Is this art?

[AKady]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=477786&in_page_id=1811&ito=newsnow

I just have to question somethings I hear people refer to art and I was wondering what everyone here thinks.

[Aaron Schroeder]

Yes it's art. It's fun art.

[Julianna]

It's fun, but I wouldn't call it art. What is artistic about it? Crafty, yes, but I don't see the artistic merit.

[Merlion]

It is fun. I think it takes some trial and error effort to make a large folded vessel that can support a person and stay stable and afloat.

He happens to be an artist. I don't think it really matters whether or not this vessel is art, does it?

[Blacksun]

Amusing, neat idea, would have liked to see it, and will probably use it the next time we have a paper boat race down the local river.... But I would not qualify it as art...

[evaldart]

I wouldn'y call it craft, the charm of it is that it looks like it was made by a 50 foot tall 7 year old. So many temporary things qualify as art and performance/event/happening...I dont see why it couldn't be art.

[Duck]

AKady
I'm kind of a newbee to art and that’s one of the first questions I had to put to bed. To me all art is entertainment, in this case it's kinda cool that the artist is part of the entertainment too, of course if the paper boat sprung a leak and sunk with him in it----well that would be even more entertaining wouldn’t it. ;)

[ironman]

Hi, Yeah, that's the best piece of (duh!) I've seen in a long time.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[fritchie]

I'm happier to call this art than many of the other things we've discussed recently. One thing art is, is fun. And that this is.

[MSC]

Clearly, it is a craft and one that floats even

[ExNihiloStudio]

Check out the article called
"An Artist and His Sub Surrender in Brooklyn"

at NYTimes.com published on Aug. 4 2007
or
try this link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/arts/design/04voya.html?ex=1343880000&en=d45ad2fb06c37cd7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

[evaldart]

AKady
I'm kind of a newbee to art and that’s one of the first questions I had to put to bed. To me all art is entertainment, in this case it's kinda cool that the artist is part of the entertainment too, of course if the paper boat sprung a leak and sunk with him in it----well that would be even more entertaining wouldn’t it. ;)

Duck,
Well I keep trying to put that one to bed but it always wakes up and crawls UNDER the bed, jumps out to scare the shit outta me in the middle of the night. Maybe one day it will go to sleep.

And while my art has no doubt amused some people I couldn't say it ever "entertained" them. It just won't dance. But some hot slag in my Redwings certainly has me cuttin' a rug now and then...and THAT is entertaining for sure.

[Mr. Malloy]

I have always struggled with the arguments that art is not craft and that art is craft. Since bauhaus and functional craft as art to my art school where I knew they were more worried about my craft/skill/workmanship than any creat art that I made. I railed against the judgement of art pieces by the quality of craftsmanship. And yet, I think that the boat is craft built and very creative. It speaks to me of spontinaity and, like evaldart said, it is an art piece (albeit performance/instalation/etc.) There is art everywhare that is like spontainious, temporary pieces.

[Cantab]

Conceptual, I'd say, given the title of the show ('Until the end of the world'), with possibly some cute references to Noah's ark. This isn't an ark, though, it's an indulgence, which may be part of the point.

[Merlion]

I notice AKady started this thread with a link to an online DailyMail link. But many news sites take articles off after a number of days to save on online space. Thus for future reference, I am posting below from the site excerpts from and one of the two photos.

Artist sets sail in life-size paper boat (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=477786&in_page_id=1811&ito=newsnow)

25 Aug 2007, Artist Frank Boelter set sails in his lifesize paper boat as he leaves a shipyard in Lauenburg, Germany.

He constructed the 9-metre vessel from 'Tetrapack' and fearlessly sailed it up the Elbe, despite the fact the light material is more commonly used for packaging milk. ...

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_03/paperboatR2508_468x344.jpg

The £110 boat is 30 feet long, weighs 55 pounds, uses a 170-square-metre piece of Tetrapack paper, and took only two hours to construct.

[natural]

Clearly, it is a craft and one that floats even

This has been bugging me for a couple of days now. There seems to be a tendency in the fine art world to call anything that doesn’t meet one's esthetic values "craft" rather than art. When I think of craft, I think of objects whose primary esthetic value comes from how (and how well) they are made as opposed to fine art whose primary value is in why they were made. If, when you look at this object you are thinking about how clever his origami technique is then it's craft. I'd argue that most people will look at it in terms of a kind of whimsical nostalgia which is why the artist made it. I won't say this is great art but it clearly is art by my definition.

[zazie]

More thoughts:

On PBS I heard TAHA MUHAMMAD ALI (the poet through translator) say something that resonnated with me, at last:

"And, so, it has taken me all of 60 years to understand that water is the finest drink and bread the most delicious food, and that art is worthless unless it plants a measure of splendor in people's hearts."

(full transcript available on NPR site somewhere)

And so, the floating thing is fun and tugs at the child within (gag) and it's so cute (gag gag) but tis not worthy art. Nor is the toilet bowl, the blank (purple, red, black, bare, whatever) canvas, etc.

That kind of definition works for me.

ZZ

[Chalice]

Would it be art if he made 1000 of them and was not in the 'craft'?

[jOe~]

Would it be art if he made 1000 of them and was not in the 'craft'? That would make it a fleet. And that changes everything. People have a harder time arguing against an idea if you've given them 1000 examples of its existence. You could also call it nuts, but then that would validate it. Anything that useless and that far out of the norm could only be art. What else could you call it?

[justme]

I've said if I ever got a vanity license plate it would say ISITRT.
I just think it is funny because everyone has an opinion about what is art and no one agrees.
My husband in response said if I get that plate he will get one that says RTMYAS.
Whatever.

[JasonGillespie]

Is it me or has this question arisen much of late? Not that that is a bad thing in and of itself...rather the debate on the topic seems to fall along the same lines among the same people. Some don't think it is others do...the litany is a carbon copy each time.

Even a dyed in the wool "fencepost conversationalist" like myself begins to wonder whether or not anything new will be said about this....given the "us and them" nature of the question and that the answer is at the core of most artists' individual belief systems.



As loathe as I am to admit it, I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter...go have a ball...make whatever you want and call yourself whatever you like. Artist, sculptor, painter, genius....whatever. There are few professions where a majority of the people will let you get away with doing just about anything you want so take advantage of it while you can....right? (Is this what cynicism feels like?)

Mr. Boelter looks happy...maybe that is all that matters anymore.

[GlennT]

Jason, I don't think the ambulatory of Saint Denis could have echoed my thoughts any better. The tired minds that are happy to have a ball and let cultural standards disappear into narcisstic nihlism are stridently insistent that art is whatever the artist says is art. And the "artist" is anyone who claims the title. Arguing that point gets one nowhere, just one more target for verbal abuse.

The best way to answer the " What is art?" question is to create art. Real art. The kind that moves and inspires people, rather than generating the question, "Is this art?".

[jOe~]

have a ball and let cultural standards disappear into narcisstic nihlism are stridently insistent that art is whatever the artist says is art. For starters, definitions of art have never been offered. Cultural standards??? Yup, its the same stupid, nutty discussion. Some want to enforce that undefinable and live in a free society. If art isn't about freedom of expression first and foremost, ignore everything I ever write because I must be delusional.


Yeah, its the same folks taking their usual positions. I left this site for several months because some discussions were so stupid, amazingly nonsensical, and destructive. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Some incredibly talented people also left this site for probably the same reasons. I came back because there are some very good people here who get it and I learn from them. I'm all for having a ball. Beats the hell out of being in handcuffs, mental or physical. I would never think of limiting or bashing someone's attempt at "fun". So to protect freedom of expression for everyone, I've decided to thump the naysayers on the noggin, not that I have any fantasies of changing anyone. Cultural standards...thump, thump, thump.

[JasonGillespie]

So to protect freedom of expression for everyone,

I've decided to thump the naysayers on the noggin, not that I have any fantasies of changing anyone. Cultural standards...thump, thump, thump.

Is it me or do these two thoughts (within the same sentence) seem to be at odds with each other?



I'm guessing that's freedom of expression for everyone but the "naysayers"?? (whatever that term is supposed to mean?)

Either you really are for "freedom of expression"...and that means everyone's..or you are full of it.

[jOe~]

Is it me or do these two thoughts (within the same sentence) seem to be at odds with each other? Yup its you. You don't get it. In simpler terms: your freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. If it touches my nose then I will thump you, and inhibit your freedom to swing your arm. Do no harm is the point. Now the part you conveniently ignored in your preference to attempt to catch me ...cultural standards. Do I need to spell this out for you? I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that with your education you would jump all over this concept.

[GlennT]

jOe:

We are talking about two different things.

1. Freedom of expression

2. Art

I am a big supporter of both. Go have your fun with #1. I applaud your freedom, your fun, no boundries, no rules, etc. etc.
Just don't badger others with an attempt to force them to believe that the end product of #1 is always #2 . And don't try to limit my #1 words when I evaluate #2 using my intelligence, which fortunately has not been educated out of my grasp.

[JasonGillespie]

One more time..

So to protect freedom of expression for everyone,

I've decided to thump the naysayers on the noggin, not that I have any fantasies of changing anyone. Cultural standards...thump, thump, thump.

My friend, you missed the point...you are saying two different things in the same sentence.

You profess to be a defender of freedom of expression and then say in the name if that self same freedom of expression that you are going to attack another's use of that freedom.

Hint...it's called hypocrisy.

Who touched your nose? GlennT?...he just offered his opinion....same with me...opinions are free expression! You bop other people's noses thinking it's ok so long as you do it as a self-appointed defender. Wise up you can't play the free speech card and then not let those you disagree with...disagree with you.

You talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.
GennT's remark's are his free speech...if you are the believer in it you make yourself out to be you shouldn't be getting on him for exercising it.



BTW I'm going to act like you didn't belittle my intelligence and say that yes..I understood your remarks about cultural standards. Thing is...I don't remember saying anything about cultural standards.

[evaldart]

Freedom of expression? I've been strangled by rising scrap metal costs, parylized by wounded machines, exiled by studio overhead and rejected by institutions both commercial and academic...but I have always found a way to make the things that I HAD to make. If you submit to being stifled, someone will do it to you - freedom of expression belongs to every human, if an individual chooses not to bother with it or decides to jump on board with another persons expressions (someone will gladly express for you), then they can't complain.

Cultural standards? Who sets these standards? The leading art farts of the era in a given geographical setting? All hogwash. If you actually care about the progress of your homo-sapien cohorts then you will do everything you can to tear-away from the things they've already done and focus on advancement. Don't be the stepping-stone, be the banana peel and send those backwards bafoons for a dipsy doodle. When they shake the stars out of their head they'll only see your ass in the distance, rushing ahead, freedom of expression firmly in hand, to your own banana peel.

[StevenW]

This is clearly designed as a comic relief, I carve them myself but mine won't float.

[GlennT]

evaldart:
I enjoy the flow of your words and the mood they convey.

I have to ask you about two of the words you used: progress, and advancement .

I'm willing to let go of the phrase " cultural standards " as not quite being up to the task of conveying what I was trying to say, as long as you are willing to admit that the work calling into question, " Is this art? ", for the most part have little to do with either progress or advancement ( other than that of the artist and those who profit from the artist's product ).

The problem with defining what standards are is that ultimately no one sets them but the artist. So, the artist may choose to be informed by ( but not stifled by ) 150,000 years of human achievement and its evolution, or decide that its all hogwash and " I'll do it MYYYYYY WAYYYY " .

When I compare the standards internalized by DaVinci, Bernini, Titian, Michelangelo, Phidias, Polykleitus, Sargent, Whistler, Saint-Gaudens, and a host of others who were breaking new ground in their day, with the standards of many of today's "freedom of expression" crowd, I don't see much to write home about of a brave new world of progress and advancement achieved by the later.

[JasonGillespie]

If you actually care about the progress of your homo-sapien cohorts then you will do everything you can to tear-away from the things they've already done and focus on advancement.

Sometimes advancement is tied to looking back...sometimes it is ignoring what has been done before, but it isn't the same for all people.

Different creativities use different sources to progress.

For those of the Renaissance it was the ancient Greeks and Romans. They looked back to move forward.

Jackson Pollock decided to trailblaze without reference and created his own path.

Henry Moore used antiquity, Salvador Dali, Rodin, and coalminers...all rolled together to create new visions of form.

Warhol looked to popular culture to create his own iconography.

These two lists could go on for a long time, but you get the point.

Just doing something that has never been done before isn't the formula for great art...not for everybody. Each person must follow their own particular muse. This type of onesided view is one of the the reasons I voiced skepticism that the original question can be adequately dealt with in an environment that is already polarized in two very distinct directions.

[evaldart]

Glenn, I'm sure the tone of my proclamations reveals that I am merely "affecting" ownership of greater human understanding and that my all-knowing air of superiority chameleons the fact that I am actually way too cave-man for my own good.

If It seems I often disrespect the greats of history it is because it is far too easy ( and quite tragic) for someone to waste many good years, even a life as a sniveling understudy. "greatness" needn't have anything to do with the betterment of humanity. Trancendence is a thing that occurs in a place in your head so small that only a few macrobiotic electrons can exchange those high-fives there. And that place uses your body , and the dirt, and outer-space too like a shape-shifting Leatherman whittling a daily self-portrait out of your consciousness.

(Whew)

That giant paper boat up there is funny as hell. Funny is fun, art can be fun, art can be funny. And if you attach "art" to "creativity" , as I belive it should be in my present non-definition (I woudn't dare) then you and maybe some in your wake will find the road to advancement. Our futures will be directed by the questions we will ask not by the answers we have received.

Cave-man, out

[StevenW]

Holy crap, that was like Fischer announcing forced mate in ten moves.

All because of a paper boat!

The cave-man thing I can relate to, bring on the cave-man!

[Aaron Schroeder]

What I like about sculptors.........and artist in general.........they have long vision. Meaning......they can see far into the future. Most have studied the works of the past, most have worked feverishly in the present and most see their work having an influence in the future. Most ( not all ) see some one living in the future, long past their death..........getting it. The folks of the future may not see the actual work, perhaps just a picture or a story.......but what they see will be ideas of people striving to go above and beyond the neccessities of the every day.

What I love about the big paper boat..........there's nothing like it in the history books. When I think about all the images I've seen from antiquity.......I have a hard time recalling anything that indicates people of the past had any outrageous fun. I assume they had some wild times.......I've seen images of objects that indicate folks loved to party......music,drinking,orgies...etc........but nothing ridiculus or out of bounds. It's like our ancestors never had a silly moment. Or perhaps if they did ......they destroyed all the evidence.

I feel like I'm living in the best of times because I don't have to look far to find something that makes me bust out laughing. People are funny. People do funny outrageous stuff and they document it.

If the archeoligist, art historians and the museum goers of the distant future find themselves laughing histerically at the art of our age........all the better. We had fun.....we did some crazy stuff. Not like the boring stiffs of our past. They'll see plenty of serious art too..........lots of monuments to the fallen hereos...... sacrificed to the forces of stupidity. Plenty of those types of sculptures and art objects can be found in any epoch.

I hope this period of time produces loads of funny, irreverent, silly, stupid art ...........considering all the catastrophies slated for future.........all the human suffering that is certain to happen.........the folks of the future ( our children ) will need all the commedy relief they can get. Make something funny.........it's the best medicine........for whatever.

[jOe~]

Further revealing my bias, I invite you read an excerpt from an article I wrote for Classical Realism Journal in 1996, Vol. III, issue 1, which was an interview I had with him: Six days ago Glenn posted the above comment and this link (www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/Frederick_Hart/hart1.asp) to the interview he conducted . Here is an excerpt, the opening question from Glenn:

CRJ: In your 1990 interview with CRQ [Classical Realism Quarterly], you seemed to be in the vanguard of a movement to overturn the tyranny of the National Endowment for the Arts and the "modern art" establishment. How has that battle progressed for you?

Hart: We are still on the outside looking in. They still occupy the castle and they're still in there, but there are more angry peasants around the castle walls.


Here is the concept of cultural standards again. Yet Glenn says"I applaud your freedom, your fun, no boundries, no rules, etc. etc." Baloney. You don't know your own mind.



I understood your remarks about cultural standards. Thing is...I don't remember saying anything about cultural standards. Jason, the point is, you would have if you got it.

The ISC hosts this forum. The ISC sponsors exhibits and publishes excellent literature on contemporary art. The majority of ISC's efforts would not exist under Glenn's honest concept of artistic freedom. I'm done commenting. The obvious is too obvious.

[Tlouis]

"Art is anything you can get away with." Andy Warhol.

Apparently, more and more people have taken this infamous dictum to heart and are running with it as fast as they can. Too bad there isn't a stampeding heard of longhorns catching up to them.

[GlennT]

Thanks jOe for volunteering to withold further commenting. That gives me a chance to untangle the web of miscomphrehension from the previous post and hopefully leave what I have said unsullied by insertions of positions that are not mine but alleged to be such.


Six days ago Glenn posted the above comment and this link (www.artrenewal.org/articles/2001/Frederick_Hart/hart1.asp) to the interview he conducted . Here is an excerpt, the opening question from Glenn:

CRJ: In your 1990 interview with CRQ [Classical Realism Quarterly], you seemed to be in the vanguard of a movement to overturn the tyranny of the National Endowment for the Arts and the "modern art" establishment. How has that battle progressed for you?

Hart: We are still on the outside looking in. They still occupy the castle and they're still in there, but there are more angry peasants around the castle walls.


Here is the concept of cultural standards again.

In this case, from a recent discussion of 11 years ago, Frederick Hart and I were looking at the "cultural standards" that the "freedom of expression" crowd had created so as to leave no room, no welcome, no acceptance to those who were at that time working in the tradition of figurative representation. I'm not sure if that was what you were trying to point out here...

Yet Glenn says"I applaud your freedom, your fun, no boundries, no rules, etc. etc." Baloney. You don't know your own mind.

I know my own mind well enough to point out that applauding your freedom to create without rules is not the same thing as applauding the results. If the freedom without rules helps you produce good works of art, I will applaud that too. Just to show that I am sincere and not just saying this, I will remind you that I have applauded some of the work that evaldart has produced, which he has created with a similar mindset. I have acknowledged the good efforts of others, sparingly perhaps, who throw out the past altogether, but still manage to come up with good ideas and actual art.

Jason, the point is, you would have if you got it.

A little reminder that Jason and I are two different people, who have expressed two different points of view, at least, ever since the doctor seperated us at birth!


The ISC hosts this forum. The ISC sponsors exhibits and publishes excellent literature on contemporary art. The majority of ISC's efforts would not exist under Glenn's honest concept of artistic freedom.

Only true in jOe's world, where it is easier to smear than to be clear. Again, for the I -don't- know- how -manyth time, I have personal standards that define for me what is art and what is not. All the stupidity in the world will not change my standards. I have never to my knowledge told another artist or even implied that they cannot create whatever the heck they want to.
So, even if I were ruling the world and my " honest concept of artistic freedom " were state policy, (which is rather absurd, to consider that I would think that I am qualified to be the arbiter of world opinion regarding art) ISC would still be publishing and exhibiting whatever they wanted. I just would not be supporting them with my resources or praise if they chose to exhibit works that mocked my standards. Which is a much different thing than works which are not anything like what I do but are at least neutral if not a positive force in the world.
Learn this please: Freedom of expression does not guarantee freedom of appreciative audiences.

I'm done commenting. The obvious is too obvious.


And it only takes a few well-chosen pieces of misinformation to muck the "obvious" up!
Thank you, and good morning.

[jOe~]

I just would not be supporting them with my resources or praise if they chose to exhibit works that mocked my standards. Thank you, for clarifying the "issue" further. I guess at a base level we just have a different sense of humor. But then thats really deep actually, as deep as you go. What you can laugh at(mock) is what determines your tolerance, values, appreciation and understanding of life, and the biggie, the absurdity of being human. I just think its pretty damn absurd and theres a lot of good jokes out there. So I leave you with that last line to run with... couldn't leave myself more open to mockery, could I?

[StevenW]

You guys definately need to get out in the studio today and let some of this go, you're wound up tighter than banjo strings over a paper boat. It's a long weekend for me and I intend to capitilize on that. I hope you can too!

[JasonGillespie]

"Art is anything you can get away with." Andy Warhol.

Apparently, more and more people have taken this infamous dictum to heart and are running with it as fast as they can. Too bad there isn't a stampeding heard of longhorns catching up to them.


An interesting aside for those who do not know it:
Andy Warhol was one of the original founders of the New York Academy of Art. He lamented his own lack of solid art training and wanted to make sure that an institution existed that was dedicated to traditional art studies. After he died and Vanity Fair was able to go into his apt and take pictures for their memorial article...it was full, literially, of Classical, Renaissance, and Baroque, paintings, sculptures, tapestries, etc....as well as other traditional periods. He had spent sizable portions of his fortune accumulating the art he valued the most.

Warhol was savvy at manipulating the market and knew exactly what to say to get people to buy into his work. From what I've come to know of him through those at the Academy that were there at the beginning...the above quote was most likely said with a wink and a nod because he knew the difference for himself and that was all that really mattered.

[jOe~]

I know what those thousand points of /errr boats need. Color! Look at Christo! This inspiration just came to me as I listen to the CD "Blue Bell Knoll" by the Cocteau Twins. The enlightening liner notes:

cico buff
suckling the mender
spooning good singing gum
a kissed out red floatboat
ella megalast burls forever.

Thats it! Color and the world will be right again.

[Chalice]

Can art be amusing, can it be nonsensical, playfull, non-valuable/valuless?
My 9yo won a highly commended in the Bellingen Art prize the other day, it was something that floats as well, its was made of foam and wax and paper clay on water.
Was it not art because he is only 9 and playfull and did not study for years and made it from non-noble materials?