Art Is Thoughtful Workmanship

Hi Clay, Thanks for the post and for lending your stature to the ng. I read Mr. Lethaby's essay with interest, but I'm glad it was written in

1913 so my disagreement won't insult him. To my mind it echoes the misguided efforts some wood artists make in trying to ingratiate themselves with the mass of average workers. A 'pretend' good ole boy is an embarrassment, and if a person is not the 'common man in the street', I don't believe he should try to be, whether with words or works. IMHO, celebrating the ordinary elevates nothing.

My disagreements are too numerous to list, but I'll mention two....I don't think it's necessary for an object to be beautiful or even well crafted in order to be art. To some extent, if one asks " how did you make that?" instead of inquiring "why?", he has missed the message and its personal meaning for him. He has enjoyed, even been awed, but he hasn't appreciated. I wish that it would be just as polite to ask "why?" as to ask "how?" of those we count as artists,

As with trying to define time, each of us know what art is and means, but we can't explain it to others.

These are just some gentle musings meant to be a friendly tho differing take. I believe that _CRAFT should be thoughtful workmanship, and if it survives over time it may also be art. OTOH.....:) Arch.

Fortiter,

Arch,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't agree with all of Mr. Lethaby's opinions, but at least they are well articulated, which I appreciate. I've always enjoyed your posts to this group for the same reason.

Hi Arch. Would you be able to clarify this? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. What comes to mind is the appreciation in the art world for the bowl. A bowl is quite ordinary. Most bowls that I've seen, whether by a known turner in books, shows, collections or galleries, or by the local guys at my AAW chapters, are quite ordinary. Is this an example of the type of art and woodworking you are referring to?

I disagree with your disagreements.

For my tastes, it's imperative for an artist to have as complete command of the craft and materials as the technology of the day allows. Shoddy workmanship is a distraction. If a work shows inattention to detail or lack of understanding of the material, the artist has failed in presenting the message for my consideration. This doesn't mean the message is not valid - just that the presentation is poorly executed.

Furthermore, if a viewer initially asks "how", perhaps the artist's message is not as well-defined or as strongly expressed as he would have desired. In this case it would imply to me that the artist has attained a level of craftsmanship unseen by others and that is, in and of itself, a distraction from the artistic message. The "why" may follow after the "how" has sunk in - or it may not.

I believe we are each craftsmen of varying degrees of experience and success but only artists when we are able to manipulate the material in order to express our message. In other words, a craftsman desires to make a beautifully shaped and exquisitely executed bowl; an artist desires to express a thought or idea using the form of a bowl. In order for the artistic message to be readily accepted and contemplated the form of delivery needs to be without distraction - and this includes distraction of innovative technique.

_____ American Association of Woodturners Cascade Woodturners Assoc., Portland, Oregon Northwest Woodturners, Tigard, Oregon _____

I would suggest that the how and why are intertwined. As an aspiring craftsman and artist I appreciate the work as art, craft, and as an object in itself. As a craftsman I am always interested in the how so that I can broaden my education and possibly improve my art through it.

Brian

A man who uses his hands and his head is a craftsman.

A man who uses his hands, his head and his heart is an artist."

I think that just about sums up this never-ending debate.

Graham

Owen Lowe wrote "In other words, a craftsman desires to make a beautifully shaped and exquisitely executed bowl; an artist desires to express a thought or idea using the form of a bowl. "

I consider myself a bit of a craftsman. The fact that the public willingly forks over, what even I sometimes think to be, exorbitant prices for my work probably reinforces that assumption.

I guess that Owen has very eloquently described what sets me apart from the artist. Through hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of turnings I have never once had even the fleeting thought that I was expressing some thought or idea through the turning.

What I have done, on occasion, is stand at the lathe and marvel at the beauty unearthed from within a chunk of a tree. But I have never considered myself an artist. I merely uncovered a natural beauty that was put into that wood by a power much greater that I.

Ron Robinson East Texas

In Seattle there is a glass shop that makes the most amazing glass art. It must be called art because most of the pieces serve no other purpose except to amaze the eye. A single piece art may contain 10 or 20 pieces of spun or blown glass up to 10 feet across made by 5 or more craftsman. The man responsible for the designs does not blow glass. He gives direction to the craftsman working under him.

As he does not work with his hands and is not a master of his craft, does this mean that he is not an artist. With his vision he could work equally well in a verity of media if he had the qualified craft for that media.

There are artists who work in dirt and plant plants, build metal sculptures, and yet do not put their hands to tools.

I agree with Arch that we know what art is but cannot always explane it.

Henry

Of course he is an artist. Those five glassblowers are his tools.

I would disagree that he is not a master of the craft - he must have a thorough understanding of the materials and chemistry in order to instruct the craftsmen. Is he an artist attempting to communicate an idea, comment or message? Or is he a master craftsman who sees a vision of an end product and knows how to instruct others to work the materials in order to get there?

To throw another wrench in the works, it has been argued that Ansel Adams was not an artist. He was one who merely documented the scenes he came upon. His negatives are, reportedly, unexceptional and, contrary to what one might expect, quite difficult to print. His forte was his complete understanding of the photographic process and chemistry and he absolutley mastered the craft of manipulating the materials. Did he express a message other than "look at this beautiful image"? -- Similar, in my view, to most wood "artists" who would like us to believe that the beauty of the material is something he created and brought to our attention.

Is this one of the goals of art? As the amazement fades with repeated viewings, does the artistic quality also fade? As others replicate the effect, is the original's claim of art diluted? Do those who produce similar work after learning the techniques have as much right to claim an art label as the original?

Absolutely - and it's a highly individualized determination.

My questions to the original posting would be: Can one be an artist without being a craftsman? Can one be a craftsman without expressing oneself and thus inadvertantly becoming an artist? Does the artist diminish the impact to the audience if the work exhibits shoddy craftsmanship? Down to the nuts and bolts - Must one master the craft before one can successfully express their art through the craft?

_____ American Association of Woodturners Cascade Woodturners Assoc., Portland, Oregon Northwest Woodturners, Tigard, Oregon _____

natural beauty that was put into

*****************************************

Ron, You may not consider yourself an artist, but I've seen your work, and I'd consider a lot of what I've seen as art. I think art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Ken Moon Webberville, TX

Are you speaking of Dale Chihuly? His works are great. Just becuase he doesn't blow glass now doesn't mean he didn't use to or can't now. Right? And, in the world of art and glass, no one would not call Dale a master craftsman and many call him an artist. On a university campus, Dale would be called an artist working in the craft department. What others call him doesn't matter much except to the person speaking. I'm sure his Mom just calls him Dale.

And I bet the people at his bank call him Sir.

-- Jack Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Ken Moon wrote: Ron,

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ken, your words characterize a feeling I have always had: Those who refer to *themselves* as "artists" are often just pompous egotists. The term "artist" is best applied by others.

Arch wrote: (clip) To some extent, if one asks " how did you make that?" instead of inquiring "why?", he has missed the message and its personal meaning for him. ^^^^^^^^^^^ If you ask the maker of an object, "How did you make that?" he/she will take it as a compliment of the craftsmanship. If you ask him/her "Why," the question will be offensive, suggesting that the object does not communicate. If you ask yourself this question, it suggests that you are having difficulty understanding the intent of the piece. In my opinion, if a piece is really "talking to you," the question will not come up.

Henry Doolittle wrote: (clip) The man responsible for the designs does not blow glass. He gives direction to the craftsman working under him. As he does not work with his hands and is not a master of his craft, does this mean that he is not an artist. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ He is just as much an artist as an orchestra conductor or architect.

Dan Bollinger wrote: (clip)I'm sure his Mom just calls him Dale. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Until she gets together with her neighbors, or her former classmates at a reunion, and then, I am sure, she talks about how well her son is doing in the field of glass art.