Blog Update: Is this pipe ugly?

[m.c.]

That Berimbau pipe, if it had come out of the hands of a rookie like me, would be in every way worth of comment and probably some fussing over. Yet knowing it is from a man like you, I'd take the liberty to say it's medicore.

So, you are not actually commenting on the pipe, but on the pipe maker. Another aspect of the art world that has not been discussed here-- Are things better simply because person-X made it?

It's not commenting on the maker. It's just applying a more stringent standard to a more accomplished pipe maker like Todd.

And, Yes, a piece of work can be given different rating based on who made it. It's known many collectors are actually paying big bills for the "stories" behind artisan pipes. And it may not be too far off to gauge the analysis in the context of the maker's story (accomplishment, body of work, philosophy, phase of evolution...)

[Leus]

It's not commenting on the maker. It's just applying a more stringent standard to a more accomplished pipe maker like Todd.

So you are commenting on the maker. This one of the many indicators that tells me that pipe making is not art: materials quality and "engineering" (bah) are two aspects of a pipe that don't belong in art. You don't measure The Last Supper for the quality of its "engineering" or its materials; if that were the case, it would be considered inferior. Art must be evaluated outside any boundaries of "quality."

Artisans, on the other hand, have to live up to their names in terms of quality and aesthetics. That's why we just take for granted that a piece made by Todd should adhere to minimal standards of quality; and we get put off when he wanders too briskly outside the parameters of his body of work.

[KurtHuhn]

I think we've hit upon the difference between artists, artisans, and craftsmen - as applied to modern definitions.

It's interesting to me, however, that it was only relatively recently that "art" has been used as a term to describe items that largely server no practical value, but are largely aesthetic. For most of Western history, the term "art" was used to describe a high degree of proficiency with any skill or trade. Today we have artisans and craftsmen - folks who make practical and usable objects that have a function for daily life, but also incorporate artistic qualities in them. You can see this in the difference between a knife stamped from stainless steel at a factory, and one made by (for example) Ed Caffery.

And then we have one of my mother's favorite sayings - "Just because you made it, doesn't mean it's art.".

You should see the rise that gets out of people.

[ToddJohnson]

It's not commenting on the maker. It's just applying a more stringent standard to a more accomplished pipe maker like Todd.

So you are commenting on the maker. This one of the many indicators that tells me that pipe making is not art: materials quality and "engineering" (bah) are two aspects of a pipe that don't belong in art. You don't measure The Last Supper for the quality of its "engineering" or its materials; if that were the case, it would be considered inferior. Art must be evaluated outside any boundaries of "quality."

Artisans, on the other hand, have to live up to their names in terms of quality and aesthetics. That's why we just take for granted that a piece made by Todd should adhere to minimal standards of quality; and we get put off when he wanders too briskly outside the parameters of his body of work.

I think that's a pretty narrow definition of what constitutes "art." Are you saying art can never have a practical function? What about poetry? There are definitely standards of quality and engineering in poetry, but it usually lives in the realm of "art." Also, you could probably hang your coat on Donatello's David if you managed to get it out of the Vatican and install it in your foyer. Would it cease to be "art" if you were using it as a coat rack?

TJ

[Alan L]

I think that's a pretty narrow definition of what constitutes "art." Are you saying art can never have a practical function? What about poetry? There are definitely standards of quality and engineering in poetry, but it usually lives in the realm of "art." Also, you could probably hang your coat on Donatello's David if you managed to get it out of the Vatican and install it in your foyer. Would it cease to be "art" if you were using it as a coat rack?

TJ

That's pretty much the opinion of every gallery I've tried to put my blacksmithing/bladesmithing work into. If it's in any way functional or practical, it ain't art as far as they're concerned. As I said last time I mentioned this, wankers, the lot of 'em.

[m.c.]

...and we get put off when he wanders too briskly outside the parameters of his body of work.

I would never be put off by an artist or artisan wandering outside his box, provided it's driven by an earnest impulse to seek something more challenging (not a desire to fool the world with some cheap hocus-pocus). Without the urge for evolution and creation, I would call that "artist" a journeyman.

BTW, the argument about whether art may incorporate practicality is simply not worth a comment. (Damn, I'm obnoxious )

[Leus]

I think that's a pretty narrow definition of what constitutes "art." Are you saying art can never have a practical function? What about poetry? There are definitely standards of quality and engineering in poetry, but it usually lives in the realm of "art." Also, you could probably hang your coat on Donatello's David if you managed to get it out of the Vatican and install it in your foyer. Would it cease to be "art" if you were using it as a coat rack?

TJ

Nah, I don't have a firm opinion on it. It's completely subjective, and usually, well, "depends." Poetry can hardly be considered practical, except for the commendable purposes of getting laid. And a statue is a statue, even if you hang your coat on it, use it as a door stopper, as a column to hold your porch or, if you can wield it, as a weapon. That doesn't magically transform it.

Now, I do think that many things have artistic merits: jewels, swords, buildings, cars, motorcycles, boats, cigarette holders, music boxes, pipes, and so on. Are all these things pieces of art? I don't think so. Can an exceptionally good item be considered as a piece of art? Absolutely! Some of these utilitarian things end up in museums, and can be admired and yes, they transcend their humble origins as useful objects.

That's my opinion, anyways. But I'm prone to change my mind on these things often.

...and we get put off when he wanders too briskly outside the parameters of his body of work.

I would never be put off by an artist or artisan wandering outside his box, provided it's driven by an earnest impulse to seek something more challenging (not a desire to fool the world with some cheap hocus-pocus). Without the urge for evolution and creation, I would call that "artist" a journeyman.

Oh, me neither. But if tomorrow Todd starts finishing his pipes with papier-mâché, I may be.

BTW, the argument about whether art may incorporate practicality is simply not worth a comment. (Damn, I'm obnoxious )

I think it is simply not worth to comment on the comment unworthiness of the aforementioned comment.

[Nick]

It seems to me on whether or not to add descriptions to a pipe or other such object depends substantially on whether the creator thinks that his or her descriptions will limit the viewers expirience. If one is disposed to think that such a description will subtly change the opportunities for interpritation, then one ought to do so only when it is the goal to do exactly that. This limitation may be viewed as focusing the discussion, and in that light may even be viewed as a positive addition.

If, on the otherhand, one believes that a viewer will have his own reaction/interpritation and it will not be effected by a description, then it becomes irrelevant. However, I cannot believe that the expirience radically changes when the creator adds his voice to the discussion.