Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 46 to 52 of 52
Thread: Back to basics - Carving
-
17th November 2008, 09:18 PM #46
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
-
17th November 2008 09:18 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Posts
- Many
-
18th November 2008, 11:04 AM #47GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Adelaide
- Posts
- 2,794
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.
-
18th November 2008, 07:49 PM #48
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.
-
18th November 2008, 08:09 PM #49GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Adelaide
- Posts
- 2,794
-
18th November 2008, 09:24 PM #50
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?
-
19th November 2008, 12:16 AM #51Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Loire , France
- Posts
- 349
...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
-
19th November 2008, 09:41 AM #52Originally Posted by grainspeaksOriginally Posted by Frank&Earnest
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.
Edited to fix formatting.
Similar Threads
-
Back to basics - Pen Turning
By bdar in forum WOODTURNING - PEN TURNINGReplies: 14Last Post: 14th September 2008, 11:51 AM -
WIP carving talk back show
By SPIRIT in forum WOODCARVING AND SCULPTUREReplies: 102Last Post: 7th August 2008, 05:19 PM -
Back to basics
By derekcohen in forum WOODWORK - GENERALReplies: 6Last Post: 16th June 2006, 09:35 PM -
Back to basics for me.
By Ivan in Oz in forum TIMBERReplies: 4Last Post: 1st September 2003, 01:46 PM -
basics
By Brett in forum WOODWORK - GENERALReplies: 2Last Post: 13th June 2000, 08:40 PM