"Old School" Fine Art Divisions/Predjudices (century, 20th, day)

[nj185]

I am several steps removed from academia in Fine Arts at this point :+) but remember well the opinions held by some - there were very deep divisions in what was considered, mostly by the painterly practitioners, "fine art".

Two major areas, craft and commercial, were somehow less artsy than painting & sculpture. Utilitarian things - pottery, glass, textiles - were not accorded the same status as painting. Commercial art - illustration, advertizement - were also somewhere down the rungs. Add photography to that too in many cases.

Does this viewpoint continue today?

I can only speculate on how those judgements were formed - perhaps because it was thought that it took more time to produce a painting than throw a pot? a skilled illustrator could slam out a bunch of drawings in a few weeks? Or was it the "use" to which the products were put? Did creations need to have no "use" other than to be viewed in order to be fine art?

I know I have accepted/internalized some of those old generalizations, and have a few of my own! I still can't feel "genuine" if I were to use a projector for a painting even if it turned out spectacularly. I can feel "valid" if I make a screen from my own photograph, but not if I manipulate someone else's image, either for a print, digitally, or otherwise.

I personally feel "craft" is a fine art, but somehow still accept that in general a beautifully blown utilitarian glass object is less likely to be considered "art".

Has all "visual art" been accepted as "fine art", or do the old hierarchies still remain?

[banjomike]

I believe the distinctions between high quality art and high quality craft are fading.
Fine decorative pottery, tile, and other work that was intended to be both artistic and utilitarian is now commanding prices that were once only reached in paintings and some sculpture, and the same is true with some furniture, textiles and other work.
This has been going on for quite a while. I think much of it comes from the many levels of quality/price that are available to interest buyers. Well-known craftsmen like George Nakashima, the famous furniture maker, sells for very high prices, and almost all his work is still used for it's purpose and not admired as just an art object.

There are many large markets that have yet to be noticed much by the fine art world. One is exceptionally fine stringed instruments; typically the highest grades of manufacture, done either by an individual or a factory, now can command 6 figure prices that are regularly met.

One interesting area is painted guitars. High quality standard guitars that are painted by an artist can command $30,000 or more, depending on the brand name of the guitar and the artist. One notable luthier (the term for a stringed instrument maker) who is equally good at building a fine guitar and artistically decorating it is Ren Ferguson, the former head of Gibson Guitar's acoustic custom shop. Ren builds the guitar, then carves the neck, inlays the fiberboard, engraves the pickguard, and makes custom binding that surrounds the top, sides and back. His work is internationally renowned and everything he made was sold almost as soon as it was completed. His most highly ornamented guitars all sold for 5 figures.

The same is true with other individual luthiers and larger companies' custom shops. Fender Guitars' custom shop has done exceptionally well at this as well. Interestingly, Fender has some artists who, in the fine art world, would be fabulously good forgers; they can imitate age and wear very convincingly, so much so that some experts are fooled by their brand new instruments. They create fake age cracks, fake grunge on the parts, faded finishes that look like they are 60 years old, etc.

All this, to me, shows a trend for the buying public's desire to own a piece of art they can connect with on several different levels at once. While a fine china plate was once intended for visual display only, these days the same plate may be used gently for special occasions as just a plate. A wonderful flower vase that cost a ton of money now holds a flower from time to time. And while most of those art guitars are never played, they are all fully playable, and some owners do play them. Carefully, but played nontheless.

[nj185]

Thanks ! I was schooled at a time when the distinction was changing some, but was still there among academics and some artists[read - painter,sculptor] themselves. One of my children is a fine arts major now - or rather visual arts. I vaguely felt some of the exclusivity was hanging around.

From what you've said, it seems that the public's buying habits have a moderating influence on some of the ??? "snobbishness" that once seemed to exist. I had an uncle who hand-made acoustic guitars, and though he made a great living at it, no fine artist I knew considered him an "artist". A great craftsman, OK. Musicians who used his art, more so.

Something in the valuing of craft in Japan originally made me think about this years ago, and wondered if that had entered into our way of looking at things here.

[banjomike]

Hi, nj...
Snobbishness is an integral part of fine art and high craft. Bragging rights is important to buyers of either.
Consider Franz Hals, the painter. He was supported by royalty and the landed gentry, who loved his portraiture ability. Owning a Hals was costly when Franz was alive. At the same time, Stradivarius sold his fiddles, violas and cellos to the same bunch of folks for exactly the same reasons. Few of his customers could actually play the instruments, but musicians who could were easy to find. Possessing a Stradivarius quartet of instruments was the bragging point, not the music they made or who played the music.

But both the painting and the fiddle shared some things in common. One of the most important factors was both were built to stick around for a long time. The quality of permanence was important.

The late 20th century saw the rise in popularity of art that was conceptual. The mental processes that produced the art were the sale points, not the artwork itself. Christo, the famous artist who wraps buildings in fabric, is an example. His works are massive in scale, and are wonderful to experience in person while they are finished, but they will only be experienced completely for a short time and then are gone forever.

Christo makes his money by selling his ideas. The cities and nations where his work is displayed pay him, and individual collectors of his art pay for the ephemara- his notebooks, photographs, contstruction schedules, etc. are all sold. In essence, Christo is like a musical composer; his ideas are like musical notes written down on a page, tangible products of his mind. His work sticks around longer than the duration of a symphony, and is reproducible (if someone wants to foot the bills again), but cannot fit into any building.

That high concept art became very fashionable for about 35 years on a smaller scale. But these days, there seems to be a desire for permanence once more.

At their extremes, high craft and fine art merge. A George Nakashima bench, for example, can be fully appreciated as a work of fine art, but it can be used to sit down on to remove a pair muddy boots without losing any of it's artistic appreciation.

Tiffany lamp shades are still lamp shades, but they're admired as art first. The same is true with a living glass blower, Dale Chihuly, who has stretched the art of glass blowing to extremes Tiffany would envy, and Chihuly's lamp shades are still lamp shades. Both have made glass objects that were intended to be only artwork as well, with no utilitarian purpose. And both artists' work was hell for expensive when it was first made. Both have works that sold for more than they did when new as well.

The thing most folks don't understand about fine art, especially abstract art, is a painting or sculpture is a mental experience. Folks often say 'What is it supposed to mean? What is it supposed to represent?". But they never say that about a piece of engaging music that has no words. Music is identically a mental experience. Fine art, especially abstraction, is music for the eyes.

Like music, art, whether fine art or craft, can be extremely challenging or readily comprehensible. I tend to think that, when times are good, people seek a challenge. When times are bad, they seek the comfort of what is easily understood. And even in the best or worst of times, constant challenge becomes wearying for most folks. A few, by their disposition, are always ready for a mental confrontation and challenge though.

For a practicing artist, these elements always have to be taken into consideration, as somebody must be found who will buy the work. Creating art that millions of people will enjoy has always been, and will always be, a balance between the two. High craft sits right on the tipping point in the middle, as craft always has an element of usefulness in it.

[mateo45]

Old thread, but will toss in my two cents as a retired commercial artist and now doing public art sculpture. Was always familiar with the fine artist 'snobbery' but had also thought it was more or less died out by now, especially with computer graphics and photography increasingly ''blurring the lines''.

And though I had previously done a few modest public art commissions in my earlier commercial art career, these days as I have started pursuing more and more public work, have been surprised to find that a growing trend in public art policy is towards being dominated by art ''academics'', who are usually trained in and oriented towards the fine arts. Which is fine, except unfortunately many of those key decision makers also seem to have the same old sophomoric attitudes re: folks with a lot of commercial art experience, basically regarding them as just ''technicians'' and ''decorative'' artists (aka, not ''true'' artists)!

This also helps explain why we're seeing a lot more purely abstract and ''conceptual'' pieces in public art nowadays, that often tend to be devoid of any ''aesthetic'' appeal otherwise. Which may be fine if you're an art critic or own a gallery, but not so much if you're John & Jane Average Taxpayer actually paying for it and have to see it all the time in your local neighborhood or public park!

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Old thread, but will toss in my two cents as a retired commercial artist and now doing public art sculpture. Was always familiar with the fine artist 'snobbery' but had also thought it was more or less died out by now, especially with computer graphics and photography increasingly ''blurring the lines''.

And though I had previously done a few modest public art commissions in my earlier commercial art career, these days as I have started pursuing more and more public work, have been surprised to find that a growing trend in public art policy is towards being dominated by art ''academics'', who are usually trained in and oriented towards the fine arts. Which is fine, except unfortunately many of those key decision makers also seem to have the same old sophomoric attitudes re: folks with a lot of commercial art experience, basically regarding them as just ''technicians'' and ''decorative'' artists (aka, not ''true'' artists)!

This also helps explain why we're seeing a lot more purely abstract and ''conceptual'' pieces in public art nowadays, that often tend to be devoid of any ''aesthetic'' appeal otherwise. Which may be fine if you're an art critic or own a gallery, but not so much if you're John & Jane Average Taxpayer actually paying for it and have to see it all the time in your local neighborhood or public park!

Hi, Mateo...
One of the big art trends I've noticed is the rise in popularity of illustrator's originals.
Norman Rockwell's originals have bee pulling prices that rival his fine art contemporaries for a long time, and many of his contemporaries, especially the painters who did a lot of Saturday Evening Post covers, and now fetching very good prices.
Same goes for pinup artists, and the best newspaper cartoonists of the recent past. Guys like Helvgren, a once-popular pinup painter are really hot, partly due to how few originals are still existent.

A full color Sunday panel of Prince Valiant, done by Hal Foster, pulls prices just as high, as does Milt Caniff's work. Caniff cartoons sell just as high in black and white as in color.

A lot of the early 60's car illustrators are also very hot right now. The early 60's modernist glamor is really hot in general.

Most people appreciate the art they are most familiar with. Commercial illustration is created to be both approachable, and always has some element that is aspirational, both elements that the average person can admire easily. And most have very eye-pleasing colors. They serve as nice eye candy in all the off-white rooms that are so common these days.

[key4lp]

My 2 cents. Where is there a fine line? Examples: 1. Several years ago there was an artist who decided to put his
feces in a can and sell it for what the price of gold was going for?????and people bought them.
2. Conceptual art. There are many good conceptual artists however when I had to watch a guy eating a peach as a
piece of work??????
3.Took a photoshop course several years ago. There were 2 groups of people. The first group were artists and art teachers
exploring this new method. The second group were young college students who were proficient on the computer.
The work by students who just manipulated images with a click did not compare to the creative pieces done by the artists.

[OwlKaMyst]

This was the question I presented in my arts & crafts marketing class this week.
One of the 'how to' discussions was coming from a gallery setting.
Because the lines are starting to blur (quilts being made that are indeed works of art), I had to ask, 'what is defined as fine art?'
This question coming from me is because I do paint, but I also 'craft' and some of what I craft has a lot of art to it and I wouldn't consider my paintings 'fine art'. But maybe I'm just super critical of my paintings.
Also, a fellow student commented on galleries of 'fine art' only having 'couch paintings'. I was amused by that term since I struggle myself with what or who is art-artist. Just because one can mechanically paint waves and rocks and a boat, are they an artist?
Which brings us back to what is Fine Art.
In the DeYoung museum there is an awesome painting of a ship off the coast, I do not recall who the painter is, but it was an American master from the 17-1800's. This painting is fine art; but what about that (cookie-cutter) boat off the coast painting that hangs in a motel room? (I do realize that some paintings are pictures, but pictures of paintings from an unknown).
It's similar to the example above and the 'just manipulating' of images.
But again- I manipulate images too. I take a piece of a picture and do things to it and make it a totally new image. And sometimes it's not easy!

What I think is happening now is that it is the end creation and not the medium that is used that defines an item as fine art. Again, at the DeYoung museum a miniature gothic style church was on display and the whole thing was made out of pieces of guns an bullets. It was elaborate, creative and highly thought provoking. Not only was it bullets and a church, it also held the vertibrae in its main hall, like the relics of body parts of saints found in some of these churches.

So what used to be studied by the masters; architecture, sculpture and painting was once the fine arts, but with using these same principals and different mediums, a highly creative and skilled crafter can produce a piece of fine art.

[key4lp]

Well, the piece you describe (church with bullets) is something I would love to see. I always enjoy art that seems
obsessive compulsive: meaning the time and meticulous detail put into a concept. I do think that studying art is important
to understand the elements and principles of design. Some have a natural knowledge of them.
At the Art Institute of Chicago there used to be a contemporary and conceptual exhibition that was amazing. At that time
there were several pieces one of which still impresses me. The artist used aspirin for pain, so he sculpted a self portrait of
himself onto an aspirin.
Since I too was a fine arts teacher in high school, I would always focus on students learning how to see. It was hard but
they did learn. They also learned that art was indeed a discipline and created amazing work.

[OwlKaMyst]

"It's all about seeing" is often said by my teacher.