Thread: Yeah.....lets do it!!

Originally Posted by Tony Morton

I was told by a "ART" gallery director in this area that anything made or created with timber was craft and craft only however anything else made from anything else unless mass produced was art. Any material however poorly or coloured with paint or other medium was "ART" and that was it.

Cheers Tony

And Tony a lot of stuff they put in the gallerys that is called art looks like it was done at play school .some of the wood art painted by the Scobies is far better

Ian

Originally Posted by Tony Morton

I was told by a "ART" gallery director in this area that anything made or created with timber was craft and craft only however anything else made from anything else unless mass produced was art. Any material however poorly or coloured with paint or other medium was "ART" and that was it.

Cheers Tony

It is rrrrs holes like that that give galleries a bad name....
Jim

Originally Posted by Tony Morton

I was told by a "ART" gallery director in this area that anything made or created with timber was craft and craft only however anything else made from anything else unless mass produced was art. Any material however poorly or coloured with paint or other medium was "ART" and that was it.

Cheers Tony

When I posted the WIP of my tractor/trailer on a U.K. forum someone on there said that they had watched a pro turner where he had said that if you start off with firewood then you finish up with firewood, only fit for the fire. I assume that he would not go cold in winter with most of the stuff I turn. Most of it had come off the firewood pile

Some more firewood here

Originally Posted by Tony Morton

I was told by a "ART" gallery director in this area that anything made or created with timber was craft and craft only however anything else made from anything else unless mass produced was art. Any material however poorly or coloured with paint or other medium was "ART" and that was it.

Cheers Tony

This does seem to be the general attitude though doesn't it! You can make the exact same form, let's say a classic roman pitcher, in glass, metal or ceramics and it will be considered 'art', but made from wood it's just 'craft'. Maybe it's the biodegradeability of our material that gives it a 'temporary' connotation. Does anyone else think it odd that the other materials all start out as dirt

Originally Posted by TTIT

Does anyone else think it odd that the other materials all start out as dirt

So does timber, just mother nature has a hand in it first.

From dust to dust.

Lest we forget our selves.

Regards

It's obvious really. An old pram from the tip festooned with plastic cups and bottles is art. Why can't you bloke see it?
Cheers,
Jim

The attached link to the Victoria & Albert Museum gives some insight into what various Arts & Crafts "luminaries" consider as Craft/Art. What is craft? - Victoria and Albert Museum

[The attached link to the Victoria & Albert Museum gives some insight into what various Arts & Crafts "luminaries" consider as Craft/Art. What is craft? - Victoria and Albert Museum

Phew! I glad we have that sorted out.......

Originally Posted by TTIT

This does seem to be the general attitude though doesn't it! You can make the exact same form, let's say a classic roman pitcher, in glass, metal or ceramics and it will be considered 'art', but made from wood it's just 'craft'. Maybe it's the biodegradeability of our material that gives it a 'temporary' connotation. Does anyone else think it odd that the other materials all start out as dirt

I dunno about that. There is the same debate in ceramics. there anything functional has a hard time being seen as art. :S On that proviso, a wooden teapot is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, so really should be art too.

I think the gallery director mentioned earlier just wanted a way to say he didn't want to take your stuff.

Originally Posted by tea lady

I dunno about that. There is the same debate in ceramics. there anything functional has a hard time being seen as art.

That cuts out many paintings and tapestries - after all they were just there as draught excluders or to cover holes in the wall. Religious paintings in churches were there to reinforce belief as was most of the statuary. This whole art versus use thing is quite modern. Rembrandt's Nightwatch was just an ego boost for the blokes in it.
Still, it keeps a lot of blokes off the street running galleries no-one goes to except when it's raining.
Cheers,
jim

The American Customs & Excise definition of 'a work of art' is that the owner must be able to prove it is completely useless.

So according to that an artist must be someone who makes or creates completely useless things.

I think I know lot of people that fit that description.


Peter.

I'm with powderpost and tea lady, I turn mainly for the pure enjoyment of it. If somebody wants something made then yes they will get charged for it. But not very often.

One of the most fundamental requirements of humans is to eat. If you are not able to harvest or produce food then you have to do something that will allow you to gain food.

In regards to your question about an artist not wanting to compromise his art in order to eat then it is their choice. If they do something else other then turnings, also fine. That person is supporting themselves by other means.

We all have ideas or inclination on what we would like to create and these are not always clear on the path needed to complete and when a client wants something created it can be a little bit more muddy.

Originally Posted by Tony Morton

I was told by a "ART" gallery director in this area that anything made or created with timber was craft and craft only however anything else made from anything else unless mass produced was art. Any material however poorly or coloured with paint or other medium was "ART" and that was it.

To me that does not make any sense.