Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 52 of 52
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest View Post
    What about sitting on a boat in the middle of the track? (How's that for mixing? )
    Well, I guess that would be spot on.


    The way I see it, nobody here suggested that "Sculpture in wood is considered less awesome", which explains why " You guys haven't really been clear about why"; only that most abstract sculpture, in wood or otherwise, does not rely on craftmanship for its success.
    Ok... well I took this from ubeaut:

    In the past sculpture was a higher form of woodcarving, but modern sculpture..... Now this is where I get into strife when I say "In the main, sculptors of today are woodcarvers who couldn't cut the mustard."
    and made it too general, I guess... because I was unsure about how to distinguish past and modern sculpture that would denigrate the modern. I mean, the issue is obviously complex and I'm not trying to pin anyone on their words for trying to explain what they mean, I'm just trying to understand what exactly is being expressed. So, I figured it was best to have a stab at it and see where I was corrected.

    You are right in assuming that ".... because most anything can be considered a sculpture, and since wood is so intrinsically pretty, people can rely on that beauty and not on their particular expression", which is more or less what Underfoot suggested to you in the thread you started.
    Yeah, I was really impressed with his/her perspective.

    What they argue, rightly or wrongly, is that "sells for more" is all too often a way of expressing the ability to con a lot of people some of the time, as Barnum had already discovered many decades ago. You must agree that this is at least partially true, otherwise VanGogh, who never sold a painting in his lifetime, should not be valued as a painter now. In the end, appreciation is measured in centuries, not money.
    I do agree that general appreciation has a non-linear relationship with time. Actually, putting a lot of time, effort, talent, skill, and quality of material (which are all costs to the production of the piece) means that you have to have a large final price to see real compensation. This naturally limits the demand for your work, and since pieces last much longer than people live, that means you are competing with the accumulated works of many generations. Naturally, the stability of prices will increase over time...any distortions due to fame or fad will tend to even out. So, you are also competing with things that are well-valued. So, you have to be really truly great and well-represented to be a fine-artist or craftsman, which is another way of saying that your skill and appeal or relevancy must compensate these forces to find your niche buyers.

    So, that is interesting and all, but I'm still not sure how modern sculpture implies lack of skill, while carving holds a place of honor. Because surely, people can put loads of effort and skill into a carving and still lack appeal or relevancy, just as people can use modern tools to achieve things in less time, which could allow for more or better expression. Does that make sense?

    Anyway, I'm a novice. Could you give me an example of bad sculpture?

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grainspeaks View Post

    ...
    Ok... well I took this from ubeaut:

    and made it too general, I guess... because I was unsure about how to distinguish past and modern sculpture that would denigrate the modern.

    I can not speak for Neil, but the way I understand it is that he said "modern" as just a metonymy for "abstract".

    Your turn, now. Could you please expand on your sentence:

    "So, you have to be really truly great and well-represented to be a fine-artist or craftsman, which is another way of saying that your skill and appeal or relevancy must compensate these forces to find your niche buyers."

    my mind boggles at the number of concepts that could be alluded to in here!

    So, that is interesting and all, but I'm still not sure how modern sculpture implies lack of skill, while carving holds a place of honor.

    I think that the issue here is again one of intent, as Undefoot (very large male, BTW) and I were suggesting. Let's take an example from your "knee" work, Mongrell comment that in such a small work one slip and it is all over, and your response that the genius is really in the wood. Neil and Underfoot would of course have different perspectives and I can only speak for myself (with a perspective somewhere in the middle, I think), but my guess is that we all would see that as "How in blazes would Mongrell be able to argue that it was a slip when Grainspeaks tells him that it was indeed what the wood told her to do?" Not that it matters in defining the artistic value of the piece, which will be distilled by time, or the sale price at the moment, which is determined by the skill of the marketers and the number of suck...er, clients available it only means that craftmanship is not displayed.

    Because surely, people can put loads of effort and skill into a carving and still lack appeal or relevancy, just as people can use modern tools to achieve things in less time, which could allow for more or better expression.

    Yep, no argument here.


    Anyway, I'm a novice. Could you give me an example of bad sculpture?

    Yes, as soon as you tell me what is "bad" for you.
    Maybe an useful example from the work of established artists would help. Art critics say that Picasso could actually draw well and intentionally distorted his figures, Chagall could not draw to save his life. They both are acclaimed as great artists but only one could be shown to school kids as having mastered the laws of perspective.

    Hope I make sense also.

  4. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yarra Junction Vic
    Posts
    280

    Default

    I've always been interested in the way people look at abstract and representational art works. I really don't think art can be discussed easily based on "skill", a house can be skilfully built but this doesn't make it a piece of Art. I think the important part of art is the artists intent and the story they want to tell with the piece of work, Michelangelo interprets a bible story in David while Henry Moore's story is an exploration of shape and its interaction with the environment. David takes more "artisanship" but Henry Moores work is no less art for its simpler shapes.

  5. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
    I've always been interested in the way people look at abstract and representational art works. I really don't think art can be discussed easily based on "skill", a house can be skilfully built but this doesn't make it a piece of Art. I think the important part of art is the artists intent and the story they want to tell with the piece of work, Michelangelo interprets a bible story in David while Henry Moore's story is an exploration of shape and its interaction with the environment. David takes more "artisanship" but Henry Moores work is no less art for its simpler shapes.
    Yep, that's another way to put it.

  6. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    nth coast nsw
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    when the ....what is Art?... question inevitably pops up again, I usually revisit quotes by some of the big guns. (mainly cause I haven't formulated my own opinions yet )

    Art is what you can get away with............Andy Warhol

    making Art is easy when you don't know how,....but very difficult when you do...Degas.

    Art?.. what is it good for?......this question would abolish the rose and be answered triumphantly by the cabbage...............J R Lovell

    artists can colour the sky however they like, the rest of us have to make it blue, or people will think were stupid.......J Feiffer.

    Art is a lie, that makes us realise the truth..........Picasso

    the holy grail in art is that people will spend more time looking at it than it took you to make...........Banksy

    what if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?

  7. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Loire , France
    Posts
    349

    Default

    ...and if you can't sell it for a price high enough to call it Art, then it's just craft
    It's a slow and painful process...the secret is, dont mind the pain.(Ian Norbury)
    ________________________
    Regards
    Ivan Chonov

  8. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grainspeaks
    "So, you have to be really truly great and well-represented to be a fine-artist or craftsman, which is another way of saying that your skill and appeal or relevancy must compensate these forces to find your niche buyers."
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest
    my mind boggles at the number of concepts that could be alluded to in here!
    Heh. I'll try, but I'm physically exhausted. Developing all kinds of new muscles. Well, you obviously understand the gist, given your comment referring to: "the artistic value of the piece, which will be distilled by time, or the sale price at the moment, which is determined by the skill of the marketers and the number of suck...er, clients available "

    So, the only additional concepts I glossed over was market depth vs. market appeal and how that relates to prospective creators. I used imprecise language. I should have said "given the market conditions (high competition both in terms of quantity and prospective value), and the amount of risk to the potential buyers, a competitive fine-artist or craftsman implies either great skill and appeal or significant market distortions." Since the value of art and crafts is highly subjective, especially in the short-term, it follows that market distortions could be extreme. This speaks to what we were talking about wrt highly over-valued pieces taking prime gallery floorage, as well as the traditional notion of the starving brilliant.


    Maybe an useful example from the work of established artists would help. Art critics say that Picasso could actually draw well and intentionally distorted his figures, Chagall could not draw to save his life. They both are acclaimed as great artists but only one could be shown to school kids as having mastered the laws of perspective.
    I think I getcha, now. I am still fascinated by the woodie culture that has certain biases, but I'm glad to see they aren't set in stone. It is important for a craft to have tenements that guide the eye and hand. I'm just still in that stage where I'm using so many different tools to work the wood, that the discussion stood out to me as an interesting point of view, as I had not formed a huge distinction that put carving tools in a complete and well formed category.

    Edited to fix formatting.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Back to basics - Pen Turning
    By bdar in forum WOODTURNING - PEN TURNING
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 14th September 2008, 11:51 AM
  2. WIP carving talk back show
    By SPIRIT in forum WOODCARVING AND SCULPTURE
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 7th August 2008, 05:19 PM
  3. Back to basics
    By derekcohen in forum WOODWORK - GENERAL
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 16th June 2006, 09:35 PM
  4. Back to basics for me.
    By Ivan in Oz in forum TIMBER
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 1st September 2003, 01:46 PM
  5. basics
    By Brett in forum WOODWORK - GENERAL
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th June 2000, 08:40 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •