Art or Craft?

[sandahlpipe]

I don't think art needs to be original to be artistic, but I think originality is something that contributes greatly to the quality of art. You wouldn't call a person who copies art of others an artist. You'd call them forgers or plagiarizers.

I disagree. What George is talking about takes just as much talent to accomplish as the original artist had.

And be careful with the "forgers or plagiarizers" because we all have copied a pipe made by another maker. Are we not just as bad given this school of thought?

I wasn't talking about skill level here. I believe it is much more difficult to make an exact replica of someone else's pipe than it is the difference between a forger and an artist, however, is that an artist is inspired by an idea, whereas the forger is merely copying the idea. I think here is great value in copying other people's work. It teaches technical perfection and attention to detail. Every pipe maker should copy at least one other pipe to perfection. But it requires no imagination to do so. In fact, to copy well, you must suppress the imagination. And that's why I don't consider it art.

[mredmond]

Wojtek, I think you are mostly correct that it doesn't really matter, but I think it's a valuable discussion if for no other reason than it provides for a bit of mental calisthenics. I don't think anybody thinks there isn't an artistic element to pipe making, even those who firmly believe it is craft. There is certainly a lot of overlap between art and craft.

I believe it is much more difficult to make an exact replica of someone else's pipe than it is the difference between a forger and an artist

I've got to strongly disagree here. We all make pipes. Do any of us paint like Vermeer? Making nice pipes isn't easy, but to say making an exact copy of a pipe is harder than an exact copy of an artistic master work is at best enthusiastic self congratulation and at worst, ignorance of how difficult it is to paint/draw/sculpt at the highest level.

[sandahlpipe]

Wojtek, I think you are mostly correct that it doesn't really matter, but I think it's a valuable discussion if for no other reason than it provides for a bit of mental calisthenics. I don't think anybody thinks there isn't an artistic element to pipe making, even those who firmly believe it is craft. There is certainly a lot of overlap between art and craft.

I believe it is much more difficult to make an exact replica of someone else's pipe than it is the difference between a forger and an artist

I've got to strongly disagree here. We all make pipes. Do any of us paint like Vermeer? Making nice pipes isn't easy, but to say making an exact copy of a pipe is harder than an exact copy of an artistic master work is at best enthusiastic self congratulation and at worst, ignorance of how difficult it is to paint/draw/sculpt at the highest level.

What I meant was that it is more difficult to make an exact replica than to make a pipe of your own imagining. Sorry for the confusion.

[scotties22]

I don't think art needs to be original to be artistic, but I think originality is something that contributes greatly to the quality of art. You wouldn't call a person who copies art of others an artist. You'd call them forgers or plagiarizers.

I disagree. What George is talking about takes just as much talent to accomplish as the original artist had.

And be careful with the "forgers or plagiarizers" because we all have copied a pipe made by another maker. Are we not just as bad given this school of thought?

I wasn't talking about skill level here. I believe it is much more difficult to make an exact replica of someone else's pipe than it is the difference between a forger and an artist, however, is that an artist is inspired by an idea, whereas the forger is merely copying the idea. I think here is great value in copying other people's work. It teaches technical perfection and attention to detail. Every pipe maker should copy at least one other pipe to perfection. But it requires no imagination to do so. In fact, to copy well, you must suppress the imagination. And that's why I don't consider it art.

That, sir, is just a bunch of semantical bullshit. Pipe/replica, Artist/forgery are the SAME THING! The only thing that is different is the medium. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is the that forger is trying to pass his work off as the original!

What I meant was that it is more difficult to make an exact replica than to make a pipe of your own imagining. Sorry for the confusion.

?????????????? Now I'm confused. Which is it? More difficult and more talent needed to make an exact copy (of anything) or more difficult to make an original?

[mredmond]

Jeremiah, I'll have to think on that more, but I probably agree with you, there.

[sandahlpipe]

That, sir, is just a bunch of semantical bullshit. Pipe/replica, Artist/forgery are the SAME THING! The only thing that is different is the medium. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is the that forger is trying to pass his work off as the original!

What I meant was that it is more difficult to make an exact replica than to make a pipe of your own imagining. Sorry for the confusion.

?????????????? Now I'm confused. Which is it? More difficult and more talent needed to make an exact copy (of anything) or more difficult to make an original?

I don't disagree with you on the difference between replica and forgery.

I'm drawing a distinction between talent required to make an exact copy and imaginative/artistic ability to create something new. I have no doubt that it would take an art forger longer to reproduce the Mona Lisa than Da Vinci took to create the first one. But Da Vinci, not the forger had the idea in the first place. Da Vinci is the artist. Anyone can learn to make a copy (which I would consider more along the craft side of the scale), though the copy may actually be more work. Not everyone can have the imagination to create something without copying.

The difference is in the process. A copyist or forger goes only off what he sees with his eyes. An artist is going off of what he sees in his mind's eye. It's more technically difficult to create a copy. But it's a different kind of difficulty than creating an original. Artistic ability, unlike the ability to copy, cannot be taught.

[scotties22]

Artistic ability, unlike the ability to copy, cannot be taught.

You cannot have one without the other. Not everyone can pick up a paintbrush or pipe making tools and copy a master's work. It simply doesn't work that way. Just as everyone cannot sing like Pavarotti simply by opening up their mouths.

What I'm saying is you HAVE TO HAVE the natural artistic ability to produce the original as well as to copy it. The mind's eye still comes into play when making a copy. You have to be able to SEE what needs to be done next. Copying the Mona Lisa so that it takes an expert with equipment to tell if it's the real deal isn't as simple as just sitting down and painting it. You have to know how to layer the paint, what brush strokes to use, ect.....which only comes with the artistic ability to understand that shit in the first place.

[seamonster]

Not everyone can pick up a paintbrush or pipe making tools and copy a master's work. It simply doesn't work that way. Just as everyone cannot sing like Pavarotti simply by opening up their mouths.

I think that having the craftspersonship and skill to make a copy still doesn't make you an artist, per se, just a really great craftsperson...

The thing that separates the original maker and the copier, no matter the match of the end product's quality, is the IDEA.
The original maker had it, the copier did not.

I think the IDEA is the heaviest weight in this art vs. craft debate.

Sincerely,
R. Mutt

[sandahlpipe]

Artistic ability, unlike the ability to copy, cannot be taught.

You cannot have one without the other. Not everyone can pick up a paintbrush or pipe making tools and copy a master's work. It simply doesn't work that way. Just as everyone cannot sing like Pavarotti simply by opening up their mouths.

What I'm saying is you HAVE TO HAVE the natural artistic ability to produce the original as well as to copy it. The mind's eye still comes into play when making a copy. You have to be able to SEE what needs to be done next. Copying the Mona Lisa so that it takes an expert with equipment to tell if it's the real deal isn't as simple as just sitting down and painting it. You have to know how to layer the paint, what brush strokes to use, ect.....which only comes with the artistic ability to understand that shit in the first place.

Making a copy of an existing piece requires the suppresion of one's own imagination. Yet imagination is essential to art. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to establish that art is better than craft or vice versa. It's just a different set of aptitudes, not on a technical level, because the copyist and the original artist use the same tools, but on a process level. The artist starts with an idea in his head before he ever gets to the medium. A copyist must first put something (the thing to be copied) into his head before he can put it to medium.

I think what many pipe makers do is get inspiration from pipes other people make and tweak them. I think this falls somewhere between copying and artistic ability, since the original idea is combined with the pipe makers own ideas before it hits the medium. Only a few pipe makers are able to come up with original ideas. (Or at least original ideas that are also good ideas. I think almost everyone has had original ideas that were crap.)

[fiddlestix]

Sincerely,
R. Mutt

[bregolad]

Can a thing be art if its creator had no awareness or intention of making art at the time it was made?

I don't believe true artists sit there thinking "I'm making ART!" as they do so. Art is NOT fueled by a desire to create art. Real/meaningful art is the expression of something greater and outside of ones' self. The notion that art is self-expression is navel-gazing bullshit. If what you're seeking to express is all within yourself, you will never make anything truly great.

No, true art is found when the creator is inspired by something truly transcendent and outside themselves. These inspirers of artists are historically known by many names, I will call them the Muses. I think the reason many artists experience periods of depression and creative stagnation is simple- you cannot FORCE art- its creation is hinged upon something wholly outside of ones self.

Art is the product of an artist, inspired by something greater/higher than themselves. So yes, pipe can be art, if they are made by an artist.

If Picasso had learned our craft, and the pipes he made were inspired the way his painting was, then I believe they would be(rightly) considered art.

I'll just drop this here:
Painting is self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is.
Jackson Pollock

[bregolad]

@d.huber: I think this exposes a lot of weakness in the general attitude about pipes. Good thread.

I think this whole debate counterproductive to moving the pipe carving community forward though.
Yes, making properly engineered pipes is a "craft." Many people can make holes connect, and very few can do it correctly, but it's basically an engineering problem, and a little education and practice will suffice.

Pipes are (in my not humble opinion) art. The craft of pipes is merely the constraint which is peculiar to this form of art. Painting has it's own constraints (canvas, paint, brush, etc.) as does sculpture, architecture, music, film. Our constraint is smokability.
Yes, people should master the engineering problems (the "craft") but I think pipe makers do themselves a disservice to think of what they do as a craft.

I think we could start having a lot more meaningful conversations about pipes if we started treating pipes like they were art. Even if you're a hardcore craft camp person, I think if you start treating pipes "as if" they were art, you'll start to see things that weren't important when your mindset was craft.

[pipedreamer]

I had to learn to control myself, then my tools, then my medium.If it all comes out great, works and looks good, it's my craft. If it is moving to many, It becomes art.

[The Smoking Yeti]

Ridiculousness. No shape is art. Ask Gotoh if he makes pipes or art. If he intends his creations to be art he therefore isn't a pipemaker.

Pipes can have artistic value and they can be artistically crafted but that is far different than art.

Why?

[scotties22]

Artistic ability, unlike the ability to copy, cannot be taught.

You cannot have one without the other. Not everyone can pick up a paintbrush or pipe making tools and copy a master's work. It simply doesn't work that way. Just as everyone cannot sing like Pavarotti simply by opening up their mouths.

What I'm saying is you HAVE TO HAVE the natural artistic ability to produce the original as well as to copy it. The mind's eye still comes into play when making a copy. You have to be able to SEE what needs to be done next. Copying the Mona Lisa so that it takes an expert with equipment to tell if it's the real deal isn't as simple as just sitting down and painting it. You have to know how to layer the paint, what brush strokes to use, ect.....which only comes with the artistic ability to understand that shit in the first place.

Making a copy of an existing piece requires the suppresion of one's own imagination. Yet imagination is essential to art. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to establish that art is better than craft or vice versa. It's just a different set of aptitudes, not on a technical level, because the copyist and the original artist use the same tools, but on a process level. The artist starts with an idea in his head before he ever gets to the medium. A copyist must first put something (the thing to be copied) into his head before he can put it to medium.

I think what many pipe makers do is get inspiration from pipes other people make and tweak them. I think this falls somewhere between copying and artistic ability, since the original idea is combined with the pipe makers own ideas before it hits the medium. Only a few pipe makers are able to come up with original ideas. (Or at least original ideas that are also good ideas. I think almost everyone has had original ideas that were crap.)

But, would the copy not inspire in you the same emotions as the original if you didn't know it was the copy? The answer is undoubtedly yes. SO....no matter what the artist intended/didn't intend the end result is the same if you don't know which is the original. SSSOOOOOOOOOO if the copy, that you didn't know was the copy, moved you (as this has been said over and over as to what makes art) HOW IS THE COPY NOT ART?

FUCK!!!!!!!!

[scotties22]

Further more none of us are ever in a room with the artist when all this hocus pocus is done so how the fuck do we know what the intent/inspiration was in the first place? Maybe they have someone sitting in the corner that says "Hey, maybe you should do a kickass landscape today."

Call it art, call it craft....call it whatever you want..............................just don't call me a lady!

[The Smoking Yeti]

That, sir, is just a bunch of semantical bullshit. Pipe/replica, Artist/forgery are the SAME THING! The only thing that is different is the medium. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is the that forger is trying to pass his work off as the original!

I think there is an enormous difference between the original work and a perfect copy. Artistically. Perhaps visually they're identical, but I still place immense value on original conception.

I'm not here saying that people who copy other pipe shapes are ripping off/ making forgeries(unless they copy the stamping as well), rather, I'm suggesting that by repeating classics(even with slight alterations) falls into the realm of craftsmanship. Art is found in the original conception. An artist who makes pipes spends their time pushing boundaries, breaking new ground, and establishing NEW shapes. I know people say that there is nothing new in pipemaking- to an extent this may be true, but to me it sounds more like an excuse(I like using sweeping statements and inflammatory language to keep threads lively)!

So to paraphrase- copy=craftsmanship original design=art(possibly)

I think it's also important to recognize that most thoroughly "original" pipes look... bad. I think we've all seen "artsy" pipes, the variety which are often poorly engineered, and always aesthetically jarring and bizarre- I'm not convinced those are art. I think it's what happens when people try to force art.

A few people got it, most people don't.

Does anybody else feel like this thread is snowballing really nicely?

P.S.

Scottie, I think art itself is less concerned with the physical product- as you have said, they're often indistinguishable- rather, art is concerned with the process of conception and creation.

You might say the artist leaves a bit of themselves with the work, something the forger never can. This is why the art community IS so intent on catching and discerning fakes from the true thing.

[scotties22]

You are only looking at the "artist process" when you define art the way you just did.

On page 3 David sad:

"Kei Gotoh's work makes time stop for me. The two times I've held his work in my hands, I literally felt as if I were floating. His work is transcendent in that ethereal unexplanatory way. It's like shaking hands with God. Gotoh is a highly functional conduit."

By your definition nothing about this statement matters, because only the artist at the time of conception knew his intent/purpose with the piece. What you aren't taking into consideration is the way a piece moves someone who doesn't know the artist and who wasn't there to see the piece created in the first place. Original, good copy, outright forgery doesn't really matter.....if it did Thomas Kinkade galleries would be out of business.

So, if someone has the ability to "copy" a master's work that elicits the same reaction in the masses HOW IS IT NOT ART???

[sandahlpipe]

Further more none of us are ever in a room with the artist when all this hocus pocus is done so how the fuck do we know what the intent/inspiration was in the first place? Maybe they have someone sitting in the corner that says "Hey, maybe you should do a kickass landscape today."

As a matter of fact, I have sat in on presentations of paint restorations and watched artists do their work. When I lived in Germany, the art gallery downtown was hit by a 100-year flood and several of the paintings in the basement were damaged and needed to be restored. I also had a classmate who designed and built the top of a very famous cathedral and I got to watch portions of his process. I've also got a friend (besides Walt) who has painted and sculpted several works of art for galleries and has explained how inspiration works. Sure, you can copy the painting and get the same effect for the viewer. But there's a reason people pay far more for the original than they do for a copy.

As I've said before, there is more of a difference between art and its copy in the process than there is in the result. Anyone can be taught to copy, but not everyone can create original works of art.

Call it art, call it craft....call it whatever you want..............................just don't call me a lady!

Yes ma'am.

[d.huber]

What you aren't taking into consideration is the way a piece moves someone who doesn't know the artist and who wasn't there to see the piece created in the first place. Original, good copy, outright forgery doesn't really matter.....if it did Thomas Kinkade galleries would be out of business.

You're basing your argument on the assumption that the original and copy are actually identical in every way and elicit the same responses. I'm not sure that we can assume that as a given. Just because people in general cannot tell on a cursory look which is which doesn't mean that they achieve the same thing. Maybe in some cases they get close. In those extremely rare cases when a forgery is actually indistinguishable from the original in every way, including the response it evokes, I would say that forger is an artist at his craft (which is forgery not creating art).

For example, a print of a painting in no way what-so-ever elicits the same response that the painting does. I realize that's different than a forgery, but I hope it makes my point clear.

You might say the artist leaves a bit of themselves with the work, something the forger never can.

While I'm not sure that's 100% true, I think it's close. Even copies and forgeries are likely to have subtle differences, even if they aren't easy to perceive.