in " EIN-HAROD MUSEUM , and it includes also
Needlework, and it was not Juried , but i Was Invited By the
manageress + headcurator to bring some of my works , and they invited
it as Fine art !!!
mirjam
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum
of a Gallery and they had beautifully framed models of about 20 of my
designs. The article which we (paid someone to translate) discribed the
background and skill of the artist who created these wonderful pieces.
Her experience as an artist was explained and she had been schooled in
some of the best universities in Brazil.
This magazine was for investors and different funds that other artists
had contributed works for cultural events and charities. It was "slick"
and I wondered if the artist had made any mention of my name as the
designer. It wasn't in the article. I called the person who is the
editor of the magazine and they were shocked and horrified that this
woman had passed the designs off as her own. I tried to calm him down by
saying that the completion of this many works was a great accomplishment
and she should be credited for her hard work but that I had also made a
contribution to the creation of the work too. Maybe I am contradicting
myself but I felt a bit bad that she didn't let them know my name.
For some reason we have never been able to figure out...I have no sales
in South America at all????? Lots in Spain! Almost the whole world
except for China because I don't agree with their human rights policies.
Then someone visited there and brought back a B&W copy of my L&L top on
a plastic bag and it had a B&W graph in it with all of the copyrights
whited out. My name was whited out too. The answer we get is that people
there can not afford the high price of the patterns. Maybe I should do
what DMC does and sell them B&W versions cheaper! Oh slap my hand!
The amazing thing is that they can afford all of the right materials to
complete a design??????? I am wandering...someone close the door to my
cell....today was a lot of work! But will be worth it when you see what
we have done.
Marilyn
Fratfrat
it philosophers and puts down its plumbers has both bad philosophy and leaky
faucets.
Some of us are artists, some of us are craftsman (and I agree with those that
say craftsman is an honorable title), some of us express outselves by bringing
to life with our excellent technique someone else's beautiful designs, and some
just like to do things with their hands.
Let's just remember to give credit where credit is due. And to appreciate the
efforts of others whatever level they are.
This time I will sign myself
Mastercraftsman in Canvaswork, EGA and BS, MS and PhD (but who cares and what's
it worth in the long run anyway)
Dianne Lewandowski
*However*, I see an entire continuum of collaboration, not
> just a black and white distinction between artist-designer and
> non-artist-executor.
A non-artist executor is an artisan. You can't have it both ways :-)
I've enjoyed your posts on this subject. Don't totally agree <wry
smile>, but have enjoyed their thoughtfulness and point of view.
Dianne
Dianne Lewandowski
words!
I took some time this afternoon and also looked up craft. That's really
an extension of artisan. I have three dictionaries and they basically
agreed. None of them refined it to "minor arts". But since you
mentioned it, I have heard that term used in the past.
Regarding the definition of fine art as: "referring to the creation of
beautiful objects". That doesn't mean anything around us that is
beautiful. That's a bit of a stretch on the meaning of the word.
Definitions in a dictionary are necessarily short. Giving you a gist.
To understand, you often have to delve deeper.
From reading all the feeds on this subject that came through to me, it
would seem that everyone agrees, with only minor differences of views,
about the word artist and fine art. The two go hand-in-hand.
What I still don't get is why we feel the need to call ourselves
"artists" and why is the term artisan (which more closely fits the
description of what we do) abhored? I didn't say "crafter", I said
artisan.
So many want to cling to the word artist. And that really intrigues me.
Dianne
Sonya Cirillo wrote:
>Fine art:
Dianne Lewandowski
words!
I took some time this afternoon and also looked up craft. That's really
an extension of artisan. I have three dictionaries and they basically
agreed. None of them refined it to "minor arts". But since you
mentioned it, I have heard that term used in the past.
Regarding the definition of fine art as: "referring to the creation of
beautiful objects". That doesn't mean anything around us that is
beautiful. That's a bit of a stretch on the meaning of the word.
Definitions in a dictionary are necessarily short. Giving you a gist.
To understand, you often have to delve deeper.
From reading all the feeds on this subject that came through to me, it
would seem that everyone agrees, with only minor differences of views,
about the word artist and fine art. The two go hand-in-hand.
Minor arts remind me of stained glass wherein the artist draws upon his
own creation (not a picture from a book) to create remarkable,
one-of-a-kind creations, cabinetry or furniture making (wish I could
think of the famous chair maker), jewelry, weaving - all of those at the
highest standard, using imagination, creativity from the moment of
conception. Not using any pre-made clip art or someone elses drawings
or designs.
What I still don't get is why we feel the need to call ourselves
"artists" and why is the term artisan (which more closely fits the
description of what we do) abhored? I didn't say "crafter", I said
artisan.
So many want to cling to the word artist. And that really intrigues me.
Dianne
Sonya Cirillo wrote:
>Fine art:
Ericka Kammerer
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
>
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> *However*, I see an entire continuum of collaboration, not
> > just a black and white distinction between artist-designer and
> > non-artist-executor.
>
> A non-artist executor is an artisan. You can't have it both ways :-)
I should have phrased that better. I meant that I don't
see things as a black and white distinction between designers
who are artists on the one hand, and executors who are not
artists (or, if you will, artisans, although I'm not sure
that's exactly the same thing) on the other hand. While
I think it is possible for someone to execute needlework
without adding any artistic value (e.g., when I see mass
produced hand embroidered garments, I always wonder about
the poor souls stitching a zillion identical flowers on
a zillion cheap blouses), I think it is entirely possible
to add enough artistic input as a needleworker to consider
one's self an artist and co-*creator* of the work even if
one begins by working from someone else's design. Sorry for
being unclear! ;-)
Take care,
Ericka Kammerer
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
> What I still don't get is why we feel the need to call ourselves
> "artists" and why is the term artisan (which more closely fits the
> description of what we do) abhored? I didn't say "crafter", I said
> artisan.
I don't particularly dislike the term artisan at all, but
I can make a guess as to why it's a hot button for some.
Basically, if a needleworker is not eligible to be an artist,
then needlework is not eligible to be an art. And why should
that be? What is so different between someone who works
creatively in the medium of textiles versus someone who
works creatively in the medium of oil paints or marble or
sound waves? And why is it that this possible art form
that has long been women's work is not eligible to be called
an art when so many other male-dominated media *are*
eligible for that distinction?
Basically, it seems to me that those who do not attach
a higher value to the term "art" or "artist" are those who
are more willing to be inclusive in their definition. But
as soon as someone imposes stricter limits on the definition,
they are inherently saying that *this* stuff which is art
is *better*, more *important* than that which is not art.
And some people bristle at that suggestion. If it weren't
more important, why is it so important to keep the term
unsullied by those who do something different? As far as
I can tell, the *only* difference between artist and
artisan is an artificial distinction of medium--and the things
that are traditionally associated with artisans are clearly
things that have traditionally been less valued than the
things that are associated with artists.
I dismiss the notion that skill or rarity is the real
distinction. We routinely call painters "artists" even if
they're not all that good, so that can't be it.
So, ultimately, while I understand where you're
coming from when you say "artisan" is an honorable and
worthy term, I think that it is naive to say that it
is perceived as being equal to "artist" in terms of
prestige/status/whatever. And if we're willing to call
a mediocre painter an artist (and most are), why not
call a great needleworker an artist? Because she's likely
to be a woman? Because she works with humble materials?
Because she can't charge as much for her efforts?
I think the biggest argument you have is the argument
over how much of the final product you have to create in
order to call yourself a co-creator, rather than someone
who implements the artistic vision of another. *That* I
think is a very difficult thing to be precise about. Even
in my own work, which runs the gamut from things I've done
strictly to spec to things I've designed and executed entirely
on my own, I'd be hard put to draw the line. And how do
you count it if the things you've done starting with another
designer's work required a great deal of skill and design
sensibility to execute (e.g., a complicated needlepoint
canvas in which your choice of colors, fibers, and stitches
has a *huge* amount to do with the overall impression of the
piece and the designer essentially provided nothing but
some drafting work)? Or what if the things you've designed
are so simple that they required less artistic sensibility
than the input you've had to works that began with the
work of another designer? It's a very complicated equation.
But just as even the best composer is dependent upon a
musician for his or her work to find expression, so is the
needlework designer dependent on the needleworker. They are
incomplete without each other. And whether an individual
needleworker takes advantage of it, there is *opportunity* in
every design for the person who stitches it to significantly
shape the final product to her or his own artistic vision of
the piece. So, personally, I'm happy to leave the judgement
as to whether sufficient artistic vision was contributed
by the stitcher to each individual stitcher. If she (or he)
thinks the contribution rose to the level of art, by whatever
personal decision, I'm happy to accord that distinction.
For myself, I'd claim that distinction for some works and
not for others (though that doesn't necessarily mean that
I would claim to be the Michaelangelo of stitchers ;-)
I think that given that we have a model of co-creation
in the music world in which the person who executes the
artistic vision of another is accorded the status of artist,
it becomes very difficult to say that denying needleworkers
that honor is anything more than a value judgement about
a specific medium. I can certainly understand why that
would rankle some.
Best wishes,
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
When reading Those dictionaries Please NOTE THE PUBLISHING DATE ,
books Before 1990 , are ignoring the matter ,,, after 1990 things seem
to change !!!
mirjam
Susan
>How many of you started or bought projects/patterns while pregnant -
>and later went back and said - Yuck!!! How could I have picked this!!!
I have several Noah's Ark patterns from when I was pregnant with my two year
old. Including TWs. <sigh> Started two of them, that I can remember, and they
sit uncompleted basically 3 years later. <sigh>
Maybe I shouldn't start the HIHN mania alphabets for the new baby? Hmmmm
Susan
Louisiana
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
kites , is often quite common in countries far away from the Original
maker .And they are shamelessly represented as the copier`s original
work. I myself Demonstarted , once by sitting in front of some copied
works Holding open the book in which the Origianl work was pictured.
>and I wondered if the artist had made any mention of my name as the
>designer. It wasn't in the article. I called the person who is the
>except for China because I don't agree with their human rights policies.>
Mirjam Bruck-Cohen
disscussion appeared [ we almost can say , Ohhh It that Time of the
year again ???] . But I am in the position of being both Artist and
Artisan, both are part of Me , in both i use the SAME techniques,
sometimes I try out a new technique or idea on one side , and than it
might flow over into works of the other side.
but, and here I will say this loud and clear, I know when I am doing
Art and I know when I am making craft. My Goal is different , my
meanings , thoughts feelings are different all through the process,
In my carft side , i aim at making something useful [ like clothing
item or bag ] or decorative [ like cushion cover ],. Craft items i
usually make in [ my] aesthetic way. they are more like Service items.
My Art does not have to be aesthetic , it is nice when it happens, but
it is no need !!!nore requirement. My art is about Telling a story ,
making astatement, researching inside me for an answer . It is A
message i carry , sometimes a flag , sometimes a pamphlet.
it shoul;d touch people and make them think, remember come in touch
with their feelings and memories
in order to do this I have to start from Scratch , Unlike some
stichers here, I start with a feeling , and only than start looking
for ideas which materials and which Technique are the RIGHT Language
for this One unique, one of it`s kind work !!! which Only I can make ,
and nobody can copy , b eacuse it has My dreams ,. it needs my special
way Of stiching , weaving Knitting crocheting etc..
After a while , i loose the importance of How it would look , i am
engrossed in ," Will it look Like I thought it needs to look?"??
When i come to making it , it has become so much part of my `system`
that sometimes I feel it happens naturaly , the work is created
between me and my loom or my needles , like it `Was` already
`somewhere` and i am only giving birth to it.
Like writers sometimes tell you that suddenly the characters` take
over`, this is what happens to my art work.
I hope this answers some of your deabates .
I NEED BOTH MY SIDES , and Love them both dearly , and depend on both
, they are like my two feet and two arms/hands , both same value
even though they serve me in different ways,
!!mirjam
Dianne Lewandowski
craft?
By the way, I had a major pushed the wrong keys yesterday, and some of
you will see two posts from me. The first not finished. Here's the
distinction I want to make on minor arts - based on some of Erika's
comments.
"Minor arts remind me of stained glass wherein the artist draws upon his
own creation (not a picture from a book) to create remarkable,
one-of-a-kind creations, cabinetry or furniture making (wish I could
think of the famous chair maker), jewelry, weaving - all of those at the
highest standard, using imagination, creativity from the moment of
conception. Not using any pre-made clip art or someone elses drawings
or designs."
Dianne
Dianne Lewandowski
Some of us keep coming back to the "artist" term because some
needleworkers will change color, add a flower here, change threads for
hair, add some blending filament, etc., all the while admitting they are
using the original designers basic design.
When we come to the topic of copyright, we say (and rightfully so) that
you cannot change a design slightly (as above) and call it your own and
sell it as your own. It belongs to the original artist/designer (some
of these needleworks are from original art, some from original design).
So by that logic, the "art" part is still belonging to the original
artist/designer. Granted, there is some creativity involved. Some of
us have art backgrounds and know how to change colors, add a flower,
etc.
But unless you conceive the entire design yourself, you're merely
creative and perhaps collaborating. I don't see how that qualifies you
as an artist.
Let's take one of Marilyn's angels. I change the dress from yellow to
pink. I stitch the wings differently than directed. I add a few more
flowers in the garland in different stitches.
Whose original art is it?
As we gain skill, we're able to creatively add to an artists work to
suit our own tastes and/or imagination. Bullion roses, lazy daisy
flowers in that garland, needlelace wings. Because I've (the collective
"I") been stitching for years, I've learned a myriad techniques and
perfected them and learned how to incorporate them in the less than
obvious places. Silk ribbon Fr. knots in her hair. I've become a
highly skilled artisan. The art moniker belongs to Marilyn. It's her
angel. I didn't conceive the expression in her face, the folds in her
gown, the angle of the garland or its placement in the scheme of things,
the wisps of her hair or the shape of her wings. I just decided to
stitch them differently than "directed" by the artist.
Years ago, we could find patterns (Paula B remarked about this) that had
no directions. You took it and used it where you needed, and stitched
it in the manner you wanted. This stitching was often based on skill
level. I can stitch a heart in satin stitch, laid work, fancy couching,
gold work, needlelace, pulled or drawn work. Depending upon skills,
that heart can be made a hundred different ways. All based on my level
of skill. And normally, needlework skill is not considered fine art.
Now, if I took that heart and designed it and stitched it in some cubist
or renaissance way that stopped people dead in their tracks and caused a
stir in the art community - THEN (assuming it's not a fluke <grin>) you
might be able to call me an artist.
Dianne
Sonya Cirillo
this prompted a couple more thoughts for all to ponder . . .
Why must you stop people in their tracks to be considered an
artist??? Sorry but when *you* have the inner vision to
**see** something other than what is . . . and than use your
skills to execute it - <IMO> you've stepped over into the
artist category. You've used creativity and imagination -
artisians aren't suppose to do that :)
Now consider this: as the Salisbury Cathedral was being
built and 'decorated' over the multitude of years. The
craftsmen/artisians as they were called added carvings,
frescos etc. . . . NOW the cathedral is called a work of
art - and these mainly nameless people are admired for the
art they contributed.
Perhaps it's partially an underlying determination to
"prove" ourselves worthy of the more "elite" name :)
Consider - when a male produces a good meal, many will
say what a good chef he is. When a female produces (yet
again) a good meal - what a good cook she is. Why is that??
Sonya
Åsa Tolke
Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum wrote:
> For some reason we have never been able to figure out...I have no sales
> in South America at all????? Lots in Spain! Almost the whole world
> except for China because I don't agree with their human rights policies.
How come your designs can't be found in Sweden?
--
Asa Tolke (Offe)
of...@lysator.liu.se
Free designs at http://www.lysator.liu.se/~offe/kors/