Mach said:

I totally agree.

When I was around 6, I had a babysitter who taught me to knit (using a pair of pencils, because I didn't have needles). When my mom saw that I liked it, she got me some #11 needles (a good size to learn on) and some yarn, and I started making scarves. She taught me how to cut out a sewing pattern, and I made a dress for my Barbie doll when I was 8. (A pink and white gingham sheath.) I made my first dress for myself at 12 (a purple jumper).

My mom showed me how to do a level measure when I was 9, then handed me a recipe for chocolate chip cookies and said, "Go to it!"

I started playing recorder at 7, piano at 8, violin at 9 and clarinet at 11. Acted in my first play at 8 (at which point, my parents put me into acting classes) and played my first lead at 11.

Outside of learning the basics of sewing, and the violin and clarinet lessons, none of that was done in school. My parents didn't have a lot of money, but they made sure that my sisters and I all pursued creative endeavors. Neither of them had those kinds of opportunities growing up (first because of the Depression and then because of the War) - and they were determined that their kids would get to do the things they didn't.

Of course, that meant that we missed out on sitting on our butts in front of the TV.

who is to say that things made by folks at home that served a function AREN'T art?

ZombieKitten said:

Art isn't functional. That's what makes it Art. (Capital 'A' intentional.) Take Duchamp's Readymades: he started with functional objects -- urinals, shovels, etc. and removed the function. That's what made them Art. If it's functional, it's design. Or architecture; but definitely not Art. And Art is not design. (Although design can be artistic.)


But in response to the original question; I'd say the Industrial Revolution killed creativity (if by creativity you mean handcrafted items). It lead to mass production, which lead to being able to make more money. There wasn't as much value placed on craftsmanship because that takes longer. More items to sell = more money to be made.

Highbrow attitudes drive me INsane.
Snobby artists make me want to poop on their stuff. Like a polar bear.

all those years of art history for nothing

Those objects that are now on display at the Metropolitan, are they art now because they have been taken out of their functional context? behind a glass case they aren't of much use to anyone any more, or because we don't use an object the same way any more does that remove its functionality and leave it with no purpose other than to look at it?

johnart said:

Open question: why do people who don't have formal training as artists or art historians insist that they know just as much - or should be taken as seriously - as those who have years of training/study in art or art history? Isn't that kind of like someone telling an attorney that they know just as much about the law because they got taken to court or something?

I think art can (and should) be enjoyed by everyone, but I notice that there is a tendancy to dismiss or minimize the opinions of those who have more knowledge of the field as being 'snobby'. Yes, Art is subjective, but there are also commonly accepted theories that (I believe should) hold more weight when discussing it than Joe Neverstudiedart's opinion that "my 5 year old could do that." (Which, if it was so easy to do, why didn't the 5 year old think to do it? )

I never see/hear people arguing with a doctor who has an MD and years of experience about whether a cold is a virus or bacteria; but people don't think twice about questioning whether something is Art or not.

As an art historian, it's really frustrating for me. I have spent nearly 10 years studying modern and contemporary art, including studying with one of the most influential post-modern art historians; so to discount that knowledge or write it off as a "high-brow" or "snobby" attitude seems tantamount to saying I don't know what I'm talking about. One doesn't have to agree with the art historical theory, but it is valid.

Please note: This is not a personal attack towards you; my post is meant to be a more general response/comment on something I've noticed both in the "art" threads here and at the contemporary art museum where I give tours.

jone70 said:

Do art historians generally agree on the theory?

coolcat said:

It depends, but for the most part it seems like it to me. I mean, no art historian is going to try to say that Braque & Picasso were not neck in neck inventing Cubism, or say that the New York School of painting did not mark a shift in 20th century, "Western" art and be taken seriously, imo.

But they all have there little niche that they're into. For example, Rosalind Krauss is known for using semiotics and the sign, so her readings are always about deconstructing the art through language.

I took a class on Visual Narratives in India and my professor was positing that certain symbols of non-anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha (e.g. a parasol, footprints, etc.) were multivalent; then we had to read an article by another scholar who was arguing that wasn't the case and that my professor had misinterpreted her theory of aniconism. Nerd fight!

What it seems like they try to do (in my opinion), is invent new ways of connecting ideas. For example, the Guggenheim just had an exhibition called "The Third Mind: American Artist Contemplate Asia, 1860-1989" and the curator was trying to get people to buy into her idea (e.g. thesis) that Asian art & culture had been *just* as influential on American artist during the late 19th/early 20th century as European art had been. (The commonly accepted art historical teaching is that Europe - especially France & Germany - was the main influence on US art during this time.)

Sorry for the long response and the off topic. But thanks for asking!

.
[Edited 6/18/09 18:01pm]

I don't think creativity is dead, it's just not being encouraged really

ZombieKitten said:

I'm not sure to which specific objects you're referring, but if they are the types of things I'm thinking, then yes; I agree with your reasoning. At one point they probably were used but not they aren't. Most probably fall into that pesky category (which I hate) known as Decorative Arts. I think it's a misnomer because they're not really art. It can become a slippery slope though, some of the Medieval and Quattrocentro paintings were original done as altar pieces so were they functional or not? Or architect's drawings? If the building is never going to be built, then are the drawings art (sans function) or functional (instructions to build)?

johnart said:

Open question: why do people who don't have formal training as artists or art historians insist that they know just as much - or should be taken as seriously - as those who have years of training/study in art or art history? Isn't that kind of like someone telling an attorney that they know just as much about the law because they got taken to court or something?

I think art can (and should) be enjoyed by everyone, but I notice that there is a tendancy to dismiss or minimize the opinions of those who have more knowledge of the field as being 'snobby'. Yes, Art is subjective, but there are also commonly accepted theories that (I believe should) hold more weight when discussing it than Joe Neverstudiedart's opinion that "my 5 year old could do that." (Which, if it was so easy to do, why didn't the 5 year old think to do it? )

I never see/hear people arguing with a doctor who has an MD and years of experience about whether a cold is a virus or bacteria; but people don't think twice about questioning whether something is Art or not.

As an art historian, it's really frustrating for me. I have spent nearly 10 years studying modern and contemporary art, including studying with one of the most influential post-modern art historians; so to discount that knowledge or write it off as a "high-brow" or "snobby" attitude seems tantamount to saying that someone who has never studied art knows as much as someone who has spent years on it. One doesn't have to agree with the art historical theory, but it is valid.

Please note: This is not a personal attack towards you; my post is meant to be a more general response/comment on something I've noticed both in the "art" threads here and at the contemporary art museum where I give tours.


.
[Edited 6/18/09 17:39pm]

jone70 said:

The fact that you believe art can logically be compared to law or medicine betrays the arrogance of "formal training."

jone70 said:

The fact that you believe art can logically be compared to law or medicine betrays the arrogance of "formal training."

On the other hand producing art is a whole different ball game i don't believe some one can STUDY how to be Artistic

endymion said:

you can
i'm not sure i'd be creating the way i am now had it not been for school

i would still be creating yes, but there are things that you learn academically that would be harder to come by on your own...

sammij said:

I imagine you were Artistic to begin with, study may have widened your influences or improved your formal technique

but i am sure the Artistry was inherently there

endymion said:

right
but i don't think, nor have i come across, any institution that prides itself on teaching you artistry
i think they consider themselves as tools in that process, which is why when you apply they generally will demand to see a portfolio first, meaning that the artistry was already there...

sammij said:

What about this point below i mentioned earlier would you agree ?

I think, but i may have this wrong, that jone70 is confirming her credentials as an Art critic, in other words they feel they have the knowledge to pass comment/judgement on Art.

Which to be fair if you want to produce a coherent argument about the pros and cons of a piece of Art study is probably necessary otherwise you are reduced to i like it or i dont

endymion said:

i'll need more than that, elaborate please

Genesia said:

Got a point there

sammij said:

Not to mention, just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean they aren't learned/studied on a subject. If a medical doctor or attorney said something that I didn't agree with, I absolutely would challenge them on it, especially if we're just talking about a healthy debate/conversation. I don't have a medical or law degree, but that doesn't mean I don't know ANYthing about either subject.

CarrieMpls said:

That is the relevant part, you have to have a basic understanding to argue your point effectively

endymion said:

But studied doesn't mean "formal training" either.

I didn't know Art couldn't be functional.


But doesn't that betray the fact that artist often challenge the established views of what art should be? I would think artist would attempt to create functional pieces of art.
I guess depending on the way someone approaches a functional object, they could say that it functions and is artistic but not art. OR, they can say it's art, but happens to have residual purpose.

Of course, I don't have formal training in art though--I'm just extremely talented.

jone70 said:

The fact that you believe art can logically be compared to law or medicine betrays the arrogance of "formal training."

ie: One can objectively say that so-and-so artist is influential... but I don't think one can objectively say so-and-so artist is "good"...