This is where the bid cultural divide is revealed between art as limited to 
certain processes, objects, and supposed intents and art as an experiential 
condition resulting from a relationship between something in the real world (or 
pretended to be in the real world) and the perceiver (or his/her surrogate, 
such as received cultural opinion).  Let me make that last phrase shorter: or 
as a result of the experience of something in the world, real or imagined. We 
can most certainly put the design of tea or a teacup into a category of things 
in the world and thus they are eligible for eliciting the appellation as art 
object if they occasion the aesthetic experience.  Nothing is excluded.  How 
can we say that some things can never, ever be the occasion of art?  Here we 
are again, at the old high-low argument and it seems so plainly obvious to me 
that assignments of high-low are purely utilitarian and subject to instant 
change.  Grandma's old teacup may have
 its counterpart in a museum or in Proust.  You and I may prefer the old 
class-based distinctions between high art and craft or low art and junk, and so 
on --a list we'd never exhaust --  but it's an opinion that can't be justified 
by facts, art history, and logic.  So admit your preference and also admit it 
has no authority with respect to a general (universal) definition of art.  It's 
just an opinion of taste and nothing more.
wc
 



________________________________
From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:13:52 AM
Subject: Re: Facture

I think, we have to distinguish art, in general, from fine art in our
discussions. We can't put design of tea put in the same category as painted
tea put by Chardin.
Boris Shoshensky
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Facture
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:11:15 -0700 (PDT)

Folk expressions aside, there's no reason why a completely machine made object
cannot be termed an artwork.  Actually, many are, from furniture to coffee
pots to readymades, to appropriated imagery to types of collage to typography
to digitally sprayed paintings, billboard, textiles -- on and on.  Machines
have been used for artmaking for centuries. The intention and claims of the
maker are never sufficient to establish something as art. A claim is a claim
and in the case of art, all claims are equal.  You're just expressing your
opinion, in fact you are making a claim and it is not universally validated by
history, art, or practice, despite the reference to a single piece (by
Michelangelo) and to a class of art objects (hand wrought 'realist' art).
wc



________________________________
From: armando baeza <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:26:42 PM
Subject: Re: Facture

By hand work,I mean what ever one individual does with his personal skill
art- music,poetry,etc..
I'm not referring to machine made objects that are designed and
rigidly controlled by the designers.
And it's not the medium or concept approach that I'm concerned about.
that william refers to, i do both at times, but I have not placed a Michael
Angelo upside down,and call it "my art " , not yet anyway.
Im referring to the fairness of those who do very realistic work without
any skill in the doing of it, and selling it "as their work' to serious
buyers
who lack awareness. In spanish we call it, Venta de "Gato por Liebre",,
selling a  "cat for a hare".
mando

On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> In a message dated 9/29/09 4:41:55 PM, [email protected] writes:
>
>
>>   If you say the quality is in the object and if you require handiwork to
>> produce that quality then your judgment is justified.
>>
>
> If you require handwork to produce an object which you can then call art,
> then you are justified in your judgment inasmuch as your judgment is
> confirmed by your culture. Handwork is not an attribute of all art-music,
> plays,
> poetry - therefore it is not a universal attribute of art.I agree with
mando
> about the computer generated sculpture but not that anything machine made
is
> not art.
> KAte Sullivan



____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwrFD9qpBjrLwdw38jcAYJ6
yhO8RiSidwT2hcBvr3FmXlRTFTpVu/

Reply via email to