Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

[Oren Grad]

when it's art not a craft? And when any craft or technology serves the art and not the other way round?

So there's "art" and there's "craft". How specifically does that shed light on what truth in representation of subjective experience is, and how you would recognize it?

I should say that in the end, I think discussions about what "art" is inevitably lead to an "I know it when I see it" that there's no way to dispute. But I'm interested in whether, within your own frame of reference, you can operationalize the distinguishing judgment that paulr referred to and that I'm asking about.

[Henry Ambrose]

But I think it's true of the single print too. Strictly speaking, a print is just a physical object. Once one gets into metaphors and projected meanings, anything is possible. And in reality we see a wide range of understandings of what the extra baggage consists of.

Yes, and that's why I say the object is the whole. Its not either/or, it is all.

Whether the viewer has any idea about how it was made or conceived is another subject. Ignorance or enlightenment of the viewer has nothing to do with the object.

A framed six ink offset printed 600 line screen print hung on the wall might convince a lot of folks thats its wonderful and amazing (and well it might be) but its still not the real thing if the real thing is an alt. print on handmade paper. (for instance)

Things are what they are. Its up to us to differentiate what that is. Knowing something about the object and its history or making can make a huge difference in appreciating it. If this does not matter to you thats fine and its just as fine for this to matter to someone else.

I'll add that digital photo art is the poor sister to manual photo art much like photography was considered an inferior craft and not really art. (wrongly or rightly, this seems true)

I'm saying both "sides" are wrong. Its the exclusivity of one view or the other that divides.

[Oren Grad]

Sure. Any case where you were aware of the range of implications of the choice (historical, metaphorical, esthetic, etc.) and felt they served the vision of the art or the text being printed.

This is a very intellectualized view of how art is done. Returning to the question of whether art is in the experience of creation or in the product, it's clear that doing art in this way provides satisfaction to many practitioners. It's equally clear that many others don't approach it in this way. And I would be surprised if there is much correlation between the presence of this mindset in the creator and the merit of the resulting work.

I was refering to art, not a craft object. If you're weaving baskets or making shaker furniture, then the point is typically to revere a tradition. Anonymity could be considered part of the point. But when we look at art, we're usually looking for someone to show us a perspective we haven't seen ... something an artist can show us because what fascinates them is a question that they've never quite seen explored to their satisfaction.

Perhaps. Operationally, you can't maintain this distinction without access to an independent source of information about the creator's intent.

[Oren Grad]

Whether the viewer has any idea about how it was made or conceived is another subject. Ignorance or enlightenment of the viewer has nothing to do with the object.

A framed six ink offset printed 600 line screen print hung on the wall might convince a lot of folks thats its wonderful and amazing (and well it might be) but its still not the real thing if the real thing is an alt. print on handmade paper. (for instance)

Things are what they are. Its up to us to differentiate what that is. Knowing something about the object and its history or making can make a huge difference in appreciating it. If this does not matter to you thats fine and its just as fine for this to matter to someone else.

I'll add that digital photo art is the poor sister to manual photo art much like photography was considered an inferior craft and not really art. (wrongly or rightly, this seems true)

I'm saying both "sides" are wrong. Its the exclusivity of one view or the other that divides.

What I'm saying is that value is subjective, and the sources of value are subjective. Within that frame of reference, an "exclusive" view can be legitimate. A viewer could decide that the physical attributes of the object are all that matters, and the history and mode of production and whether it's "real" by any particular standard is irrelevant. Such a perspective could result from ignorance or a lack of "enlightenment", but it can also result from knowledge and understanding.

FWIW, in my own practice of craft, the doing of it, and the particular way of doing it, are an essential part of what I find rewarding. In consuming others' craft, the object itself carries much greater weight, though the details of craft or the historical or cultural context are sometimes of secondary interest. And I know that on the occasions when I give a print to someone else, how they see it and how and why they value it will almost always be very different from the way I do.

[paulr]

This is a very intellectualized view of how art is done. Returning to the question of whether art is in the experience of creation or in the product, it's clear that doing art in this way provides satisfaction to many practitioners. It's equally clear that many others don't approach it in this way. And I would be surprised if there is much correlation between the presence of this mindset in the creator and the merit of the resulting work.

I don't think it's so intellectual. If it seems that way it's because i used bigger words than I needed to. I look at all the art that I think is great or important; the artist used whatever means were necessary to serve their vision. Sometimes those were traditional means and sometimes not. But the point is always that they had something to say. Hemingway might have liked his typewriter, but there was never a moment of confusion about its purely supporting role.

Perhaps. Operationally, you can't maintain this distinction without access to an independent source of information about the creator's intent.

You don't need to consider intent at all; you can just look at the means by which a particular work succeeds or fails. Is it a particularly fine example of something you've seen a million times before, or do you see something that's in some significant way unique? Is the craft tradition being used to support the subject of the work, or IS it the subject of the work?

[Henry Ambrose]

Oren wrote: FWIW, in my own practice of craft, the doing of it, and the particular way of doing it, are an essential part of what I find rewarding. In consuming others' craft, the object itself carries much greater weight, though the details of craft or the historical or cultural context are sometimes of secondary interest. And I know that on the occasions when I give a print to someone else, how they see it and how and why they value it will almost always be very different from the way I do.

Absolutely!

Whether an RC silver print or a platinum print, mom will likely appreciate it. On the other hand if mom's a dedicated darkroom worker she may like it either way but -marvel- at the platinum print of her child.

[Henry Ambrose]

I went back to the original post and read it and the first reply. I think Struan nailed this pretty well early on. Its been a fun and stimulating discussion.

[Oren Grad]

I don't think it's so intellectual. If it seems that way it's because i used bigger words than I needed to. I look at all the art that I think is great or important; the artist used whatever means were necessary to serve their vision. Sometimes those were traditional means and sometimes not. But the point is always that they had something to say. Hemingway might have liked his typewriter, but there was never a moment of confusion about its purely supporting role.

The issue wasn't the size of your words, it was the central role of conscious awareness of these contextual considerations, and of explicit conceptualization and articulation of "artistic vision" and purposeful selection of means in light of these. This is a quasi-academic model of art as applied scholarship. But there are other ways.

You don't need to consider intent at all; you can just look at the means by which a particular work succeeds or fails. Is it a particularly fine example of something you've seen a million times before, or do you see something that's in some significant way unique? Is the craft tradition being used to support the subject of the work, or IS it the subject of the work?

True, your knowledge and experience will affect what you see in a work. But if that's the operational definition, then you've established the distinction between "art" and "craft" as relating to the subjective experience of the artifact, not an objective attribute of it. That's fine with me.

So again, how do you judge whether something you consider "art" is a "true representation of [the artist's] experience of the world"? That question got lost on this tangent.

[Oren Grad]

Whether an RC silver print or a platinum print, mom will likely appreciate it. On the other hand if mom's a dedicated darkroom worker she may like it either way but -marvel- at the platinum print of her child.

Oh dear... I'll just say that in my universe a platinum print doesn't automatically get assigned a higher subjective value, nor is it automatically more marvelogenic, than an RC silver print. I guess I'm a mutant.

I agree, Struan's post is a gem. He has a wonderful - I'd even say marvelogenic - talent for cutting elegantly to the heart of the matter.

[Henry Ambrose]

I was using that platinum thing as an example. A wonderful print is a wonderful print. Oren, there's lots of agreement here.