Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
An Oak Tree, anyone?
So what
- Thread starter Joel Stewart
- Start date
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
With regard to the wooden box that Jeff saw, one has to remember to distinguish between the question of whether something is art and whether something is any good. After Duchamp, Warhol, Rauschenberg and numbers of others, the trope of the wooden box seems sort of stale. But I have no problem thinking it's art.
I'm not sure why the question of value added by labor is any different for craft than it is for say Rahsaan's term papers. If the bookshelf holds books well, I don't have a reason to care whether it took the carpenter 20 minutes, 20 hours or 20 days to make it, except as that effects price.
Now it's certainly true that works of art, crafted objects and wine--indeed even term papers--can take on value to an individual as a result of his or her appreciation of the labor that went into it. But a) that won't happen unless one appreciates the object for intrinsic reasons in the first place (a wine one won't put in one's mouth won't taste any better because it was made lovingly and with great labor, though one should remember that that can be the case), and b)the kind of value one has for it, being different from the value of those who don't know about the work, is neither better nor worse, just different.
I'm not sure why the question of value added by labor is any different for craft than it is for say Rahsaan's term papers. If the bookshelf holds books well, I don't have a reason to care whether it took the carpenter 20 minutes, 20 hours or 20 days to make it, except as that effects price.
Now it's certainly true that works of art, crafted objects and wine--indeed even term papers--can take on value to an individual as a result of his or her appreciation of the labor that went into it. But a) that won't happen unless one appreciates the object for intrinsic reasons in the first place (a wine one won't put in one's mouth won't taste any better because it was made lovingly and with great labor, though one should remember that that can be the case), and b)the kind of value one has for it, being different from the value of those who don't know about the work, is neither better nor worse, just different.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
I've been trying to avoid this conversation because it seems very difficult; but, reading along, I've been thinking about the at least dual meaning of 'art,' comprising both skill at crafting and the ability to present, through that skill, an interesting or moving arrangement of perceptions and ideas. The contemplative art that's been most interesting to me personally incorporates both these dimensions.
There's a relativistic element to this statement, too, though: for example, the hand prints in the Cuevo de las Manos are very moving as art, although they are the result of simple levels of craft and concept, partly because they represent what must have been a large conceptual leap of abstraction for the people who engaged in it, and tell us something about ourselves in the process.
Can wine be art in the conceptual dimension? Aren't the senses of taste and smell entitled to their own universe of art, in the same way that sight and hearing are? But wouldn't art in this sense require depiction through artifice of things normally directly experienced in our day-to-day lives - as in, say, representational paintings - or, alternatively, the artificial juxtaposition of sensation- or thought-evoking images? And isn't what most of us here cherish in wine the absence of artifice, except as strictly necessary to facilitate growth, fermentation, and stable storage of healthy fruit? Or do the intimate mediums of taste and smell define a different kind of contemplative art than those for vision and hearing, where the evocation of familiar sensations (fruit, petrol, rock, flowers) abstracted from their natural sources is the entire point?
Beats me. Like I said, this subject is too hard.
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
At its logical extension, this holds across the board - and is hence, meaningless. Although I reckon its politically correct.
I am all for a broad range of experience, but even those with little experience seem to take to specific wines because they find something more then just 'what's in the glass.'
That may be personality; it may be philosophical; it may be as simple as enjoying a moment with the craftsman - whatever it is, for them, it makes it better.
Me, too.
Best, Jim
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
One could certainly imagine an art form made out of the manipulation of taste sensations to achieve whatever intelligible, conceptual or patterning ends one uses to define what makes an artwork. But in the case of art, particular artworks may be absolutely sensually displeasing--atonal music, narratives and paintings that depict things that we would not normally want to see--not to mention works that are quotidean objects--urinals wooden boxes. I doubt one would want to drink wine that, for some aesthetic end, tasted like paint thinner or, for that matter, a bottle full of water dyed red and labelled as wine. In other words, there is an irreducible dependence on sensual pleasure that makes wine different from art, even though, like much art, it has to be crafted.
Jim,
My point with regard to different kinds of valuing is not that the only true valuing of wine is "what's in the glass," even though I don't think that "what's in the glass" is a neutral canvas on which to paint. It is that valuing the labor that goes into something is a perfectly coherent form of valuing but it isn't one that evaluates objects as what they are. Take Rahsaan's term paper example. If one knows a student and knows how hard he or she has worked to produce the paper, that tends, if one is a human being as well as a teacher, to make one sympathetic and even forgiving of shortcomings. And there is a role for such solicitude in teaching. If one took that into such account when grading that one gave that paper a higher grade than an A paper produced with little effort (alas there are students who can do that), one would be being unjust not only to the alas lazy A student, but to those to whom grades are reported who make distinctions with regard to academic ability on their basis.
This has nothing to do with demanding wine be reflective of terroir or other values that are different from "what's in the glass" but are also values with regard to the object and not its provenance.
Jim,
My point with regard to different kinds of valuing is not that the only true valuing of wine is "what's in the glass," even though I don't think that "what's in the glass" is a neutral canvas on which to paint. It is that valuing the labor that goes into something is a perfectly coherent form of valuing but it isn't one that evaluates objects as what they are. Take Rahsaan's term paper example. If one knows a student and knows how hard he or she has worked to produce the paper, that tends, if one is a human being as well as a teacher, to make one sympathetic and even forgiving of shortcomings. And there is a role for such solicitude in teaching. If one took that into such account when grading that one gave that paper a higher grade than an A paper produced with little effort (alas there are students who can do that), one would be being unjust not only to the alas lazy A student, but to those to whom grades are reported who make distinctions with regard to academic ability on their basis.
This has nothing to do with demanding wine be reflective of terroir or other values that are different from "what's in the glass" but are also values with regard to the object and not its provenance.
John Donaghue
John Donaghue
I don't believe the matter is quite as difficult as you think - I believe you've mostly answered your own question on art vs. craft with the above.
Art to me is about originality, creative expression, building on prior works and prior experiences to forge something that will evoke thoughts, emotions, dialogues, discussion. Craft has room for creativity but it is much more about experience and technical skill, and I feel that much of the pleasure I take from craft, be it bookshelves or wine, is in seeing or knowing of the craftsmanship put into the final product.
I suppose there are people out in the world that want artistic originality in their wine, but even as new as I am to wine I know that I'm not one of them. If terroir is the goal and a winemaker is to convey that terroir as completely as possible I think they must be craftspeople before artists. There may be different levels and different nuances of terroir that one can show with their wines, but the goal is still to be as transparent as possible - to be an invisible conduit between the land and the bottle. That's 100% craft to me.
Jonathan: I understand the point you're trying to make with the bookshelf analogy, but I don't believe it works. If you're approaching it on a utilitarian level it may, although I doubt that anyone posting on this board drinks wine for that reason alone. I don't think you can look at craft without seeing the labor put into it. Perhaps not raw effort, but one can certainly see experience and ability, even in a 20-minute bookshelf.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I would say that perforce most of us do look at the results of craftsmanship without seeing the labor put into those results most of the time. We may think we see the labor because we judge what we think it must be by what we think of the quality of the results. But we do not actually see the labor. I would go further and say that our judgment about that labor is really a misunderstood judgment about the quality of the object. That last claim is either begging the question or what Kant would call an analytical argument. I can't prove it except to say that there is an obvious logical difference between value and provenance and that if you think about how you think about these issues, most of the time I think you'll be able to tell the difference.
If we are to distinguish between craft and art, by the way, the usual distinction is in terms the utilitarian way we value the results of craft, so I'm not sure what other level I should approach it on. This is not to say that we can't value craft objects aesthetically, just that, insofar as they are craft and not art, it will be because they have purposes beyond being artistic. I don't think this is relevant to the labor claim, though, since I think that is a provenance issue in the case of art, craft and even just workplace product.
If we are to distinguish between craft and art, by the way, the usual distinction is in terms the utilitarian way we value the results of craft, so I'm not sure what other level I should approach it on. This is not to say that we can't value craft objects aesthetically, just that, insofar as they are craft and not art, it will be because they have purposes beyond being artistic. I don't think this is relevant to the labor claim, though, since I think that is a provenance issue in the case of art, craft and even just workplace product.
John Donaghue
John Donaghue
I'll have to beg your pardon - I went to a technical engineering school so my philosophical knowledge is rough to non-existant. In dealing with crafted things I think that labor (or craftsmanship, as it were) is intrinsic not only to the quality of the finished work, but also to full appreciation of that work. I'm opening a can of worms that are gonna get dumped on my head here, but oh well. The labor and process become even more important when you start with living, growing vines that must be tended and nurtured practically the whole year round. I don't see how you can separate that from a finished bottle, although I'm sure that UC Davis is trying as we type.
How much pleasure do you take from stacking your books on a bare pine shelf with cinder block bookends? Would you take any more or any less pleasure in stacking them on a nicely finished piece of walnut, or even another pine shelf, but this one neatly joined and well-made? There is a certain pleasure I take in using well-crafted things and some of that pleasure is from the workmanship they show. Form follows function, but there's no reason to ignore it.
By the way, my current circumstance is definitely affecting my view on this - I'm living in an alpine club that was built by volunteer craftsmen and is maintained and improved on by its membership. Everything here has some sort of history to it, down to the ugly, tacky curtains in one of the cabins, and knowing the history makes a big difference. Those ugly, tacky curtains were put up by a member that I like and respect, and while they're still ugly and tacky they're more bearable now.
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
Isn't this paragraph trying to have it both ways?
At first, other people's judgment is viewed objectively; then, yours is not?
And while I understand your desire to be rational here, it leaves out or lessens the value of what people feel. IMO, logic and rationality go just so far.
Best, Jim
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
What I am saying about my claim, in calling it analytical, is saying that I am in fact describing the way people do judge these things. My point was that you can disprove what I am saying simply by saying that you don't judge things that way, not that I get to have it both ways.
Of course, like all crafty arguers, I'm going to hedge my bets. So, for instance, John took my challenge and said that he doesn't judge crafted things in the way I describe. That should just make me wrong, but I'm not so easy. I have follow-up questions:
1)When you say you do judge the labor, do you do that by actually seeing the labor and then saying, I saw a lot of it and I like this better? Or do you see things in the object that you take as evidence of labor, specifically the quality with which it was made and say to yourself that you are judging the labor? If you actually do the first, I think you must have some very strange outcomes, but I will then say, as I did, it's possible to do this, but it won't lead to outcomes that I, or numbers of us on this thread, would sign on to generally. If you do the second, then, as I said, you are judging the product and taking yourself to be judging the labor, which is not the same thing.
2)Like you, I of course prefer beautiful useful objects to ugly ones that just work. As I said, nothing stops us from making aesthetic judgments of crafted objects and with crafts that produce art-like objects (carpentry, stone masonry), those judgments can get fuzzy. But if you do make them separately, then my point holds. Think of your judgment of your stereo set. You know doubt do have a sense of whether you like how it looks. But you wouldn't have bought it if it didn't play music the way you wanted it to and you probably wouldn't give up much music playing quality for much how it looks quality. Further, if it could play music with no distinction from a live performance (assuming that is your criterion for playing music quality) and be invisible, and have no how it looks quality at all, you probably would prefer that to having high how it looks quality (assuming you don't think you are buying a work of art) and less than perfect playing music quality. And finally, no matter how you would sort those criteria, I am claiming that the fact that you have them indicates a difference that has to be captured by a definition and that the standard one is between craft and art. I'm open to another one.
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
I know it when I see it, won't do?
Best, Jim
Andrew Zachary
Andrew Zachary
I think artists working in another medium have already asked and answered this question.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Well, I didn't like it when the Supreme Court used it as a definition of obscenity for a number of reasons. But since they had powers consequent upon their capriciousness, that may be another issue.
With regard to a definition of art, though I don't think that was the question, my reservation is that by abandoning the philosophical problems, you might abandon much of the great art of the 20th century along with those dryasdust philosphers. Abandon me if you want. But preserve Duchamp, Rauschenberg, Bartheleme, David Foster Wallace.
With regard to distinguishing art and craft, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm pretty sure that one of the things that the artists listed above achieve is to show you that you won't know it when you see it.
With regard to liking things or valuing them, I'm pretty sure you do do this effectively for you. But the original question was whether you ought to do so, as in should others listen to that form of evaluation. I fully understand not caring about the "ought," going ahead and evaluating as you will and do and letting others decide whether they care or not. But by the same token, some care to have conversations on the issue. I think you can feel confident that they won't come to any agreements, much less legislative agreements. So the conversation is at worst harmless and at best conceivably instructive.
Florida Jim
Florida Jim
Jonathan,
My wife has been in the arts world as craftsperson, gallery manager, president of a crafts guild and artist for over 30 years. I assure you that the worst is not harmless.
Best, Jim
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Things are only harmful to the extent that someone listens to them. It's not my impression that anyone listens to theorists of aesthetics except other theorists of aesthetics.
I recognize that reviewers and critics can be injurious, but, again, only to those who listen.