[TheForge] Art, doncha know....

[Andrew Vida]

George Dixon wrote:
> 
>      Art used to mean that one achieved a level of mastery of the tools 
> and materials

	Actually, this would have been called "craft", which is the technology 
of art...  more or less.

 > and then transformed those materials into objects that
> were pleasing to the viewer,

	Agreed.

 > qualitative in their design and
> construction and challenging enough in their execution to put demands on 
> the artist.

	I'm not sure that this is necessarily so, though personally I may agree 
with you.

> Impressionistic and realistic depictions take effort and time both to 
> learn to do and then to do.  It is called 'delayed gratification'.  Post 
> WW2 was the onset of instant gratification.
> 
> By mid-century the slippery slope had produced the Jackson Pollock 
> generation.  Paint was tossed at the canvas.  Since there was no 
> possibility that anyone could recognize the imagery as representing 
> anything from their world, titles became more important.  Frankly, it 
> takes no skill to toss paint, bend bars, or stack fired clay sticks into 
> pyramids....and then call it 'art'. 

	Wile I find this to be generally so, I would caution against casting 
too broad a net on this issue.  Although the art and discipline of 
composition has lost most of its meaning, I have seen some "modern" 
abstract pieces that were masterfully composed in terms of color.  Adept 
color composition is not a trivial thing.

	But I will agree with you in that dipping my ass into a bucket and then 
dragging it across a canvas like a dog with worms is not what I would 
define as a skill worthy of my notice, much less my praise.

	I see as one of the differences between then and now (so to speak) as 
being the difference between disciplined acts of creation versus 
undisciplined.  Discipline in craft and art is what enables one to 
create to a specification.  Michelangelo's David was, among other 
things, the result of disciplined hands and mind, whereas rubbing my ass 
across a canvas would be a pretty good example of an undisciplined act. 
  Discipline allows one to work to a high tolerance, whereas the lack 
there of does not.

	This whole issue is compounded in its difficulty because art and the 
associated implementation crafts are multi-dimensional.  This is why I 
find such topics to be fruitless.  If you like what you see, the art is 
good.  If not, then it is not.

 > It does take clever titles (if it
> comes with an explanatory title then the imagery failed to work....it 
> must be art) and some marketing to turn a buck with it.

	Turning a buck at "art" has always been a tough proposition.  There 
have been a few notable personalities, such as Mark Costabi, who have 
had phenomenal commercial success at it.  He is the exception.
> 
>             "No body ever lost a dime underestimating the taste of the 
> general public"  P T Barnum.

	Yeah, well... DUH... :)
> 
> As the last quarter of the 20th c moved toward the millennium minimalism 
> came to the forefront.  The rich artistic traditions in metal, ceramics, 
> jewelry and paint were eschewed (or were considered too difficult and 
> time consuming to learn or master) and in their place we got red boxes 
> placed in subways, cloth draped over both the German Parliament building 
> and some dinky island in the Florida Keys followed by plasma-cut 
> silhouettes in cor-ten steel. Cor-ten has one art property beyond being 
> plasma cutable and wire-weldable....it rusts.  It rusts just so far and 
> then stabilizes.  Wow!

	The emphasis in art drifted from producing pleasing works to doing 
something "new".  New is, of course, a load of bullshit, but don't try 
to convince the critics of this.
> 
> The equally rich traditions of craftsmanship faded as well.  A 1990's 
> waltz through the Sculpture Garden of the Hirshorn Museum on the Mall in 
> Washington, DC takes the viewer from silhouettes in the distance that 
> are not unpleasing, up to a more intimate range where the crappy welds 
> and the low level of craftsmanship are dominant. 

	I'm not certain the artist can always be blamed for this.  We live in 
the age of "time is money".  We also live in the age of "everybody loves 
and wants art, but nobody wants to pay for it".  Art has always been a 
tough row to hoe.  I think perhaps it is tougher than ever and costs are 
something that any reasonably sane artist keeps an eye on.  This often 
means that something will have to give, and it is usually NOT the 
client's wallet.

	If you are doing art for a living, then it MUST be run as a business if 
one doesn't want to be cold, hungry, and riddled with anxiety.  Rare is 
the soul that bares these with grace and apparent ease.  I suck at it.

> Hence the minimalism shows in our tarnished 
> silver age of one-trick-art-ponies.

	Well, minimalism isn't all bad.  My master, Bernard Bernstein, does 
silver work that could be called "minimalist", but the skills needed to 
pull off his designs must be top drawer.  For example, at an opening in 
Soho several years ago he had a menorah on display.  Very simple, 
minimalist design with some large sweeping surfaces.  The joinery was 
flawless - you could not find a joint anywhere on the piece.  The broad 
surfaces were very perfect, and brought to a high polish, no less.  No 
rounded edges, no undulations.  That takes high skill and patience.
> 
> Today, good design which is executed with craftsmanship and 
> a masterful manipulation of a medium incorporating rich visual imagery 
> and detail is as strong a rejection of the gray haired status-quo rut of 
> contemporary art as their paint or poop tossed at canvas was a rejection 
> of pre-20th century art traditions.   They took a wrong turn, called it 
> art and no-one that knew better spoke up.  Then they became academics of 
> art and taught their inadequacies to several generations....and here we 
> are.

	From a personal aspect I agree with you, but beauty really is in the 
eye of the beholder and one plays a risky game, second-guessing the 
preferences of others.  But I will say that those who choose to like a 
piece for reasons that are not really their own may be guilty of 
self-betrayal.  It is hard to tell.  If a work grabs you instantly, then 
I would call that genuine.  If it has to be explained, then there may be 
a problem... so to speak.  But not always, because just as there are 
ideas whose merits are not intuitively obvious, there are objets d'art 
whose... I don't know... "message" (whatever the hell that might mean) 
is actually something really cool to an individual.  In such cases I 
would have to say that having to have it explained might be just fine.
> 
> If you want to have an impact and/or make something which stands the 
> fabled test of time in both design and durability, then you need to 
> consider the pre-20th and early 21st century's art criteria of achieving 
> competency and then mastery of your medium. Once you have done that, 
> start to tackle innovative design.   But don't get fooled again.

	I can accept this, to a point.  Time will tell which works will survive 
and which will not.  But I do not accept that art always has to be 
obvious.  I'm not sure you are implying this, but it COULD be read into 
your words.  Subtlety can be a good thing.  Even so for the cryptic.

	-Andy