Posted by Colin
I’ve been invited to become a contributor here at Art and Perception. I’m intrigued by the possibilities that this opens up. For you see, I’m not a painter, or a sculptor. I can’t draw, and I’m not particularly experienced as an art critic. I’m a photographer.
One of the things that I’ve come to understand over the last year is how little dialogue there is between the different branches of the visual arts. We might differ in our crafts, but our arts are often so similar. We share the same fascinations with seeing and depicting. With exploring light, texture and colour. Yet we don’t talk to each other.
Worse than that, we hold opinions about the other arts that are often bizarre. There are plenty of photographers around who would dearly love to paint, because that is “real art”, and Karl tells me that there are painters who still feel threatened by photography. This is a divide that never made much sense; has gone on too long; and stops us learning from each other and using that learning to grow our own art.
I’d like to take two examples drawn from recent postings on this blog.
This portrait by Jon Conkey deals with exactly the same issues that I deal with in making a portrait – I don’t mean the technical stuff, but the artistic issues like how to blend depiction with abstraction, what colour palette to use, and where to place the framing. Thinking through the decisions that Jon made has been a valuable exercise for me.
As a second example, these figs could so easily be one of my photos. I don’t mean that they look like they are a photo, but that (I’m guessing) the motivation was the same, the style is very similar, and the thoughts about lighting and background must have worked in a way with which I am familiar.
So, to end this first post, I’m looking forward to the dialogue. If you dip into my blog, or my wider site, there will be lots of stuff that won’t interest you. But I hope that there will also be stuff that does.
Hi Colin, Reading your post got me to thinking about how much I have actually bathed in the sea of culture, and for that matter, how blogging brings many different types of folks together for dialogue. Photography, theater, mathematics, opera, music, dance, literature, printmaking, science, etc., have all been a huge influence on me. Painting is my choice because it has been there from the start, and it allows me the freedom to express myself in any way I see fit, (assuming I can muster the skills to relay this to the viewer); which is where I am at now in my life; trying to raise my skills to a “virtuostic” level, (it is much harder than it first seemed to attain this goal).
Painting is a medium that allows one to express any concept as one’s mind sees it, (not necessarily what is actually there), in a way that others might easily see (how I see it), as well; as opposed to say, mathematics,( or any other discipline where one must have an initiation into the finer points to understand what’s is going on.
Today, I stay in contact with many diverse “artists” of their chosen crafts (listed above). To some degree, I also study in different fields for the shear interest and enlightenment of the topic. Furthermore, I make myself available to be reached by “anyone” who may want to contact or discuss any matter with me. So I am not sure that different disciplines are really not conversing and sharing on a daily basis; like here right now.
There are plenty of photographers around who would dearly love to paint, because that is “real art”, and Karl tells me that there are painters who still feel threatened by photography.
This idea that one form or another is the “real” art has never made any sense to me. The best artists of any age have always used the most advanced technology of their times. Renaissance-era artists had all kinds of grids and other drawing aids. Vermeer used a camera obscura. Late 19th century painters used photographs as reference.
Does anyone here on this blog believe that if Leonardo, or Monet, or (fill in the blank) were alive today they wouldn’t be using cameras and computers in their work?
PS My understanding is that Michelangelo was upset at having to paint the Sistine because painting wasn’t the real art – sculpture was.
Jon,
bathing in the sea of culture is a healthy attitude to growth, and I’m glad to hear you say what you’ve said. I suspect that the participants in A&P are fairly self selected for being interested in the Arts in the widest of senses.
I could name a few people with views to the contrary to yours, but I won’t because that is not really the point. The point is that communication is good, and I’m glad to have joined in the dialogue here.
Colin
Does anyone here on this blog believe that if Leonardo, or Monet, or (fill in the blank) were alive today they wouldn’t be using cameras and computers in their work?
Well, did Monet use camera for his work when he was alive? If so, I think he kept it quiet.
As for Leonardo, I think your are right. But I somehow doubt he would be painting if he were alive today.
David,
I’ve even heard people seriously express the view that early photographers wouldn’t be using digital cameras because that’s not real photography.
I love the story about the Sistine paintings.
Colin
Colin, nice post that captures many of my thoughts about being involved with Art & Perception. I am not a painter, or any of the things you mentioned, and I’m not even a photographer.
My choice of craft is even less accepted in the mainstream art world. I work with fiber and basically I make quilts. Abstract contemporary quilts but none the less they are constructed pretty much the way one would create a traditional bed quilt. The results and goals are not the same as a traditional quilt, and infact the goals are the same as those of an abstract oil painter.
I know that if I wanted to make a living with my art that putting away the sewing machine and picking up a paint brush would be a much smarter move. But I don’t want to paint – I like working with fiber. So I do the work and don’t worry about the market – I know in time it will come.
I used to hang out with the quilt world but I’ve pretty much hit the “glass ceiling” in that world – I get into most of the top quilt/fiber/craft shows but in the end it doesn’t get me very far in the art world.
Nor does it generate much stimulating converstation – I’ve found much of the art quilt world too insular and too tied to the traditional quilt world and all of the “group think” that comes along as baggage. While some of this is of value most of it is not.
But unlike most of my fellow “art quilters” I decided to stop sitting around and complaining about the state of things. Through my blog I have started meeting and interacting with a much broader group of artists and it has been very stimulating and rewarding. And I’m most pleased to have stumbled upon Art and Perception.
Lisa,
Through my blog I have started meeting and interacting with a much broader group of artists and it has been very stimulating and rewarding. And I’m most pleased to have stumbled upon Art and Perception.
Ditto.
Colin
Lisa,
Obviously,if you make a quilt of any kind, people are going to reminded of functional bedspreads. You can hang them on a wall so people can’t use them to sleep under, but it does seems kind of arbitrary. It seems to show that art is nothing special, but merely a matter of presentation.
Many contemporary artworlders will gladly agree with this sentiment, but I suspect they may become uncomfortable nevertheless. A vested interest in fine art remains (and this isn’t necessarily bad). Other viewers, especially those interested in traditional quilting may feel cheated, as if you are trying to raise yourself above your calling.
I don’t mean to dismiss either the craftsmanship or the innovation and abstraction of your work. Its just that its hard for art-minded viewers like me to know how to respond to art quilters. It seems like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too, using a recognizable traditional form, but also wanting to make work on par with abstract painting.
My understanding of the world of “fiber art” suggests that most of the work eschew such tradtional forms (if not their associated techniques).
Re Arthur’s comment on quilts:
I saw an exhibit of quilts that were intended to be wall-hangings, not bed covers. They came in all sizes from very large to very small. I myself made a wall-hanging, hand-sewn appliqué, that I wish I had put on a firmer backing like that characteristic of a quilt. In a week, I will visit my wall-hanging and photograph it.
Thus, in my opinion, quilts can be fiber art.
To master an art form, it is necessary to master the details of material and technique. These are different for each art form, by definition. While necessary, this type of focus seems to be what separates us also. Composition is the key to both painting and photography, but how much do we discuss this together? The use of the camera or paintbrush seems to block cross-talk. At least, this has been my personal experience. This is why I found the interview with Dan Bodner so interesting. He is blurring the boundaries of painting and photography, while making great work. Richard Estes is one of my favorite painters, but in general I don’t like work from photography. Bodner made me realize that good painters can use photography effectively.
As for the fiber art discussion, well, I think that tapestries have been a major art form. Is that not fiber art? Paper is also made from fibers. Arthur, you are a fan of collage. It seems to me that sewing and gluing are both ways of making a collage.
Arthur,
“I don’t mean to dismiss either the craftsmanship or the innovation and abstraction of your work. Its just that its hard for art-minded viewers like me to know how to respond to art quilters. It seems like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too, using a recognizable traditional form, but also wanting to make work on par with abstract painting.”
Why is it hard for “art-minded viewers to know how to respond”? Whether one sees the quilts as simple colours and patterns on a ground, or whether one lets ones imagination run more freely, why are they any different from paint on a canvas, or ink, or silver, on paper? And how is the needle any more traditional than pigment?
Also, what is inherent in any artform that stops it being on a par with any other? If a piece of artwork moves me, then why should I care whether it is fibre based or bronze?
Colin
We will soon have some bronze on Art & Perception. I hope we see some fiber art as well.
Well, did Monet use a camera for his work when he was alive? If so, I think he kept it quiet.
Not that I’m aware of, though his contemporaries did. He was, however, operating right at the edge of then-current scientific knowledge about how the eye (or brain, whatever) mixes adjacent colors. He certainly wasn’t stuck in the past. Keep in mind that his area of inquiry was color perception, and the b&w photography of the time wouldn’t have been much help in that. The contemporary successor to Monet is probably not a plein air painter, but more likely Chuck Close.
…the view that early photographers wouldn’t be using digital cameras because that’s not real photography.
Amusing sort of pecking order. To some painters, photography is too technological to be real art, and to some photographers digital cameras are too technological to be real photography. I guess to some egg tempera painters, oil paint is too technological to be real painting :)
It’s interesting to see how today’s cutting edge becomes tomorrow’s entrenched traditionalism.
PS Hope this goes through. Itried earlier to comment and kept getting Blogger errors
Arthur – you bring up topics that have been hashed and rehashed in the art quilt world over and over again. But more from the angle as to how to get around this bias many people in the art world seem to have.
I don’t have any problems using fiber to create a work of fine art – I forgot to read the rule book that said only paint was acceptable to create such work.
We paint our houses for functional reasons so does that necessarily preclude paint as a medium that can be used to create fine art? Hardly. Just because I can make a quilt to keep me warm doesn’t mean I can’t use the same materials to make a non-functional wall hanging to add beauty or meaning to my world.
If you get down to it many paintings are no more than what many fiber art pieces are today – it’s just a composition on top of a fiber surface. Canvas is nothing more than stretched fiber (well assuming natural composition canvas – today this isn’t necessarily true I suppose).
And if you take it this all a step further (the obvious one) we have Rauschenberg combines. Are those not fine art? And most specifically Bed (which contains a quilt) http://www.moma.org/collection/printable_view.php?object_id=78712. Where do you stop considering it fine art? Where do you draw the line?
And really more importantly – why? Biases in art are hard to argue any more than prejudices in other areas of our lives.
As for the traditional quilter that feels I’m trying to raise myself above my calling? What calling is that? I’m not a traditional quilter looking to warm my children. I’m an artist that chooses to create layered fabric constructions as a way of understanding and interpretting my world. They are 2 different things – just like painting a house and creating an oil painting are 2 different things. I see no reason to compare them just because they use similar materials and tools.
Arthur, I have to agree w/ Lisa on this one. If you haven’t done so already, one day take a drive down to Corning and watch the glassblowers. It’s pretty fascinating. The practitioners are considered fine craftsmen, not fine artists. Then take a look at this website: http://www.chihuly.com/
Chihuly seems to have no trouble convincing the artworld that he’s an artist, not just a craftsman.
I don’t think whether something is art or not depends at all on the materials chosen. It seems to be a matter of innovation, and of context. What category would a urinal belong in?
Obviously,if you make a quilt of any kind, people are going to reminded of functional bedspreads.
Ah, I see. God forbid we should make art that reminds people of functional things.
Well, I thought there might be an interesting discussion here. If y’all are still trying to decide whether art can resemble functional objects, I have several observations for you:
1. That train has left the station long ago.
2. To save you time, the consensus seems to be that things which actually are functional, let alone remind people of functional objects, can be art. This might be a bombshell in the art criticism world but it seems to have caused little ruckus amongst actual practicing artists.
3. If you want a discussion between painters and a photographer, maybe all you painter types could explain to me how John Singer Sargent managed to capture the incredible sense of luminosity of the tent in “A Tent in the Rockies”. I saw it some years back and it blew me right out of my sneakers. Understanding what’s going on in that painting would advance my photographic printing skills by a pretty big margin.
Hi Lisa, Some artists may discover the “hard way” that quilt making is indeed one of the finest arts in the world; after starving trying to sell one’s art, only to realize that they’re now cold, their clothes are worn through, and that their artwork will not keep them warm.
On the other hand, had some patience, dedication, and time been spent learning the “art” of sewing and quilting, those clothes would be mended, they would be able to keep warm, while also being able to helps others do the same. “Maslow” all the way!
Paul,
Lisa makes the point that the functionality/art questions are “topics that have been hashed and rehashed in the art quilt world over and over again.”
A tapestry is a functional artwork, as is a painted amphora. No big news there.
I’d like to hear more on what you think a photographer could learn from a painter, and the other way around also. That is what Colin’s post is about.
Karl-
My wife is a quilter. I’m abundantly aware of just how much energy has been expended hashing over these issues.
Here are the things I try to learn as a landscape photographer by looking at paintings in general, and at landscape paintings in particular.
1. I look at a painting and try to learn something about how to project the experience of being in the landscape and my understanding of it in a visual image.
2. I look at landscape paintings (and other photographers landscape photographs) to learn new (or perhaps ‘new to me’) ways of tackling the various compositional problems that the landscape presents.
3. Expressive photographic printing is often about learning how to allocate the limited resources available to the various problems you’re trying to address. Many of the problems are the same in both photographic printing and in painting: a much more limited brightness range than the original scene, the difficulty of depicting luminous objects in a reflective medium are two simple examples. As a photographer, I look at paintings (like the Sargent I mentioned) to see how those problems are addressed.
Paul,
It’s late (early) here in Holland. I appreciate your comments. I would like to respond another time.
Regards,
Karl
Paul,
A Tent in the Rockies
Oh my, even on a web repro…..look at that light.
Karl,
Pau is asking a genuine question. It would make a great subject for a discussion.
And now it is quite early here in the UK as well.
Colin
Karl, I couple of things come to mind in regards to what a photographer may learn from a painter, and also, what a painter may learn from a photographer.
The painter might learn the art of tone, depth of field, composition structure, and unique lighting solutions.
A photographer might be interested in learning to “push” or “emphasize” certain elements of their photo; namely, to exxagerate reflective lights, enhancing shadows, the effects of gesture in relation to other forms, and perhaps introducing “color vibrations” through artificial manipulations, etc.
Lisa and others,
I realize these topics have been discussed before; it didn’t look like they had been brought up here. Sorry for being tedious.
I realize that paint can be used to cover houses, but painted houses don’t look like “paintings” Art quilts, from what I’ve seen, look like quilts and could function that way. Canvas is of course fabric, but covering it in paint and other materials and stretching it tightly around wooden supports isn’t very cozy.
I am with the contemporary artworlders who believe that art can be made out of anything (yes, even a urinal). Further, I fully agree works of art can resemble functional objects and/or use traditional craft techniques. Moreover, I consider the idea of purely functionless art to be suspect. A work of art can function to bring pleasure or communicate meanings.
All I’m saying is that these biases exist, even when they are an unwelcome distraction. This is why photographers and quilters have trouble in the art world. How can you deny that?
Just because people have prejudices doesn’t mean they are valid. Sure biases exist.
I could choose to let your and other’s biases change how I create my artwork so I “fit in” better. But instead I choose to ignore you and view your objections as irrelevant.
Sure it means that it might be bit harder to make it in the art world (I’m not convinced of this but that’s a topic for later). But so what if it’s harder? At least when I walk into my studio I know I am being true to myself and I love every minute of the process of creating my art.
Unwelcome distraction? Only if I pay attention to you and let you and other nay-sayers derail me. And that just isn’t going to happen.
Lisa, I’m sure you don’t mean to say you want to ignore Arthur in any sense larger than his comments about fiber art above. Arthur has a lot of intelligent things to say and I have learned much from him. Of course, I don’t always agree either. But where would be the fun in that?
I think you have exactly the right approach in following your own direction. You need to believe in what you are doing in your studio. I’m sure if you wanted to say things in a different way, you would do it. You chose this approach for a reason. I hope you will show some of your work here soon.
Paul,
Part of the key to the luminosity in A Tent in the Rockies is the contrast of chromaticity. Inside the tent you see the light through the cloth, it has a warmth because of that. Outside, you have the harsh white reflections, and the cool shadows. If you look at the picture and cover the interior of the tent, then there is nothing special going on. If you cover everything except the interior of the tent, there is also nothing special going on. It is the contrast of the exterior, with the cool white sunlight (and cool bluish shadows lit from the blue sky) against the warm lighting system of the interior.
Now having said this, I then put the picture into grayscale. Some of the power of the image is lost, but not all. The brightness of the cloth, seen from inside, still has a lot of power in itself, aside from the color issues. Outside, we can see the tent is not transparent. But inside we see the effect of a light source that is so strong, it lets light pass through. This causes us to infer a powerful light source, and hence the “feeling” of luminance, of a bright day. So the power of the picture has something also to do with the way it manipulates the perception of the properties of the cloth.
Transparency and translucency are topics of great interest to visual psycho-physicists. It is amazing how much the visual system is able to infer from sparse cues. I hope we can get one of these scientists to show some work here.
Yes Karl, of course my comments were in the context of Arthur’s comments and opinions about quilts as art only.
Transparency and translucency are topics of great interest to visual psycho-physicists. It is amazing how much the visual system is able to infer from sparse cues.
I think you are hitting the nail on the head, here, in terms of what is generally going on. After seeing “Tent in the Rockies”, I went home, and deliberately tried to recreate the effect I was seeing with the painting in prints. I was partly successful, but not to the point where I could generate the effect on demand.
It appears (from my experience) that much depends on the *exact* ratio of luminances from the print – that is, you can get things about right and not get the effect, but when you get it *exactly* right, the print stands up and starts singing.
We are crippled here by the relatively crappy quality of the reproductions of the painting in question, which (trust me) do not hold a candle to the actual painting. I was so stunned by the painting that the security guard had to ask me to move on so that others could see the painting, too.
I would think that deeper understanding of this sort of issue would be important to just about any painter or photographer who prints his/her own work. Yet we see little discussion around this. Why?
I’d also be interested in the motivation and process for landscape painters. How do you select the scene to paint? How does your understanding of the function and structure of the landscape emerge in your work?
I am with the contemporary artworlders believe that…
Ah. You see, right there, that’s the problem.
As a landscape photographer, I am eager to learn from landscape painters.
On the other hand, having watched the ‘contemporary artworlders’, I have to admit that I’m rather unimpressed and expect they have little to offer that I would find useful.
So the question becomes “Is the set of landscape painters a subset of the ‘contemporary artworlders’, or are there landscape painters who are not dead but still not part of the ‘contemporary artworlders’??
Lisa,
To clarify my view further, let me say that I am in no way trying to discourage what you do. Quite the opposite. I was simply trying to describe (and encourage discussion of) biases that can and do exist. I’m sorry if you find this bothersome or tedious. I find it interesting.
Also, I don’t think biases are always just bad. Any coherant view of what art or anything else is or does involves bias.
Also, if you want to convert people who are biased against what you do, it doesn’t necessarily work to just run away and tell yourself that you’re going to do whatever you’re going to.
A lot of fine art people, if they’re being honest, will admit to being biased against the idea of art quilts. I admitted to a slight bias myself, not in a spirit of intolerance or opression, but one of openness and knowledge-seeking. I doubt it benifits your cause to view this as irrelevant.
Its not that I don’t think your quilts are art. Rather, its that they seem marginal to what I customarily think of as art. Again, I apologize, but I suspect you have similar views about some artforms.
Jon,
“The painter might learn the art of tone, depth of field, composition structure, and unique lighting solutions.
A photographer might be interested in learning to “push” or “emphasize” certain elements of their photo; namely, to exxagerate reflective lights, enhancing shadows, the effects of gesture in relation to other forms, and perhaps introducing “color vibrations” through artificial manipulations, etc.”
Before this comment gets lost……..I agree, and I’ll enjoy discussing this with you in the future.
Colin
Arthur – here’s my issue with your comments.
You write this:
“I don’t mean to dismiss either the craftsmanship or the innovation and abstraction of your work. Its just that its hard for art-minded viewers like me to know how to respond to art quilters. It seems like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too, using a recognizable traditional form, but also wanting to make work on par with abstract painting.”
and in the next post you write this:
I am with the contemporary artworlders who believe that art can be made out of anything (yes, even a urinal). Further, I fully agree works of art can resemble functional objects and/or use traditional craft techniques. Moreover, I consider the idea of purely functionless art to be suspect. A work of art can function to bring pleasure or communicate meanings.
And you admit to having a bias specifically against art quilts
“I admitted to a slight bias myself, not in a spirit of intolerance or opression, but one of openness and knowledge-seeking.
…
Its not that I don’t think your quilts are art. Rather, its that they seem marginal to what I customarily think of as art.”
Now if you can consider a urinal art without bias or need to seek knowledge then I question why you need knowledge to accept quilts as art without bias.
I can’t understand your point of view. What categories other than quilts do you have this bias against? And why? Either you accept that anything can be art or you don’t.
I don’t feel it is my job to educate you or anyone else. I make my work – it is there to be viewed and judged as would any other piece of art. Like it or don’t. But I don’t feel I need to justify it any more than an oil painter needs to justify their work.
Just because you can’t accept it doesn’t mean I have to validate that non acceptance with an explanation.
Some of my coworkers don’t accept that a woman belongs in the high tech professional business world either. And I don’t have to acknowledge those opinions with a justification either.
And yes – I do believe that some amount of the non-acceptance of quilts in the art world is an issue of gender bias.
I can’t say if that is your issue or not but I am at a loss for reconciling your different comments.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Lisa,
Your problem seems to be that things have to be in either black or white. Either I’m 100 percent on your side, or else I’m simply an ignorant, intolerant fool, who can thus be safely ignored (perhaps I’m exagerating; I’m writing here in the middle of the night, unable to sleep whilst being eregiously misunderstood). I don’t understand why you seem to feel these are the only options.
As I’ve said, I hold the philosophical position that anything can be a work of art. This is certainly a controversial, debateable position, but I do hold it. Given the almost absurd expanse of contemporary art, it seems futile to go around saying “that’s not art”. Why bother? (I could attempt a more rigorous philosophical argument, were I fully awake. I also reccomend taking a glance through Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, although its a maddening book to read straight through.)
Nevertheless, its one thing to hold this position in the abstract, it another to experience all works of art with psychological equanimity. Being human, I’m more used to identifying certain kinds things as art. I have biases, as does everybody else, whether they care to admit it or not. Anti-art biases of mine include both urinals and quilts alike, among many other things. I have tried to analyze these here.
Does all this mean I’m intolerably intolerant? No. I consider my self highly open-mined, and a tour through my blog should provide ample evidence of this. I’m simply being honest about my limitations, which incidentally are much less than you seem to believe.
You don’t need to “educate” me in the sense of schoolkids being taught ABCs. All I ask for is open dialogue.
I realize all this sounds terrribly overwrought, and I apologize.
And yes – I do believe that some amount of the non-acceptance of quilts in the art world is an issue of gender bias.
I agree, but the whole issue is much more complicated than all anti-quilt bias being direcly traceable to anti-woman bias. Of course, that’s part of the story. Another side of the story is that quilts, being considered traditionally as decorative and/or functional, are thought of typically as a minor artform (fairly or not). Since women have historically been thought of in most cultures as second-class citizens (this is most certainly unfair), they have often been limited to artforms already considered minor. Thus there are two possible and almost certainly overlapping explantions. Is it the chicken or the egg?
My main bias here (again, not nearly as huge as you make it out to be) is against decorative and functional art, rather than the arts associated with women. More precisely, it is against art reminiscent of the above categories when labeled as “fine art”. I’m sorry, but it can be a bit confusing! Since all these categories overap, things do unfortunately get messy.
Plenty of feminists try to reject traditional symbols of femininity: cooking, sewing, quilting. This includes prominent female artists–I think of Lee Krasner or Joan Mitchell wielding an agressive painterly brush. Please understand that I find your choice of a different route to be an admirable one. Its just that automatic approval seems an unrealistic standard
I make my work – it is there to be viewed and judged as would any other piece of art. Like it or don’t. But I don’t feel I need to justify it any more than an oil painter needs to justify their work.
Generally speaking, I don’t find this to be a constructive attitude. Perhaps it works well for you; I can’t say. The truth though is that art doesn’t always speak for itself. This is particularly true in the tribalized artwold of today.
In a world where artists use everything from computers to traditional non-Western techniques, treating even oil painting as a given seems risky.
I try to question both myself and other people on a daily basis. This does lead to occaisonal excesses, but I think its a good way to live.
Lisa and Arthur, (26 October 2006)
You are doing a lot of interesting writing here, but I fear it will not be read by as many people as it deserves to be. I would suggest that one or both of you start a new post, tomorrow or later, and continue the debate there.
Which is not to say that you shouldn’t continue commenting here now, of course.
No Arthur, my point is not that you have to be 100% on my side. I’m not looking for automatic approval. What I’m saying is that for those that don’t approve there is nothing I can do about it except strive to be the best artist I can and continue to present my work to the world.
My point is that you want me to justify my art and have a dialog – what kind of dialog? You already have said that you feel decorative arts are a second class citizen in your mind. You’ve seen and contemplated many such items and you know plenty about the history of art and the theories. What exactly do you think that I can say that will change your mind? I have nothing new to say that you don’t already know. Your objections to quilts and decorative art aren’t about logic and so a logical argument isn’t going to sway you. I think your objections are equivalent to a religious conviction, and that is not something I can’t argue.
I do think if you want a dialog then that dialog needs to be based on you justify your bias. Because in my mind all you have said is “everyone has biases and this is mine”. Well no, I don’t view art that way. Sure there is some art I enjoy more than others but I don’t dismiss entire categories of art as being inferior. I came from a world where decorative arts were the arts and as I got older I began adding more traditional artforms into my vocabulary of art. But so far I have yet to find something that I consider less worthy of being art. I find all of it fascinating and worthy of contemplation on an equal level. I can’t justify your bias by admitting to my own because it’s just not there.
You admit that in theory everything can be art. Plenty of people have no problems accepting quilts as fine art so I’ll take it as a given there is no issue with them living up to some standard.
So there is something about your values, choices, etc that is not allowing you to accept this in practice. I see that a failing on your part to which you need to justify. Not a failing on the side of the art that I need to justify. If you were new to art and had no context for this conversation that would be one thing but you clearly well educated in these arguments.
So the dialog I’d be interested in is you justifying why you feel it’s okay categorize decorative arts as inferior to “fine art”. Why is it okay for you to continue to hold this belief? How do you justify this? Because a lot of other people think the same thing? Because I won’t try to convince you otherwise? What is it you are needing so you can change your mind?
Sorry Karl – I think there is a lot of context in this thread so I’m leaving the discussion here. Maybe we can summarize later in a longer article?
Lisa, please don’t apologize. I regretted my previous comment even before I read your last one.
Please go on, and please continue later in a post as well. You might also want to check out Arthur’s parallel adventures on Paul Butzi’s blog.
This post has been removed by the author.
Lisa,
Yes, I do have some biases against decorative art, probably as do most people, educated or not, who have come under the sway of so-called Western culture. Most significantly, for this argument, I have a bias against work that seems to straddle the line between the decorative and the “fine”. It can be disorienting to see things that challenge your ideas about categories. I don’t think this is a bad thing at all. Its a good thing, but it takes time, effort and (yes, I know, I’m repetitive) dialouge.
Although these are slippery and perhaps artificial categories, I don’t believe they are wholly arbitrary. Paintings often do things we rarely expect of couches and wallpaper. Spending an hour looking at a drawing can be fascinating; spending an hour with a lamp rarely is. Decorative art tends to sink into the background, which is part of its important function. This is a way of saying that my bias has some legitimate basis. Of course, you’re welcome to argue that this is wrongheaded.
Lisa, you have described yourself as a a fine-art quilter with non-traditional concerns. These and other claims seem to indicate that you in fact share my anti-decorative bias, at least to some extent. Then again, it may be a case of “separate but equal”, although that does soiund suspicious. Or perhaps ‘bias’ means something stronger to you than it does to me.
While my bias is not purely logical (I’m not sure that I can make sense of the idea of a purely logical, value-free bias), your characterization of my beliefs as “religious” is way off the mark. A sceptical, blasphemous believer I would be.
Yet again, I would like to stress my open-mindedness, as demonstrated on my blog (where I actually discuss specific works of art). I think the fact that I’m willing to admit to my biases and grapple with them publicly in such a tortured manner is further evidence of this.
Conversely, your own claims of Zen-like evenmindedness strike me as disingenuous. You claim not have biases. I don’t believe you, because I’ve never met anybody like that.
Generally speaking, you’ve greatly exagerated my (yes, admitted) biases and limitations of taste. I resent that.
Perhaps nothing I’ve said here is hitting its mark. Let me conclude by simply saying that I like most of what I’ve seen your work, Lisa, and hope you can overcome the ignorance of those whose prejudices are far more stronger and inflexible than mine.
Respectfully,
Arthur
Arthur, I recently made a very deliberate attempt to step outside of the art quilt world, which is extremely insular. I grew very weary of the constant dialog of “what is art” and “art vs craft” and lot of the other “group think” that came along with that world.
Upon leaving that group behind I challenged them to consider that maybe one of the reasons that fiber is not so widely accepted in the art world is there is a glaring lack of critical writing on the subject. The result of that challenge was the creation of a new effort by a group of committed artists to try to seek out and create such writing and to correct this situation. You can see our beginning effort blog here:
http://artquiltreviews.wordpress.com/
you can read about how this came about on my blog here:
http://blog.lisacall.com/2006/08/critical-reviews-of-art-quilts.html
We have a lot to learn and a long way to go but it is a start.
I believe a dialog is necessary but I also think there is a time and place for that.
I came to A&P as an individual artist not as a spokesperson for all decorative art.
I am not interested in having the grand discussion of can decorative art be on the same level as fine art. I have lived my life as a minority and have had to fight to be accepted every step along the way – life as a female computer scientist is not easy. But I learned that the fastest way to gain acceptance is to not defend my rights and gender but to instead demonstrate my abilities as an individual.
I believe the same model will serve me well in the art world. I’m not looking to prove that the entire art quilt movement is up to the levels of fine art. I am looking to just make my art and show it – my main concern is to me as an individual. I have changed more than one person’s mind about the ‘can a quilt be art question’ by demonstration and so that is the route I will continue to take.
If you want dialog then I would be happy to have a dialog with you about my specific art. I’d recommend you read my blog and participate – that is where that dialog exists.
And with that I am done with this conversation. I have done my best to keep this civil but I believe written word is much too easy to misunderstand and suspect that is happening on both sides and think this isn’t going to go anywhere else constructive at this point.
Lisa, I apologize if I’ve been rude to you.
Interesting. I’ll have to throw down a bookmark and check back.
-EJ