artists_logo.gif Artist's Marketplacee
  Your interactive artists' community
Sunday, September 07, 2008 Register | Login
     
 
Artists Network
Forums > Join the Discussion > Artists' Lounge
Subject: Art on a Pedestal?

You are not authorized to post a reply.   
Author Messages
WeeklyMuse
Posts:18
02/14/2007 3:22 PM Alert 

Does anyone else think that Art (as a collective whole) is put on some sort of pedestal?

I personally think that Art is a vehicle.  If the destination is a deeper spiritual understanding, social cognition or transcendence, I can understand why Art in this case would be revered.  But if the destination is selling a product, Art is still serving its purpose.  (I was thinking about this in context of the topic "selling out.")  I think commercialism is only degrading to Art if all of Art's purpose is always something loftier than common/everyday communication.

 

It's like writing...there are sonnets and plays and novels that aspire to inspire, but writing also appears on grocery lists, notes passed in class, graffiti on the subway. 

 

Am I missing some points here?  Should we hold ALL Art to a particular standard and feel disappointed or angry if it is a vehicle for something base or trivial or marketable?  Or is it ok to categorize the pieces for what they are and allow Art to be the means to a number of ends?

 

I'd love feedback.  My opinion on this is still forming.

Stephanie
WeeklyMuse.com - Collage, Mixed Media, Assemblage
stephaniegeorgedesigns.com
lwurster

Posts:90
02/14/2007 7:27 PM Alert 
I agree that art is put on a pedestal. It's also sometimes placed in a frame and hung on a wall (sorry, couldn't resist)
Seriously though, I find your questions intriguing, if a bit unclear. Are you commenting that people look down on art that is commercial and they should not do this? Or do you mean that art should only be called so if it has a "higher" purpose, such as for social commentary?
BTW, I notice that you capitalize the word art.
www.artistsmagazine.com/blog
WeeklyMuse
Posts:18
02/15/2007 6:05 PM Alert 
nice joke.
yes, sometimes I capitalize art when it's in reference to the bigger collective of art. another example: artists are people who do artwork or draw or create things...but Artists are people who live, breathe, and eat art--always sketching, everything in life relates to art...etc etc. In the same sense, i think there is art and then there is Art.
I think my question boils down to this: there are some people who take art very seriously. They think of art as Art, meaning, it's not "art" unless it's serious or historical or draws upon some higher purpose. It only qualifies as "true" art if it is "pure"...not commercialized or marketed or made for some small purpose. In this case, it would be a craft or sketch or something. Like art has a higher calling than other things. Does this make sense?
But I wonder if any of the less grandiose purposes for art make it any less "art"?
WeeklyMuse.com - Collage, Mixed Media, Assemblage
stephaniegeorgedesigns.com
lwurster

Posts:90
02/16/2007 6:30 PM Alert 
I see what you mean. When I think of those book illustrators or even old Art Nouveau posters, it poses a conundrum. Often the artworks were created to advertise a product or event. Do a Google search for Alphonse Maria Mucha, for example. Good stuff.
Even Campari, the makers of the famous beverage, commissioned artists who made their posters. They still do.
Granted, there wasn't the same level of commercialism that exists today. But much of these works are quite beautiful and even moving. I don't know if that makes them any less artful or somehow less than Art.
Some ads can be considered artistic and maybe that's when they work best; when they capture the imagination of their viewers.
Consider this: if you do a commissioned painting, does that make it any less Art, simply because the motivation was money, rather than pure artistic expression?
Have I gone off topic or missed your point? I hope not.
Lisa
www.artistsmagazine.com/blog
WeeklyMuse
Posts:18
02/18/2007 12:11 AM Alert 
No, you haven't gone off topic! That's exactly what I'm talking about! I think some people differentiate between an individual commissioning a project and a corporation commissioning a project. I have not made an opinion about whether there should be a difference between the two---at least in regards to what is "acceptable" and what is "selling out."
And just to piggyback off that...it's funny because professional artists are the "truer" artists because art is literally their livelihood, BUT they are the ones immersed in the buying and selling of art, so money has to be a factor. Whereas, artists who can create art for "pure artistic expression" usually are paying the bills doing something entirely different. So if the goal is to avoid money and produce art purely for expression's sake, then professional artists are missing the boat! Haha, haven't we wrapped ourselves up into the oddest standards?

That's part of why I think we are too hard sometimes on the artists who go for corporate commissions.
WeeklyMuse.com - Collage, Mixed Media, Assemblage
stephaniegeorgedesigns.com
patt

Posts:15
02/18/2007 4:53 PM Alert 

  Whew-w-w-woooo. this is an age old question and I just can't help but put in a few cents worth.

In response to your comments Stephanie, I agree a great deal with the assumption that art can be and is often (more than not) commercialized. I like your comments that "   it's like writing...there are sonnets and plays and novels that aspire to inspire, but writing also appears on grocery lists, notes passed in class, graffiti on the subway". however, the difference I see here in fine art is the study, patience, perserverance and dedications that one may put into it. I also think that "art is definitely in the eye of the beholder" and much too often too too commercialized. In my quess-ti-mation---------again, since I am an artist, I will say that my hubby is one of those who says"   wow, that person is selling her rooster prints and making a killing" so-----hon,  why not paint roosters???? Well, in defence, I DO paint what I love to paint, I put it out there and if someone likes it and purchases it then it is a plus and a blessing. Not necessarily roosters.

Some of us cannot make a living on artwork alone. Most of us cannot. It is a strange and sometimes lonely world. Personally, if I HAD to make a living at it , I probably could but having the much less (starving artist)    way of life and that is ok. Personally  when I think of having to do strictly COMMERCIAL ART   ( that which is a deadline kind of thing)----I have NO interest in it at all. I would have to paint on the spot , be very spontanious but watch the clock too. There would be no real "heart" in it, simply come up with what your clients want from you, Another 9-5 job. I  DO NOT do well on a day to day deadline. I am my own boss.  Fortunately, we live within our budget ( most of the time) which is one paycheck to another. My work is my artwork and one has to get out and commercialize ONESELF. Meaning let others know that you do indeed take commissions, you do paint pets , you do paint grandchildren, yadda , yadda yadda. As for commissions and getting paid. Well, I have worked many years to build confidence and a somewhat name to say that I deserve to called "artist".

Now-----I feel the same as someone who makes quilts, stained glass artwork, hand made anything. If they have perfected it enough through study and determination, and also ask their prices for their work, then they too are professional.

What hurts me as an artist are those who like and do not understand the difference in --fine classically designed art, art that takes days to do the composition, design, thought, intention, color theory, etc------and the OTHER art that sells at the "starving artist" parking lot sales for only $19.99 for a real oil painting ( which is actually the assembly line , motel art that has had more than one hand painting it. Yes, it is disheartening and I have realized that there needs to be an education between the differance here.

Once again, I am on a roll. but then this is the venting forum part , isn't it?   My final point being----Maybe it's not the money or selling of art that belittles it-----maybe it's the fact that another can throw paint on a canvas, no study, no comtemplation, no soul , no thought what-so-ever and call it ART. This is so much a mockery of CLASSICAL PAINTING. Again, an age old confusion and question.

Patt
www.pattlegg.com
lwurster

Posts:90
02/20/2007 4:31 PM Alert 
I think some artists (NC Wyeth comes to mind here) created some part of their art for the purpose of commericialism, such as illustrating a book cover, but I don't think in his case at least, there's any lack of heart, soul or otherwise there.
Personally I think classsical painting at somepoint NEEDS to be mocked. And so does Baroque art and Pop Art and Impressionism. That's how it goes--then another form of art emerges. If all the artwork in the world looked like classical art, it'd be a pretty dull world. But alas, off the topic.
www.artistsmagazine.com/blog
WeeklyMuse
Posts:18
02/20/2007 6:13 PM Alert 
Wow, thank you patt for your feedback. I see what you mean about art being de-humanized and ripped of soul. i also avoided "professional" art for the same reason--that i find it very hard to be "on" all the time and be able to draw with other's expectations. (i have been very lucky/blessed that I can use my art in my 'regular' 9-5 job). i think there is definately a respect due to craftsmen and artists who put time and soul into their work...and I agree with lwurster that even commissioned art can convey the real time put into each piece.
i think we all have this idea in our heads of what "commercial art" and "fine art" is. I hadn't considered those mass-motel-art pieces. when i think of commercial art, i think of itunes ads and cocacola billboards...some of which are really creative, so i don't have major issues with it.
but then when i think of those tacky posters or kinkaid (sorry if either of you are a fan), it does bother me. in fact, i guess kinkaid is a prime example of true selling-out...
i think i need to revise my definition of selling out...not as someone who does a work for a high amount of money/for a major corporation...but instead as someone who takes one thing and puts it on mugs, candles, blankets, binders. i suppose those two definitions can overlap sometimes.

in regards to mockery..i think that part of why impressionism and abstract expressionism are even considered art is because they contributed to the dialogue. they could get away with criticism because they made a new contribution/statement...but art that is mediocre and not adding anything to the art dialogue is not merely a mockery or satire, but it's just a sad waste or disgrace. yes, pollock "just" threw paint on a canvas, but he was also doing so in a particular context and with a particular point. but if i were to make a pollock-type painting, it woudn't be anything new or revelatory...so it's less worthy of respect.

any thoughts on all this?
WeeklyMuse.com - Collage, Mixed Media, Assemblage
stephaniegeorgedesigns.com
heatherm

Posts:2120
02/21/2007 5:02 PM Alert 
My personal two cents worth - if I was to "throw" paint on a canvas and swirl it around with a big brush, or blend colors into a cohesive whole, my heart would not be in the work, however pleasing it might be because it is not the style that I enjoy. I paint because I HAVE to! Because of health problems, I cannot spend many hours every day painting, much to my frustration. However, when I cannot actually paint, I am painting in my head, I will look at something and "see" how I would present it in a painting. It keeps my brain sharp. When I am able, I DO spend all my time painting. However, I agree that some artists who have the vision and inclination to, should push the envelope, otherwise we would not have impressionism, abstract, and all the other lovely techniques and mediums of art. To me true art is the hard work, the practice, the learning, the skill and the dedication that goes into it, and also the talent.

I knitted baby and childrens sweaters, hats and scarves in the celtic patterns I learned on my mother's knee (we are a scottish clan) and all of us knitted a lot. I used to be a professional knitter years ago here in USA, and did the craft shows, many commissions, etc, but did not consider myself an artist, but a skilled craftswoman.

I have done commissioned paintings in the past, quite a few actually, and I approach the commissions the same as my personal work because I love to paint, it doesn't matter what, I will find something to love about it and I give it my all. I do not feel these commissions are any less of me than my other paintings as I paint them in my own style. I would not like to do commercial or commissioned art all the time, because then I would have no time to paint my own visions.

When I paint my paintings, I am oblivious to everything but form, color, shapes, those beautiful lines that speak, and my soul sings. I do not consider myself a master painter, and probably will never be. However, if I did commercial work for a corporation I would put just as much artistic "soul" into that piece of work as I do the others.

I could go on and on, but I won't bore you So in conclusion, I feel it is the art itself that speaks, not how or why it was conceived. If someone looks at a work of art and can relate to it, or the vision sticks in their mind, then it is a success. And I do enjoy all the different styles and mediums, even if I work in oil and pastel only now. Just my thought on this.
Heather

http://www.heatherartist.com
WeeklyMuse
Posts:18
02/24/2007 6:04 PM Alert 
heather,
That was not boring at all; I really appreciated your thoughts! so what is the difference, in your opinion, between a skilled craftsman or craftswoman and an artist? is it the medium or the piece or the gallery it is displayed in? I'm really curious as to where you draw the line between the two.
WeeklyMuse.com - Collage, Mixed Media, Assemblage
stephaniegeorgedesigns.com
heatherm

Posts:2120
02/25/2007 1:17 AM Alert 
Hi - I had answered but it went to la la land as I was bounced out. Here is what I remember of my reply:
This is a really good question, the line can be quite vague at times for me. I was speaking of myself personally, as a knitter of celtic patterns I consider that a skilled craft even if the designs are artistic of my own creation, however the pattern stitches themselves are classic, and I think of the whole as a textile craft. I think of my craft as artistic, and my paintings as art.

Using canvas, paper, medium, paint/drawing and photography materials and marble for sculpture etc (hope I didn't leave anything out), to make a creative and skilled painting or sculpture of aesthetic beauty (ugly can sometimes be beautiful), and to whom a major part of their time is spent on this is an artist. Where the line blurs for me is when I see stained glass windows, designs or forms on hand-loomed rugs, and those magnificent mosaics.

When growing up in New Zealand many years ago, fine arts included painting, drawing, sculpture and photography. Today "visual arts" includes fine arts along with dancing, theater, culinary and everything else.

By the way, if you were to "throw" a pollock-type painting putting your individual passion and expression into it, I would think it worthy of respect. For centuries artists have been painting the same old grapes (including me), still lifes, seascapes and others, but we do it with our individual style and therefore make it our own.

When the basics are learned and learned again, once in a while someone comes along and breaks the rules then something new and wonderful (and sometimes for me not so wonderful) happens. Dance and music has been contemporized, so why not art? If the new style flops, then something else will come along and if it is good then other artists will try it to see if they can make it their own too.

Any other thoughts on this? Interaction like this is fun, makes one think a bit.
Heather

http://www.heatherartist.com
WeeklyMuse
Posts:18
02/26/2007 9:40 PM Alert 
Heather,
On a side note, my brother lives in New Zealand! I'm visiting him in August. It is always great to hear from Kiwis!

Ok. So it looks like we have two topics now:
Art vs Craft, and "Art" as qualified in art history.

I think it's so interesting that at some point someone or some people decided that this type of art was "art" and this other type of art was "craft." I guess the difference is that craft was something that had functionality. Like a quilt or a book (considered an art-craft if you make the paper or binding yourself) serves a purpose other than being something that is for viewing or for expressing oneself. But for some things, the function doesn't fit in society today and so what was once "craft" can now be considered "art." I guess some pottery fits into this category...since we do not use clay bowls for daily use as much as plastic or porcelain. Is this an accurate summary? Or am I missing something? I'm still figuring it out myself.

In regards to Pollock and art history... I totally agree. Each new style is reacting to an entire succession of past trends and styles and movements. And artists will comment on their current art culture with another movement or piece. Some art is autonomous and can be considered art just by first glance. Some art is not and requires an understanding of what it meant to the art world or art history in order to really understand its value. I loved art history courses because it made Pollock make sense.
WeeklyMuse.com - Collage, Mixed Media, Assemblage
stephaniegeorgedesigns.com
heatherm

Posts:2120
02/26/2007 11:16 PM Alert 
Where in NZ does your brother reside? I am from the South Island, and my remaining family live there also. My sister's son and family have moved over to Australia this year, my sister will miss them. Enjoy your visit though you will be just before all the spring flowers are in full bloom unless you are going to the North Island.

I agree that the old rules no longer apply, as has happened in many things, and that is as it should be I think. Movies are now considered art, the artists who work with the creation of creatures (as in Happy Feet, Finding Nemo etc) wonderful work that couldn't even be imagined when I was a child. And the makeup artists who create fantasy creatures with 5 hours or more of makeup on a real person. They are truly artists. The list goes on in that area alone.

As I said earlier the line for me has blurred between art, crafts and Art. A person who creates beautiful unusual sculptures with glass would be considered an artist today creating 3-dimentional Art. Just like some functional crafts, as you said, could be called "art" today, but not really all of them. When one really analyzes each category it just gets more confusing.

I was sometimes called an artist with knitting needles and I was always tempted to say "No I am not, my art is my paintings", the knitting was creative but required a learned skill and not necessarily talent. But some textiles I feel are really artistic. Just like a previous discussion concerning photorealism vs realism, today the terms do not mean what they used to. Many people feel photorealism is copying a photograph literally and it isn't that at all, it is taking the painting to the level that it looks like a photograph even if the painting is created in the artist's mind, at least that is my thought on it and what I was taught, but today there is a different feel about it.

I think that if a creation is truly creative and moving, through form or color, today it could fit into the category we call the "fine arts". And just like all art, not everyone will like the same piece or think it worthy, as artists we need to develop a thick skin and accept the fact that there will always be people who do not value our work. And that is okay, each of us have our own taste otherwise it would be very boring. In another 20-30 years from now I do not envy the art exhibitions categorizing the different mediums, and how to judge them.

Even here on the forum, colored pencil drawings posted have achieved the level and excellence of paintings but they are still in the "drawing" category at art shows. There is a real difference between a drawing and creating a painting with colored pencils. Charcoal work could never be called a painting, it doesn't matter how good it is, it doesn't have that depth. I am getting off track here, just following my thoughts as they come to me.

Classical art has always been quite clear about what qualifies as art, but those great impressionists in their own time were not recognized at first as being true artists. Same thing in the 20th century with abstract art, and today we accept it as true art also. Crafts were also quite clear, textiles, glass blowing, ceramics and any functional pieces were classified as crafts. But todays craftspeople, some of them have taken a step forward and created art. How many times have I heard a person say about exceptionally tasty asthetic appealing food "that is a work of art?" Does that make it art?
Heather

http://www.heatherartist.com
Bob Posliff
Posts:3
03/19/2007 1:25 AM Alert 
To Stephanie
How insightful. I just made a posting in reply to 'When can you call yourself an artist?' I would appreciate your thoughts about it.
The words 'art' and 'artist' are freely used by those who wish. There is no universal definition of 'art' so I don't propose to know what it is, but there are times when I think I know what it isn't. There is work being produced that can be called 'art' in the same breath that describes the work of the masters but there is also some being produced which cannot.
Bob
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > Join the Discussion > Artists' Lounge > Art on a Pedestal?


ActiveForums 3.6