Karl Holtey

[Andy Kev.]

Bob, I'm afraid that the value of art is not in the actual piece. Why this is I'm not sure, but as evidence I have a friend whose truck was painted by Banksy many years ago before the art world decided his work was important/valuable. Her house was falling down and she decided to sell a panel of the truck to pay for repairs. Before they were verified as genuine Banksy's they were of no value and she could not get his agents to verify them. Eventually he verified them and she got enough money to fix her house ( I don't know the actual sums but they go for upwards of £100,000). To me this is all odd as they were the same thing whether painted by him or someone else. This is a big difference between art and craft. If a piece of furniture that was supposed to have been made by Alan Peters turned out not to have been made by him it may lose some value, but the fact that it was fine enough for people to have thought he made it means it is still a fine piece with an intrinsic value. This is not the case with art works. Even a violin that turns out not to be made by Stradivarius will have an intrinsic value if it was fine enough to possibly have been made by him. Perhaps its value goes from 1,000,000 to 20,000 but it still has a "real" value.
I have just had a couple of customers in our dock who make art for Gavin Turk. The "craft" is theirs not his, but they are on £100 a day whilst his works sell for 6 and 7 figure sums. My bed is at least as messy as Tracey Emin's and my drawings are probably better, but neither are of any value.
I'm not anti modern art but there is something weird about the market. Banksy's work is street culture, often about radical politics and counter culture, I actually like it, but who are these idiots who pay £100,000 upwards for a stencil, you can't buy your way into counter culture.
I'd prefer a Holtey to Banksy any day, but this is partly because they are not art, they are a real thing, it doesn't matter who made them, it is what they are, unfortunately I am very unlikely to ever own either so I'll just be happy with my Stanleys and pictures by my seven year old daughter (somewhat better than Tracey Emin's).
Paddy
Paddy

I agree with that. In my opinion the whole thing can be demystified if we start by making a distinction between art and craft. If you were to ask most people in most trades to define their trade they would probably come up pretty quickly with a no nonsense, straightforward answer. Ask anybody involved in any capacity in the art world and they will adopt a strained expression, their knuckles will whiten as the pressure of their grip on their glass of cheap Chilean Chardonnay tightens and they will go into waffle mode for 5 minutes or so, at the end of which you will be none the wiser.

The solution? You need a working definition of art. My own (which has so far never let me down) is that a piece of art has to communicate something intended by the artist: it can simply be an unusual physical perspective on an object or a statement about the morality of a set of circumstances etc. If something which is claimed to be art does not communicate to you, it and its artist have failed. So if you take Damien Hurst's dot paintings they are at best pieces of design but in my opinion there is no sensible way in which you an call them art. You mention Tracy Emin: she seems to want to communicate (usually tedious and self-obsessed) points about her own life but in a sort of cack-handed way.

Which brings us neatly on to craft: the skills used in the construction of the work of art. We know that Hurst can draw a set of circles (I believe he otherwise gets people to actually do the physical work on his projects) so he would appear to have the craft skills of a 10 year old. Tracy Emin can put up a tent or trash a bad, so she is presumably blessed with normal physical coordination.

However it seems to me that precious few modern artists have high levels of craftsmanship. Constables, Turners and Caravaggios seem thin on the ground these days.

Karl Holtey on the other hand is a master craftsman with a gifted eye for design which is so well developed that most of us would probably say that their is an element of artistry in his works (so excellent is the design). However, his planes do not communicate anything in themselves therefore we must conclude that they are not works of art.

This then leads us to the matters of price. In the art world it is all about money. Art can be a terrific investment. That's why pictures by Picasso change hands for billions. I think van Gogh was a tip top dauber of paint. I'd be prepared to spend about two thousand on one of his originals (if I had it spare) but people who have got millions spare have pushed the prices into the stratosphere. The whole art market phenomenon is in principle the same as the emperor's new clothes. Your friend with the Banksy van did well: she exploited the work of a low to mediocre quality "artist" who seems to possess little craft (he wields a stencil and a can of spray paint) by selling it in a market which is full of people who are desparate to make a few bob in a quick and easy way.

So do you buy a Holtey, a Banksy or a Picasso? Well if somebody is going to offer you a Picasso for 10 grand, snap it up, sell it for ten million, buy as many Holtey planes as you want and a couple of decent pictures to go on your wall and then do the world a favour by bying a few Hursts, Emins and Banksies and burn them.

 

[Rhossydd]

Whilst I'd agree with almost all of your post you need to be careful before saying things like;

However it seems to me that precious few modern artists have high levels of craftsmanship. Constables, Turners and Caravaggios seem thin on the ground these days.

Unless you have a really good knowledge of contemporary art making statements like this rather risky. There are a lot of fine artists working today,but you probably haven't heard of most of them or seen their work.
You need to remember that many of past artists weren't widely regarded as 'masters' in their own period and it's only with the passing of time that the worth of their work has been truly understood.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Whilst I'd agree with almost all of your post you need to be careful before saying things like;

However it seems to me that precious few modern artists have high levels of craftsmanship. Constables, Turners and Caravaggios seem thin on the ground these days.

Unless you have a really good knowledge of contemporary art making statements like this rather risky. There are a lot of fine artists working today,but you probably haven't heard of most of them or seen their work.
You need to remember that many of past artists weren't widely regarded as 'masters' in their own period and it's only with the passing of time that the worth of their work has been truly understood.

Yes, you are of course quite right. I'm aiming my remarks essentially at the scandalous nature of art world hype, the rotten foundation of which to me seems to be a widespread inability on the part of many of its participants to even confidently state what they think art is. And in terms of artists, my target is the kind of people I named. There are many good, masterful even, modern artists (not necessarily engaged in the production of "modern" art) but they tend, for obvious reasons, not to scandalise our sensibilities. I'm also assuming that on this forum we can treat the subject in a relaxed, irreverent way while not feeling the need for academic precision.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I'm also assuming that on this forum we can treat the subject in a relaxed, irreverent way while not feeling the need for academic precision.

Quite right, lets show some respect in the way we respond to people's opinions please. Particularly with esoteric subjects like art there is no right or wrong, it's got to be one of the least binary discussions going and neither harmony nor the debate are served by inflammatory language.

Opening posts with: "No" or "you're wrong" or "you need to take more care in what you say", that kind of language just puts the posters back up, causes them to dig their heels in and adopt a defensive posture. If folk reference the idea not the person then it keeps the discussion lubricated and non personal. The moment the person is rejected instead of the idea, it gets nasty and I for one don't want to read posts of people bickering. For the record, there was nothing whatsoever wrong with Andy's posts and he didn't need to "be more careful"

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Wenn Ich "Kultur" hore, nehme Ich meine Pistole.

Apologies for the missing umlaut.

 

[Trafalgar]

There is a huge difference in the industrial arts, decorative arts, and fine art. These actually are dichotomous and such dichotomy is a permanent feature in the market for art, particularly the last two.

 

[Corneel]

Take for example musicians. I am not a musician, so I really should have no idea, but when I listen to some modern violin players who play a classic piece, Bach for example, they can do that with the utmost perfection. They are true craftsmen. And what's more, the art world doesn't expect anything less then perfect execution. Are they artists or crafsmen? (Or women of course).

 

[custard]

IMHO the merit of Karl Holtey's planes is partially the design, but mainly the extraordinary (and unique) level of precision and care in the manufacture.

If (and it's a colossal "if") an exact copy could be made, I (for one) would value it equally with a Holtey.

I'd agree with that.

But here's the thing, a great deal of Holtey's precision and care isn't actually visible, much of his effort is sealed inside the plane so an exact copy wouldn't be verifiable as an exact copy.

In that respect the Holtey name is more like a brand than artist's signature, in other words its real significance is as a guarantee of quality rather than evidence of authorship.

 

[John K]

I respectfully disagree that Karl's planes do not communicate anything in and of themselves. I can certainly see why they don't communicate much to some people. But I think there is a language in the craftsmanship, design and engineering of his planes that does speak to people who know the language. His planes are full of individual decisions that are every bit as considered as brush strokes on a piece of canvass. I see more art in some of Karl's planes than others. He started out trying to make higher quality versions of planes made by others who came before him. But by the time he made his 98 he had moved to a place where he began to fully express his own ideas. In the end, I think art is something that is determined by the nature and quality of the relationship between the object and the viewer. That is where "meaning" gets created--or not. So it really is not at all surprising that one person might see something as art while another person would be totally unmoved. The perversions of the art market are a separate matter entirely.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I'm inclined to agree with John. Karl's planes could be reasonably viewed as sculpture. The fact they perform a function is entirely irrelevant.

 

[iNewbie]

The guys an Artist. They are, art.

 

[n0legs]

I respectfully disagree that Karl's planes do not communicate anything in and of themselves. I can certainly see why they don't communicate much to some people. But I think there is a language in the craftsmanship, design and engineering of his planes that does speak to people who know the language. His planes are full of individual decisions that are every bit as considered as brush strokes on a piece of canvass. I see more art in some of Karl's planes than others. He started out trying to make higher quality versions of planes made by others who came before him. But by the time he made his 98 he had moved to a place where he began to fully express his own ideas. In the end, I think art is something that is determined by the nature and quality of the relationship between the object and the viewer. That is where "meaning" gets created--or not. So it really is not at all surprising that one person might see something as art while another person would be totally unmoved. The perversions of the art market are a separate matter entirely.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. One of the most comprehensive, clear statements made on this subject.

The guys an Artist. They are, art.

My feelings also.

 

[Rhossydd]

For the record, there was nothing whatsoever wrong with Andy's posts and he didn't need to "be more careful"

Are you reading these posts ? Andy agreed I was right in my correction of his post. "Yes, you are of course quite right."

This thread is all about celebrating and understanding the extreme precision with which Karl Holtey made his planes, why not strive for a similar academic precision and factual accuracy in our discussions here ?

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

For the record, there was nothing whatsoever wrong with Andy's posts and he didn't need to "be more careful"

Are you reading these posts ? Andy agreed I was right in my correction of his post. "Yes, you are of course quite right."

This thread is all about celebrating and understanding the extreme precision with which Karl Holtey made his planes, why not strive for a similar academic precision and factual accuracy in our discussions here ?

I'm reading them for sure. I would encourage everyone to read "between the lines" as well as the words! I think Andy was simply commenting that perhaps we don't need to be quite so intense, quite so picky about the detail, particularly when a) these are opinions and not facts and b) this discussion is lets face it pretty esoteric at the point it strays into the notion of art and as I said before, that isn't a binary discussion, there is no black or white....just opinion. In my view expression of opinions is valid and the people who express them can probably live without advice about how careful or otherwise they should be. By all means folks should take issue with an idea or a theme but steer away from commenting on the person. It's just basic courtesy that's all.

 

[Bedrock]

"Art" has become such a devalued word over the last century or so. I seem to recall that the French National Academy originally refused to accept work from any Impressionist artists, excluding the work of Monet, Manet etc., as they did not conform to their then rigid set of criteria. Having visited several galleries of modern art, initially with a full set of "anti" prejudices, I have had my views altered considerably, and am now somewhat more open minded.

Having said that, I recall a BBC programme some years ago where a couple (very wealthy) were being shown a new work of art in an "exclusive NY gallery", which consisted of a very large canvas, entirely painted white, and for which they were being invited to pay several hundred thousand dollars, before anyone else had the opportunity to see it. There's another word for that, and I don't think it's "art".

Whether something designed for a functional purpose, transcends the barrier to become "art", can only be an individual subjective opinion. I for one, believe that any surviving Concorde aircraft have made that transition as it is an artefact of stunning beauty as well as a tribute to the British aircraft industry. I would "value" any of those aircraft at way more than any Damien Hurst, but they are a damn sight more difficult to accommodate on your mantelpiece or bank vault.

Much as I admire the engineering and beauty of Mr. Holtey's work, would I put his planes in the same category as Concorde? Hmmmm.....

Mike

Much as I don't like most of Ms. Emins work that I have seen, I believe that she is a more than capable conventional draughtsperson.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Art's a complicated one and no mistake. It has so many dimensions two of which: the money side and modern art seem to be almost completely at odds with what perhaps the majority consider to be the most important aspect of it which is "did it move me in some way".

I'm afraid I don't really understand modern art myself. If a piece is making a cultural comment then sometimes I get that but a white canvas......not being funny but what the heck is that all about?? Surely the onlooker would need to be taking some pretty creative chemicals to get a buzz out of that??

 

[iNewbie]

Surely the onlooker would need to be taking some pretty creative chemicals to get a buzz out of that??

The body will supply its own chemicals - no outside influence necessary, for some.

 

[Rhossydd]

I would encourage everyone to read "between the lines" as well as the words!

and that's poor advise too. Just read what people post and comment on what they actually write, not what you think or hope or suspect, they mean. Too many people make assumptions that are incorrect and post unnecessarily inflammatory posts on fallacious ideas.

Jut keep it factual and accurate, is that really so difficult ?

 

[Trafalgar]

I suppose the obvious question to ask is whether Karl has exhibited his work in a setting other than some sort of woodworking get together, say in a general gallery or something along those lines, possibly along with work by UK designer/craftsmen who may have used his planes.

Just wondering...

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I would encourage everyone to read "between the lines" as well as the words!

and that's poor advise too. Just read what people post and comment on what they actually write, not what you think or hope or suspect, they mean. Too many people make assumptions that are incorrect and post unnecessarily inflammatory posts on fallacious ideas.

Jut keep it factual and accurate, is that really so difficult ?

A near perfect demonstration of my point - thank you! Oh and......it's a small c......in advise