Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Sculpture Roundtable Discussions > Sculpture focus topics
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 06-07-2007, 03:48 PM
underfoot's Avatar
underfoot underfoot is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 359
Re: "fine" art

Quote " Artists change the world, potters don't." Ironman

I hope you don't mind Ironman, I've just printed this large, and hung it up
in the ceramics dept.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-07-2007, 05:46 PM
philpraxis's Avatar
philpraxis philpraxis is offline
Level 8 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Paris
Posts: 230
Re: "fine" art

I'm going to quote Grayson Perry, who won the 2003 Turner Prize (most prestigious contemporary art price in UK):

"Well, it's about time a transvestite potter won the Turner Prize.
I think the art world had more trouble coming to terms with me being a potter than my choice of frocks. "

hehehehehe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ts/3298707.stm

Well... here Grayson is clearly _not only_ a potter, but definitely a great artist. I think it's like trying to differentiate "welder" and "artist". Welding doesn't make you an artist. Some welder are great artists. Many welder would like to believe they are great artist.

Now for pottery, having been taught pottery, throwing, firing etc..., I know the crowd pretty well, and yes, that's tough, very often they are behaving like retarded conservative high-nosed "i'm a bear and i know everything so pray in front of me" ;-) but sometime not, and sometime they are great people. Like everywhere.

Pottery and ceramics have a _really_ bad reputation here in France and europe, and that's certainly partly why I like it ;-)
"Nooooo Philippe, don't do ceramics, it's really has-been you know" once was said to me

On the other hand, the ceramic medium has a tendency to conform you to some work and I felt quickly the need to work with other medium in order to free myself from the format.

PS: I highly advise reading Grayson Perry's book: "Portrait of the artist as a young girl", excellent read.
__________________
http://www.xlrmx.org
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-08-2007, 12:52 AM
cooljamesx1 cooljamesx1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ft collins, CO
Posts: 633
Re: "fine" art

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman
Hi, first of all cooljamesx1, those pissed off ceramics teachers you speak about should take a good look at what they do, throw pots, and they call that art? Are they kidding?
I'm F-ing pissed off that they consider themselves artists at all!!!!!!
Jeff
haha well said. you can take it up with them if you want to...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-08-2007, 10:11 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: "fine" art

Hi Underfoot, Yeah, post that wherever you want, in fact, I'm gonna print T-shirts with that saying on them and sell em to you for $24.95 plus shipping and handling.
I have just copyrighted that saying "Artists change the world, potters don't!"
I'll give you the poster concession for a small licensing fee.
Believe it or not, I have a lot of friends who are potters.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-08-2007, 10:39 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: "fine" art

Hi, First of all, Grayson Perry is off the charts, did you see the photo of him with his wife and daughter, ALL in dresses. You gotta love the guy.
I don't consider him a potter, he may make pots, but it's all about the paintings that he applies to them, NOT the pots!
I did an artist residency last year and had the run of the art dept. One of the ceramics students (who wanted to be a lawyer, the fool) threw pots, distorted them, turned them upside down, squished one into another and added things to them. He did great work and I consider him an artist not a potter.
So yes, potters do transcend the boring medium of cups, bowls and vases. Some actually do become artists.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-08-2007, 10:24 PM
cooljamesx1 cooljamesx1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ft collins, CO
Posts: 633
Re: "fine" art

quite the change of heart ironman!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-08-2007, 11:14 PM
allenring's Avatar
allenring allenring is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 351
Size matters!

All of my work tells time, my sculpture is a CLOCK. That is a very utilitarian function. Except for our own "make it and don't think about it" verbose guy, ironman who described my work as "cold heartless craft", I think we could all agree that my work is fine art.

If you have not seen my work already, look at my web site and tell me if this functional piece of art is craft.

But a more interesting teaser. The photos attached are of a series of clocks, their were also picture frames, that I sold as craft. They were presented at a large juried fine art craft show that catered to the wholesale market. They were easy to sell at $50 each but hard to produce and deliver.

Clearly these things are craft. But I have been considering the possibility of the same item for public art. What if I took the clock off, scaled them up to 10' and made them out of 1/2" steel plate instead of the current 1/8" aluminum.

If this same object, scaled up, made of cor-ten, clock included, were set in a sculpture garden or planted outside the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington DC no one would argue that it would be fine art. I could also charge accordingly.

So I would argue that location, size, provanence, and hubris are determiners of "fine" art. Does the actual piece really matter?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	sculpt01.jpg
Views:	145
Size:	15.7 KB
ID:	6294  Click image for larger version

Name:	sculpt02.jpg
Views:	136
Size:	13.1 KB
ID:	6295  Click image for larger version

Name:	sculpt03.jpg
Views:	153
Size:	16.7 KB
ID:	6296  
__________________
Allen Ring
Engineered Aesthetics
www.seguestudios.com
Continuing to win the struggle against enlightenment, wisdom, and a socially acceptable legacy.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-08-2007, 11:19 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: Size matters!

Quote:
Originally Posted by allenring
.

So I would argue that location, size, provanence, and hubris are determiners of "fine" art. Does the actual piece really matter?
Not if your goal is to pass the letter of the law by definition but kill the spirit of it by creating crap and calling it fine art.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-08-2007, 11:25 PM
allenring's Avatar
allenring allenring is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 351
Re: "fine" art

What about Warhol's paintings of Cambel soup cans? That certainly met the hubris and location requirement, and it worked.
__________________
Allen Ring
Engineered Aesthetics
www.seguestudios.com
Continuing to win the struggle against enlightenment, wisdom, and a socially acceptable legacy.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-09-2007, 04:56 AM
nero nero is offline
Level 3 user
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Auckland new zealand
Posts: 32
Re: "fine" art

if you made the "same object scaled up" it would be a big clock.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-09-2007, 06:28 AM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: "fine" art

Its not the size of your clock that matters.

Fine art just is. A stone carver will create a hundred book ends and paperweights before he can make a single sculpture and then a hundred more before a true gem and many again before creating a masterpiece if he ever does. It's no different than almost anything else people do except for the fact that so few can or do.

I concur with Ironman, how can anyone hold the slightest bit of ill will for a tart in a dress. There's some pure kind of joy there, not the kind I'm looking for myself, but I would't knock it.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-09-2007, 07:35 AM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: "fine" art

I suspect that many potters, printmakers, photographers, metalsmiths (jewelry), architects, urban planners, glassblowers, illustrators, woodturners, hairdressers and furniture makers all have secret fantasies of making paintings and sculpture. And some do, I'm sure.
But the impulse to execute on a purely aesthetic level is never challenged by any function. It can be challenged by the ceiling height in the studio, or the price of cadmium-red paint but the "fine" art cannot suffer under mundane considerations such as ergonomics or curb appeal. The "fine" art cannot succumb having its composition predetermined from the get-go by the trifling visual necessity of containing some fluid or some fruit. The "fine" art should reject any effort or process wasted on the possibilities of duplication, desiring to face the world alone and proud in its singularity. The "fine" art can be as big as a house but a door and a window will reduce it to a hovel. And so on...
But on a very INclusive note. It only takes a single hammered nail to change a boring old chair (or even a fabulantastic chair) into fine art.

And as farr as potters go, I too have known some who defeated the "hollowness" of their genre and turned it into pretty good sculpture.

And as far as Allen's cor-ten clock, the form yes, would do great in its rusty prominence anywhere you put it - but why give all that visual power over to two dinky little hands that happened to move around it. A huge sacrafice.Now if you had a twenty-foot hour-glass that actually exhibited the passing of a year...now, that clock would be "fine".

Evaldart has spoken
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-09-2007, 08:25 AM
Tlouis Tlouis is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 389
Thumbs down Re: "fine" art

Andy Warhol spent his life performing tricks. Which is why I call him Andy Whorehole.

Lou

Last edited by Tlouis : 06-09-2007 at 09:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-09-2007, 08:45 AM
iron ant's Avatar
iron ant iron ant is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mountaintown,GA
Posts: 744
Re: "fine" art

My clay teacher might have thrown pots,might be considered a craft,but she was no doubt,and still is,a fine artist.Have you seen craft magazine latley?The art snobs can kiss butt,because most of it transends into "fine Art",while the 'Fine art" Museum artist continue to produce instalations that are a visual joke.Its all about pushing an edge and hype,ala Warhol, he was just damn good at knowing what tweeked the geek..IA
__________________
mini metal man
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-09-2007, 10:41 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: "fine" art

Hi, Cooljamesx1, It's not a change of heart, Grayson Perry has simply used a vessel as a vessel for his paintings. It's not about the pots, it's about what he puts on them.
He could just as easily put his expression on canvas.
Andy Warhol? soup cans, pop art, dare we poke fun at the ab-exer's and their morose, alcohol sodden seriousness?
The story goes that he said, "I don't know what to paint?" and someone else said, "paint what you like." and since he had a can of Campbells soup for lunch every day and liked it, he started painting those paintings.
Location? Is it an accident that the best creative minds seem to end up in one place, whether it be rennaisaince Florence, turn of the century Paris or mid to late 20th century NYC?
Hubris? Warhol was a virtual unknown at that time and if you listen to anything he ever said, it all points away from hubris or ego.
Size? Mt. Rushmore, the Washington Monument and the Statue of Liberty are huge but no one considers them great sculpture do they? In fact, they barely escape the "monument" denotation, if at all, whereas a Serra "Torqued Ellipse" is always seen as sculpture.
Your big clock will always be seen as a clock, a very well designed, stylish one at that but always a clock.
Hey, Allenring, I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes, but I don't consider your clocks as sculpture. I like the design of those 3 "crafty" clocks pictured above but those ones on your web site, The "diagonal" something or other, just shoots off into outer space like an ICBM.
Oh no, I didn't realize I was getting verbose, I guess I'll have to edit the rhetoric!
just because something occupies 3 dimensional space doesn't make it sculpture!
Evaldart has spoken well and Allen should read that last paragraph.
SteveW, "Fine art just is" and "a tart in a dress", gotta love it!
Iron ant, Yeah, there are some really top notch craftspeople out there that certainly help blurr the line (craft into art) and many times cross it. You will notice that the work that crosses over into fine art has something to say or makes you think, it doesn't just sit there like a vase!
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-09-2007, 01:04 PM
Harryman Harryman is offline
Level 6 user
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 103
Re: "fine" art

Here's a part of the Wikipedia definition again for "Fine Art", a list of catagories considered to "Fine Art"


Architecture (frequently considered a fine art, especially if its aesthetic components are spotlighted [in contrast to structural-engineering or construction-management components])
Avant-garde music (much of it frequently considered both a performing art and a fine art)
Dance (much of it frequently considered both a performing art and a fine art)
Drawing
Film and Cinematography
Fine art photography
Intermedia (interdisciplinary; traditionally referred to as Fine Art Media)
Jazz music (very often considered both a performing art and a fine art)
Literature and Creative writing
Painting
Printmaking
Sculpture
Textiles (if as "wearables" or "pre-wearables", is sometimes considered fine art; frequently considered fine art if part of an art display)
Theatre (a performing art that is frequently also considered a fine art)
Western art music (a performing art that is frequently also considered a fine art)



Pretty broad to say the least.

My point is that anything created to be "art" should be considered "art" whether you personally think it's junk or a masterpiece. It doesn't matter who made it, what materials were used, what is sells for, or if you can eat a slice of cake off of it.

I agree that "Fine Art" is something special, it should at the very least, provoke some emotional response in you, the viewer. I don't think there's any hard and fast set of rules that define it, it's up to you to decide. Just because something is labeled "Fine Art" doesn't make it so, only you can grant it that. Warhol and Toulouse-Lautrec; both used printing to make their name, both making "Fine Art"? Neither? Your decision, not mine.

Museums, galleries, sculpture gardens and high end Craft shows are filled with "art" but it's up to you to decide what little of it is "Fine Art".
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-09-2007, 08:10 PM
JasonGillespie's Avatar
JasonGillespie JasonGillespie is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 429
Re: "fine" art

Quote:
just because something occupies 3 dimensional space doesn't make it sculpture!
This seems to be the truth that eludes many. It is as if an object merely existing is enough to warrant its inclusion as a sculpture and I have never understood this as a logical conclusion. While many practical/utilitarian objects do rise to the level of fine art (think Cellini's salt cellar) it isn't always a smooth transition. To me there is a lot of "fine art" that isn't fine art. Problem is a painter or sculptor can paint or sculpt with all the passion, creativity, and originality of a bad piece of fruit, but they can claim "fine art" status by virtue of their process. I don't go in for rubber stamping anything fine art unless it deserves it...it isn't, in my opinion, always a given.

The Wikipedia definition is certainly right in saying all those areas can and should be possible fine art mediums, but does that automatically mean everything that is produced in those fields? From my own particular perch the answer would be NO.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	jsw_cellini_saliere.jpg
Views:	157
Size:	46.2 KB
ID:	6313  
__________________
Ancora Imparo
Still I am learning

Michelangelo Buonarroti
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-09-2007, 08:59 PM
nero nero is offline
Level 3 user
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Auckland new zealand
Posts: 32
Re: "fine" art

allenring #32 So I would argue that location, size, provanence, and hubris are determiners of "fine" art. Does the actual piece really matter?


I think you are entirely correct in asserting that theses issues are determinants of 'fine art' and they should all be under the controll of the fine artist ; they should be part of the practice. I know lots of good artists, but the sucessful ones take controll of the process of how the art is shown and percieved by the public ( as much as that is possible ).

So warhol was a good designer who became a good printer; his p.r. ability made him a great artist, i dont see a problem with this, especially since he was a POP artist. Are his portraits any less than those that came from the court of the Medici?

Does the actual piece matter? yes it is vital. In new zealand we have an expression for over promoting an idea, its called 'polishing a turd.'
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-10-2007, 10:27 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: "fine" art

Hi nero, "polishing a turd", love it! In this country (usa) we only have two turd polishers at the present time, one is Jeff Koons and the other is the presidents press secretary.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-11-2007, 07:03 PM
allenring's Avatar
allenring allenring is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 351
hype, another definition of fine art

finally ironman made a statement that I fully agree with, an it was a brief one to boot! I'm with nero, in todays society image is often more important that substance. More effort is expended on controlling the message than on creating an original idea.

I can not for the life of me see any correlation between an "artist's" aesthetics, skill, and concept and what the market place seems willing to accept and pay outrageous prices for. Assuming that most everything that gets in a major art magazine could be considered valuable fine art then I would make the statement that most of the members of this site, myself especially, are really lost. The works shown on this site has a great sense of balance,form and aesthetics. Open any art magazine if you want an example of visual atrocities.

nero is making a vital point that all need consider. A modern successful artist needs to control his/her image and the message. Controlling the spin is a modern day necessity for success writ large. It isn't just for politicians and celebrities.

Good incite on my little crafty clocks. Submit the form, done large, sans hands and function, but I think Ill keep the face/circle, it is a nice element. It has to be fine art because I will intend it to be so, and according to ironman it therefore will be so.

Actually it comes down to what an artist can sell, to what extent he/she can get others to believe. Hype, not substance, another definition of fine art.
__________________
Allen Ring
Engineered Aesthetics
www.seguestudios.com
Continuing to win the struggle against enlightenment, wisdom, and a socially acceptable legacy.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-11-2007, 08:28 PM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: "fine" art

When I go to Barnes and Noble and the three-year-old happens to be asleep in the stroller (fat chance) I check the Art in America Obituaries - see who died. Other than that I'd sooner spend an afternoon coupling my socks into bundles (another fat chance) than actually peruse those glossy tabloids.
Suffice it to say that all threads SHOULD end in debate about what is or isn't art... in all its fine, functional, crafty, subcontracted, and life-casted glory. If you ever get tired of this argument go cash in your chips, its a big world out there. Perhaps you'll still make a decent viewer, or even a collector.
The daily re-evaluation of this conundrum will keep yopu hyper-aware ofthe possibilities, the things for which you have contempt always sneaking up behind you patiently waiting to infect your work...to your DELIGHT.
I see too many artists going through the motions floundering in their success or relishing their failure, all by a stubborn and self-destructive persistence to keep believing the same things all the time.
The big dummy was making a fancy, floral, forged-iron bathroom vanity today while the rest of me stared out the window at a couple of rusty bent H-beams. One of the leaves I was treating so delicately under the tongs broke off and caused me to wonder if an H-beam could possibly be "elevated" visually by fanciful ornamentaion. Yesterday such a thought would have been considered blasphemy. Things should change.
So if you ever catch me contradicting myself in my righteous proclamations in future threads...don't worry, it just means I'm hitting another "growth" spurt.

Last edited by evaldart : 06-11-2007 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert