Fine art

[jotloob]

Q.G.
In my view , craft definately can be ART and FINE ART too . The craftsmen could have put so much emotions into his work that his work is accepted as an outstanding work .
Ex&le : Tillman Riemenschneider , one of the outstanding woodcarvers in the late middle age , was primarily (using your words) a craftsman , but he is internationally accepted to be a great
artist .
So what is ART ? ? ?
Paul Klee's pictures , for me , are of no ART , but a waste of colours and canvas . For others he might have been a great genius . So what is ART ? ? ?
Am i an idiot , because i can not accept Paul Klee's Pictures as ART ? ? ? Or are those , who admire his work , idiots ? ? ? Do those people eventually admire an "artist" because they are afraid , that other people might declare them as "know nothings" when they dont say so ? ? ?
So this discussion leaves me alone , and i must admit , i can not explain ,what ART is . ................Who can ????????????????????

 

[qnu]

Yes, Riemenschneider was a great artist, who ALSO was a great craftsman. Or vice versa.

The two, art and craft, can be found in one person. And sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
But they are not one and the same thing.

The fact that you can not like the work of Klee (or whoever), while others do, though the craftmanship he put in his work (however minute that may be

) is one and the same, is a good indication that art and craft are separate things.

If you like, art is concerned with statements. It is saying things. Conveys messages. Is part of the socio-cultural discours.
Craft is concerned with shaping things, and how that is done best to suit a certain norm of excellence.

Of course, sometimes, craft can appear to become art.
But only if by the fact that something is done with extraordinary care, to excell, beyond the highest standard; or with an extraordinary abandon of all standards; or by trying to adhere to quite different, 'traditional'/'antique' standards, a statement is made.
But even then the art is in the statement, the craft is merely an instrument used to make the statement. As ever.

No, you're not an idiot because you do not like Klee's art.
Again, if you look at art as (part of) a discourse, it becomes clear that nobody can agree with everything anybody says all of the time. Context, your own identity (i.e. your place in the context, your 'side' in the discours) determines what agrees with you, and what you (can) agree with.

And conversely, the fact that you do not, cannot see the art in Paul Klee's work does not mean that people who do are idiots seeing things.
They just agree with the statement, with the position he maneuvered to in the discourse of his time. Or at the very least acknowledge that he had an important contribution to make, whether they agree or not.

And that's where 'fine' arts come in.
They only seek agreement. They are not out to stirr anything. On the contrary. Conformity...

 

[texascowgrower]

A conversation I had once with an established Texas artist comes to mind. We were discussing how to decide what to paint or what genre do devote your talents to when he suggested "Paint what you love. If you love painting garbage cans, and paint them well enough and long enough, sooner or later you will develop a following of garbage can painting collectors. You will succeed, of THAT I can assure you." While this may not DEFINE what makes ART, it may shed light on how one makes a transition from picture taker, or garbage can painter to ARTIST. When your passion for the subject becomes aparent to the viewer and you make that visceral connection with him or her you have arrived

What you have produced is ART. You are now an ARTIST. Then a knock comes at the door and you realize the landlord still wants the rent money and the wife still wants you to help with the dishes and the laundry

 

[rogerrichards]

The *classic* definition of fine art I would say is:
Art created for purely aesthetic expression, communication, or contemplation.

The term fine art was first attested in 1767, as a translation from the French term beaux arts. It referred to the arts that were "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste" (SOED 1991)
Probably, in this case, art which is created for its own aesthetic purposes rather than for any practical reason.

Roger Richards

 

[simonpg]

Fernando, I found your views very compelling especially your reference to there being different "types" of the art and not just one as in literature and music.

QG's differentiation between art and craft is also interesting and one that I had not considered before.

But certainly for me, there is the key element of what ones sees as one looks at the image and what feelings that drives like Fernando said (more eloquently than I).

 

[simonpg]

Melton and Roger, your comments actually make the terms fine art and art tangible. The translation of the French term is very useful. In music I was taught that music is "a succession of sounds that are appealing to the ear".

So, logically a painting would be art in the eyes of one viewer because it is an image that is pleasing to the eye; whereas, to another it may not be art because it is a mess to his eyes.

That French translation may go a long way to explain why some who hear a piece of music may claim: "that's not music, it is just a horrible noise!"

 

[dchong]

Simon, I would heartily agree with the definition of music you quoted. As a language music is capable of eloquent & meaningful expression, but of course, can also be unintelligible (spelling?) and subject to abuse. Hence atonality! Apologies for going off topic... & thank you for the link to your essay on the Xpan Cheers David

 

[simonpg]

Thanks David. You're welcome. By the way, your English is superb and may be better than most native English speakers!

Now atonality is an interesting subject in itself. Ah! Webern, Copeland (spelling?) and Stravinsky.... wow! Maybe 12 tone scale was enough..... that use of the diminished 7th!

 

[bahngeist]

The visual fine arts, as a form of self-expression, are a relatively recent concept (as Roger pointed out) that came into being with the rise of the bourgeoisie following the French Revolution. Before then artists generally operated much as design or photo studios do today, it was a business and it wasn’t uncommon – particularly during the Italian Renaissance – for apprentices to do most of the grunt work; the master composed the image and thereafter signed-off on it when completed. Art before French Impressionism was rarely a form of self-expression, though style did have significance for that is was set the artist apart and attracted clients. Somewhat ironic isn't it, modern art being a concept that was born out of the middle class; and today to say something is bourgeois (middle class) is analogous to saying that it is tasteless or kitsch.

I bring up kitsch -- (‘art’ that overly sentimental, vulgar, often mass produced (ex&le: black velvet paintings) -- because it is commonly regarded as the antithesis of fine art. So what is fine art? Well, as Q.G. pointed out, it has substance and aesthetic appeal. Aesthetics is perhaps the key concept here: it is the philosophy of beauty, and is generally reflected by a synergy of fine design, fine execution and considered intent (substance). Something that is aesthetic does not need to be beautiful; something ugly can have an aesthetic. An ex&le of the latter would be Kathe Kollowitz's drawings: her subjects were often the most ordinary of the ordinary -- the poor -- and through her expressionistic style she re-presented her subjects and rendered them extra-ordinary and transcendent in form. And there you have the essence of 'fine art'.

How then can photography be art, since the image is not formed directly by the artist? Well, the answer is through style, through how a photographer chooses to visualize their subject matter, and how they then manipulate the medium to create their intended result. Though there is a definite technique (craft) involved, craft is the means to the intended image rather than the end itself. This is not to say that a finely crafted photograph cannot be beautiful, but does that make it art? Well, that may well depend on whether the photographer has been able to transcend both the medium and the raw material of their subject matter to create an image that stands outside the ordinary.

And all that is academic, since what is regarded as art generally depends on people agreeing that it is art. Art is a concept that is laden with value judgments; sometimes what is regarded as ordinary or kitsch in one era comes to be regarded as art in another. I imagine that part of this is due to the fact that the former comes to represent a way of seeing that stands outside the ordinary or conventional. Another reason is possibly because the artifact was set apart because it had a ‘certain quality’ and better represented the essence of its genre or circumstance. And since one really cannot say what will and will not be considered art, the best thing to do is not to be concerned about creating art but instead strive for excellence in one’s craft and in the images that one creates.

 

[jotloob]

Hallo Wayne
This is a very interesting discussion and i want to thank all , who took part here . I have learned a lot and I read the differnet contributions again and again . Not to miss important parts and i must say , that one sentence , the last one from Waynes contribution , gives me a lot of confidence . "And since one really cannot say what will and will not be considered art , the best thing to do is not to be concerned about creating art but strive for excellence in one's craft and in the images one creates". This is great help for my work .