Folk Art vs Fine Art

In another forum, in another website, there's a discussion going on about the difference
between 'Folk' and 'Fine' Art. The suggestion has been posited that unless you are an established professional, you must dwell in the cellar of Folk Art and see your work treated as such in the market place.

Do you draw the line? If so, what is it which separates the two? Is there a need to separate?
Or is it a simplistic convenience of critics and galleries to denegrate the artists and artisans that don't
hold their noses high enough in the air?

I'm trolling for opinion. I like everything from bark carvings to turned pastry pins.
I encourage you to express your opinions. We all need to talk.
I suspect that the retail end may (for better or worse) drive down the virtues of
the creative process and purpose.

I'll get back as soon as I can, on the dang road again.
Iwannagohomeandstaythere.
Think it over.
Thanks

I think there is a difference. If you look at, say a ballet dancer, and a person, like you or me, who takes up ballroom or jazz, etc, dancing, even putting a lot of time and even money into it, there is no comparison. Not to say that a 'weekend' warrior cannot rise to the ranks of the true 'pro', but it is less likely.
I won't rave on, but this analogy holds across all disciplines, IMO. A pro is a pro, and an amateur is an amateur, even a good one.
cheers,
TM

Termi, that's true. But what of the objects themselves?

Suppose you were shown 2 paintings, 2 wood carvings and 2 ceramics.
Would you think it necessary to categorize them? And if so,
what are the key features in the distinction?

This is being taken seriously Fine Art. Emperor? No clothes?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

I'm happy in my own skin, carving is a way of winter life for me.
Works in Progress by the dozens.

However, I'm curious about the public perception.
How can painters and stone sculptors be any more legitimate than
wood carvers?

I suspect that there's a stigma against any carving that can't be used to hold beer,
kick a football or play a melody.
I carve what I see in the wood. Don't see beer yet except in the 'fridge.

I was just reading an article in Woodcarving Illustrated last night about Harley Refsal.

Harley Refsal is internationally renown, has been given the Sankt Olavs Medal by the King of Norway for his work promoting and popularizing the ART of Scandianavian flat-plane carving and is the Woodcarving Illustrated Woodcarver of the year 2012.

He specialises in Scandinavian Flat-plane carving FOLK ART.

Now, what is he?

An artisan or a mere Folk Art Amateur?

You be the judge.

Termi:
You differentiate between Ballet Dancers and Ballroom or Jazz dancers.
Yet there are amateur ballet dancers and professional ballrom/jazz dancers.
Everybody, no matter how professional they are today were once mere beginners/amateurs.

[QUOTE=SAISAY;1575925

Termi:
You differentiate between Ballet Dancers and Ballroom or Jazz dancers.
Yet there are amateur ballet dancers and professional ballrom/jazz dancers.
Everybody, no matter how professional they are today were once mere beginners/amateurs.[/QUOTE]

No, I differentiate between professionals and amateurs....and all pro's started somewhere...also, I did not say that an amateur can't do good stuff, or that it isn't art.
I don't consider myself to be enough of an expert to even speculate on what is and isn't 'fine art'....but somethings are self evident.
TM

Harvey Refsal has earned every accolade he gets.
While he has preserved, enhanced, taught and championed that carving style,
it was "Folk Art" from the beginning. To me, he's a very well researched historian.

I'm still curious about the concept of "fine art."
I don't believe for a minute that some (self-promoted?) experts have
any better judgement than any of us do.
You need to see what the National Gallery of Canada spends millions on.

Are my carvings folk art? They stand in the lounge, hang on the wall or sit outside on the deck and do nothing.
Does that make them fine art?

I have been a professional artist all my life - I'm 69 and still prectice. I first studied graphic design at RMIT and then later studied fine art at the VCA (Vic College of the Arts).

At the VCA one of the things students had to do was, every now and then, have an exhibition of their recent work in the school's gallery. It did not matter what year of study you were in. The only people who attended were other students from all levels and disciplines of art study (practical/technical, art history, art theory, sociology, painting sculpture, printmaking, conceptual, installation, sound artists, photography, film etc), and the lecturers. What I had to do was stand up in front of everyone and give a talk about the theory and intentions of my work and how it fitted into contemporary art history, contemporary art theory, and/or explain the sociological/technical inferences of my work both in historic and present day context. My talks usually went for around half an hour or so, sometimes longer. After the talk, students giving the talk were then grill with very intense questioning from both the other students and the lecturers. The whole thing was very nerve racking. Everything about you and your work was questioned, you never knew where the questioning was heading and so, intellectually you had to be on your toes.

As for the difference between folk art and fine art, sometimes there is not much difference at all, sometimes the difference is like chalk and cheese. It all depends on what the artist puts into their work, the quality of their integrity and their authenticity, and the personal development of their visual language and conceptual insights. It also has to reveal or confirm something of the human condition. It does not matter if you spend your life making small things out of toothpicks or massive structures out of steel and concrete, its also about the flexibility and openness of your creative thinking (and each and every artist is different). It is as much about the artist as it is about their art. Then again, sometimes along comes an artist who has never studied art and they are producing masterpieces. To talk about if 'this' or 'that' is art without reference and insight to to the artist's thinking is dumb.

I recommend that all you guys give up trying to work out what is art and what is not. With a life time of looking at art, I have never been able to work out what art is, it keeps on changing all the time. As soon as I think I have a handle on it, it is something else again.

D

Thanks for the reflections and the analysis.

I do wood carvings, I've posted examples from time to time in the Woodcarving forum.
I make my own drawings, I split my own carving wood from log pieces.
I'm quite content just to say it's art with the usual diversity of sources of inspiration..

The original point of discussion has to do with the distinction between "Folk Art" and "Fine Art,"
those labels applied by the viewers, not the artists. Is there a valid distinction? Does one label
make the work more or less valuable than the other?

I think it might be easier to defign "fokl art" which , withoutu going to the dictionary, I understand as being a traditional art that copies what has gone before it. The artist might make their own slight variations on details, but .....

It still makes that critique dude in your first post wrong. Was he drunk at the time? Trying to impress everyone in hearing distance.?

Anyway, have to take the kid to school now.

Thanks, TL. This is likely one of those circular arguments which flies up it's own fundamental orifice.
"smartalex" cranked out a very reasonable response with the ultimate virtuse of hindsight, experience and education.
While I don't believe that there's much influence on me, I was trolling for opinions.
I'd like to say I care, but I'm too old and tired.

It's not a question of where do you draw the line? but of is there any point drawing a line. My favourite woodcarver of all time was Grinling Gibbons. He carved the most amazing works which were applied to wall panels, bedposts, boxes etc. He didn't carve huge sculptures to be exhibited in galleries, he carved what people commissioned him to carve and did so brilliantly. Was he a folk/decorative artist? Yes. Was he a fine artist. Yes, there was no one finer.

I think of my carvings as art. No qualifying labels one way or the other.
If I carve some kitchen spoons, OK, to me, that's different, deliberate and applied craftsmanship.

What interests me is from the other side of the table, the public perception, NOT MINE, when
they walk past my works.

What did the general public think of Gibbons work? What did they think, whether you or or I are
insulted by their conclusions, or not, doesn't matter.