Art???

[Jacob]

....
This is one of my favourite things to argue about

Woodwork and furniture isn't art. It can be artistic but it isn't art unless it was created with artistic intent. And I don't mean design which utilises the tools of The Arts. Function drowns out any other motivation.....

I've got the book "1000 Chairs". Also another one "500 Chairs". They are the tip of an iceberg - there are 1000s more designs.
So if "function drowns out any other motivation" either there are at least 1500 functions which can be served by a chair, or 1499 of them are about something else - possibly art?

Here's an extremely functional chair - comfortable, easy cheap and unskilled to make. So why are they not all like this?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Because it is ugly?

 

[Jacob]

Because it is ugly?

OK, that's my point; function doesn't "drown out any other motivation"
Though incidentally a lot of people wouldn't see this chair as ugly - more as an icon of modernism!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

This will sound incredibly patronising (sorry) but the average person doesn't 'get' art, anymore than they 'get' theoretical physics (of course, some do). They look for design and craft and skill and The Arts, but for the past 100 years those things have been of ever decreasing importance (and in some ways are the polar opposite of art) in art. The RCA is one of the best art schools on the planet. They know what they are talking about. And if people find it stupid it says more about the viewer than the creator. Duchamp destroyed the role of making in art, a century ago. The public still hasn't caught up.

That's a whacking great cop-out, isn't it?

"It's only Art if we say it is, and if you don't 'get it' it's because you're too stupid or don't have the insight".

No wonder the Arts Establishment (which does not include or speak for all artists by a long chalk) is held in such contempt by so many.

There is some quite stunning art being produced by all sorts of people today, as any visit to the many commercial galleries will attest. People with insights, people looking to provoke contemplation, seek truth, or just celebrate beauty - and some are prepared to invest years in developing their talent by nurturing skill. That, I can respect - and have occasionally seen works that move me profoundly; that they do so without having to be 'interpreted' is testament to the artist's insight. Great art speaks for itself.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Certain things stand out to me as showing that so much "art" is nothing more than the emperor's new clothes, one is when as has happened in the past an abstract has been hung in a gallery for months when the "artist" has come along and informed the gallery that it has been hung upside down, another is when a painting worth say £5m is proved to be a fake, when suddenly it is worth £1. In other words, the signature was thought to be worth £4,999,999. :lol:

 

[Jacob]

Certain things stand out to me as showing that so much "art" is nothing more than the emperor's new clothes, one is when as has happened in the past an abstract has been hung in a gallery for months when the "artist" has come along and informed the gallery that it has been hung upside down, another is when a painting worth say £5m is proved to be a fake, when suddenly it is worth £1. In other words, the signature was thought to be worth £4,999,999. :lol:

That's another world nothing to do with you or me. I'm not buying art for half a million and I presume you aren't either. In fact I hardly spend a penny on it - you can appreciate it absolutely free of charge,

 

[bugbear]

Here's an extremely functional chair - comfortable, easy cheap and unskilled to make. So why are they not all like this?

If your axioms were true, the conclusion should follow.

Since all chairs aren't like that (the conclusions is false), one can infer that at least one of your claimed axioms is not true.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

Great art speaks for itself.

Agreed - Great Artists communicate with more clarity and power than anyone else. That (IMHO) is kinda' the point.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

PS The older I get, the more I realise that most people don't "get" most things - half the population has an IQ of less than 100

That follows from the definition of IQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

"When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100"

If a magic additive to the water supply suddenly made everyone twice as clever, half the population would still have an IQ below 100.

So it (of itself) doesn't say anything useful about how clever (or not) the population are.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Here's an extremely functional chair - comfortable, easy cheap and unskilled to make. So why are they not all like this?

If your axioms were true, the conclusion should follow.

Since all chairs aren't like that (the conclusions is false), one can infer that at least one of your claimed axioms is not true.

BugBear

It wasn't my axiom it was MatthewRedStar's; "Function drowns out any other motivation", so you have completely missed the point.
Usually you only slightly miss the point (credit where credit is due) - have you been at the bottle again?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

PS The older I get, the more I realise that most people don't "get" most things - half the population has an IQ of less than 100

That follows from the definition of IQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

"When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100"

If a magic additive to the water supply suddenly made everyone twice as clever, half the population would still have an IQ below 100.

So it (of itself) doesn't say anything useful about how clever (or not) the population are.

BugBear

If IQ 100 could actually be defined, it would be found to be getting progressively lower ... as people of below average intelligence tend to have more children than people at the other end of the scale.

 

[monkeybiter]

Back from the brink to the original post, I notice that one of the artist's works is titled 'Disappearance at Sea'. It may be 2026 before she reappears.
Cornwall is mentioned, did you have a hand in it phil.p ?

[p.s. surely art does have a function, to generate an emotion, whether it be pleasure, anger or whatever?]

 

[Jonzjob]

Just as a matter of interest? Why would anyone actually need to know their IQ? Is it so that they know that they are more inteligent and if they are actually more inteligent surely they would already know that?

I have come to the conclusion that the reason that I have asked the question is that my brain cell is too highly atuned to think down the the required level to see the reason :?

Also, why the hell has this thread suddenly got so VERY wide on my screen? Its IQ must have increased 100 fold with all of the high brow chatter :shock:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Mine's OK atm - it's annoying when you go to full editor to put a LOL or whatever in and you lose the half of the screen. It was doing it quite badly yesterday.

 

[Jonzjob]

Mine's OK on the forum screen, but it has gone wide again as I trype this. Must be my IQ freequing it out :roll:

 

[Woody2Shoes]

PS The older I get, the more I realise that most people don't "get" most things - half the population has an IQ of less than 100

That follows from the definition of IQ.

I nearly included "by definition" but I knew how clever we all are!! :lol: :mrgreen:

 

[Dee J]

In about 1994 Cornwall Association of Woodturners wrote to the Tate in St. Ives asking if we could put on a weekend exhibition in the winter when everything was quiet. We had a very nice, polite letter back thanking us for our offer, but turning it down as there was no way that woodturning could possibly be considered artistic.

Ooh. thats almost setting down a challenge isn't it. More the case that it's not a technique usually associated with art (yet). Any craft or human activity can be art, if so applied and intended.... but titling your group by material and process (wood-turner) doesn't inform the Tate what your motives or intentions are.

Expressing the craft aspect of your artistic practice does present a challenge to the art establishment. Grayson Perry as an artist who applies craft pottery skills as part of his process uses that tension as part of his art - but not without challenge. Maybe you shouldn't have given up so easily!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

As a last resort, consult a dictionary:

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Thus objects (for instance a chair) which are created principally for their functional intent would not normally be art. Even if they are designed with high levels of creative skill and imagination, they are not appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

But arguably a chair created principally to appeal to the emotions could be art - but presumably only if comfort and stability were inconsequential attributes of the design.

It's no surprise that many woodworkers/craftsmen should find some art difficult to comprehend as values attached to their work concern function, precision, quality of finish, appropriateness of materials. Attractive design may be a component of a highly regarded piece but alone would not remotely qualify a piece of craftsmanship as good.

Terry

 

[Shultzy]

I think Art is the idea or concept. Most modern art could be made by anyone with the appropriate skills, but not everyone could create the idea. I could build the chair in the above photo but I certainly couldn't have thought of the design.

 

[Jake]

If IQ 100 could actually be defined, it would be found to be getting progressively lower ... as people of below average intelligence tend to have more children than people at the other end of the scale.

Human history will end up back in the primordial soup. Funny that trajectory isn't so obvious.