All Art is Work.

[shadetree407]

> I think you might have missed the sarcasm of the comment. :)

 

 

is this a conjecture and if so, rejected as an axiom? :))

[spanky]

Here is a rough excerpt from the book "Art & Fear".

 

There was a ceramics teacher who on the first day of class divided the class into two groups. One group would be graded on the quantity of work. On the last day of class the teacher would bring in a scale and those who made 50lbs of pots would earn an A 40lbs would earn a B and so fourth. The other half of the class however only had to produce one pot. This pot however had to be perfect. On the last day of class a surprising fact emerged. The best pots where produced by the first group. As they made one pot after another they learned what worked for them and what didn't and they refined their skills to suit their needs. The second group only had a mediocre pot each and unfounded theories of what might make a perfect pot. All art is like this.

Thus, there is no thing as perfect art. Art is human, to be human is to make error thus art is error. If one was to make perfect art, they wouldn't be human. Art is work and as long as artists continue to work on their work then they will have all they need to produce their best work.

[wigwam jones]

<p><i>Marc Todd Photo.net Patron, nov 17, 2005; 08:32 p.m.

Here is a rough excerpt from the book "Art & Fear".

</p>

<p>

There was a ceramics teacher who on the first day of class divided the class into two groups. One group would be graded on the quantity of work. On the last day of class the teacher would bring in a scale and those who made 50lbs of pots would earn an A 40lbs would earn a B and so fourth. The other half of the class however only had to produce one pot. This pot however had to be perfect. On the last day of class a surprising fact emerged. The best pots where produced by the first group. As they made one pot after another they learned what worked for them and what didn't and they refined their skills to suit their needs. The second group only had a mediocre pot each and unfounded theories of what might make a perfect pot.

</p></i>

<p>I very much doubt this ever happened. Even if it had, it illustrates that practical, hands-on experience is good - hardly earth-shaking information. Compared to very little or no experience, many repetitions could be assumed to produce better work. Over the course of a lifetime's work - 10,000 photographs versus 100,000? I don't see how this extends.</p>

<p><i>All art is like this.</p></i>

<p>All art is like what?</p>

<p><i>Thus, there is no thing as perfect art. Art is human, to be human is to make error thus art is error.</i></p>

<p>Purest horse-hockey.</p>

<p>Art is indeed human - but some say that certain of the great apes and even some pachyderms make it when given a brush and a zoo to fund. I'll agree that art is only appreciated (as far as we know) by humans.</p>

<p>To be human is to make error? Certainly.</p>

<p>It's the implied 'therefore' that makes your statement nonsense. A is an attribute of B, B often makes C - therefore A equals C. Stuff and nonsense.</p>

<p><i>If one was to make perfect art, they wouldn't be human.</p></i>

<p>But you just said only humans make art.</p>

<p><i>Art is work</p></i>

<p>Unproven conjecture. Art is work for some, perhaps most, certainly not all.</p>

<p><i>and as long as artists continue to work on their work then they will have all they need to produce their best work.</i></p>

<p>Really? So if I want to be a painter, as long as I work on my own, it does not matter that I possess neither brush, paint, or canvas. I "have all I need."</p>

<p>This is that naval-gazing, mantra-chanting, clove-cigarette-smoking hoo-hah I used to hear out of the pimpled mouths of black beret-wearing wannabes back in the day. It's fine to make yourself appear deep if you're trying to shag the birds, but it doesn't actually make any sense, as the dames eventually grok.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Wiggy</p>

[wigwam jones]

<p><i>Thomas Gardner Photo.net Patron, nov 17, 2005; 03:17 p.m.

Wigwam

</p><p>

I think you might have missed the sarcasm of the comment. :)</p></i>

<p>Indeed? I am shocked. To think that there was wit in the vicinity and I failed to wave as it slunk by. I shall have to keep a sharper eye in this vicinity, lest it dribble past again.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Wiggy</p>

[shadetree407]

there once was this fella named wiggey

he had read a good book 'bout miss piggy

he thought he found art

he said 'by golly i'm smart'

then went out and took picture of twiggy

 

 

 

art is work

work is energy expended

it takes energy for an artist to create art

therefore, art is work.

for some it is easy

for others it is not

in both cases, work (mental energy and physical energy too) is still required to produce art

 

way to go wiggy!

[shadetree407]

> I very much doubt this ever happened.

 

you should consult Ted Orland before making conjecture like this.

 

 

>> This is that naval-gazing, mantra-chanting, clove-cigarette-smoking hoo-hah I used to hear out of the pimpled mouths of black beret-wearing wannabes back in the day. It's fine to make yourself appear deep if you're trying to shag the birds, but it doesn't actually make any sense, as the dames eventually grok.

 

 

grovel-grovel.... i bow to your greatness sir wiggy from land o' miss piggy :)

[wigwam jones]

<p><i>lost coyote Photo.net Patron, nov 17, 2005; 10:28 p.m.

</p><p>

art is work work is energy expended it takes energy for an artist to create art therefore, art is work.</p></i>

<p>I agree that the act of creating art expends energy. So does breathing. Is breathing work? By your definition, every activity is work, because every activity expends energy.</p>

<p>But I think we can agree that this is not what was meant in the original post. The premise was that hard work, defined as high output, created the few really remarkable photographs that cause us to praise the photographer as a genius. My answer was, and is, no.</p>

<p>But do go on. Your poetry is fascinating. If you commit a lot of poetry, I suppose you'll become a genius. I am pleased to be your inspiration.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Wiggy</p>

[wigwam jones]

<p><i>lost coyote Photo.net Patron, nov 17, 2005; 10:55 p.m.

> I very much doubt this ever happened.

</p><p>

you should consult Ted Orland before making conjecture like this.

</i></p>

<p>Allow me to rephrase. If I had been a student in said class, and I were one of the members of the 'one-perfect-pot' group, I'd have been quite put out that I had received a low score and a dearth of experience so that my instructor could write a witty <i>bon mot</i> about it later. I don't pay to receive instruction so that I can be someone's lab rat.</p>

<p><i>

>> This is that naval-gazing, mantra-chanting, clove-cigarette-smoking hoo-hah I used to hear out of the pimpled mouths of black beret-wearing wannabes back in the day. It's fine to make yourself appear deep if you're trying to shag the birds, but it doesn't actually make any sense, as the dames eventually grok.

</p><p>

grovel-grovel.... i bow to your greatness sir wiggy from land o' miss piggy :)</p></i>

<p>You're forgiven. Now fetch me something to drink.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Wiggy</p>

[owen_flood]

Just to clarify, my question was raised in order not to question the nature of genius; if we

assume that such people are that but rather to question the whole perception of artistic

process; to question the whole devine inspiration myth. I myself believe that art is work,

purely and simply.

[wigwam jones]

<p><i>

To clarify All Art is Work.<br>

Owen Flood , nov 17, 2005; 11:47 p.m.<br>

Just to clarify, my question was raised in order not to question the nature of genius; if we assume that such people are that but rather to question the whole perception of artistic process; to question the whole devine inspiration myth. I myself believe that art is work, purely and simply.</p></i>

<p>Owen, you did indeed question the nature of genius, explicitly, with the statement <i>"I suppose my question is this, with this sort of output <b>how can anyone be described as a genius,</b> or is the term genius a myth, and those artists labeled genius, are really hard working obsessives."</i></p>

<p>Again, however, you seem to be asking several questions, or rather making several rather vague statements:</p>

<p>1) Question the whole perception of artistic process.</p>

<p>2) Question the whole divine inspiration myth.</p>

<p>3) Art is work.</p>

<p>In the first instance, I don't know what 'artistic process' you're referring to. I was under the impression that there were many. In the second instance, you had not raised any 'divine inspiration myth' until just now, but I haven't given it much thought and therefore have no opinion on the subject. And finally - your question-which-is-actually-a-statment that 'art is work.'</p>

<p>Well, if one adheres to the definition given us by Lost Coyote, work is simply an expenditure of energy. So yes, art is work, and so is breathing and every other human action. If, however, you mean that works of fine art, by photographers widely aclaimed to be geniuses, are actually products of the excessive hard work and prodigious output of their creators, then I would disagree with you yet again.</p>

<p>Showing an example of three hard-working great photographers and positing that therefore all great photographers must be hard-working does not hold up to even casual scrutiny. There are many great photographers who did not have anyting resembling that kind of output. Furthermore, your presumption leads to the supposition that if one wishes to become a great photographer, one must therefore emulate the great photographers and begin burning through film like an art-school student with a grant to make a short film on lesbian nuns of lower elbonia.</p>

<p><i>I myself believe that art is work, purely and simply.</i></p>

<p>Well, that would be your belief. It would be incorrect - or rather, unproven.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Wiggy</p>

[beeman458]

" I myself believe that art is work, purely and simply."

 

Me thinks, in reality, you're questioning the act of being noticed as opposed to the act of putting forth effort to create art and you're questioning the why the noted's were noted; was it for their "genastic" efforts:)

 

For some, rarely, that might be true but for most, it's a case of being accepted in the world of the ruling triad (education, galleries and museums.) Artistic smoozing you might call it. There's also a healty dose of political and religious bias that has to be taken into consideration when you question the roots of one's artistic genius and the willingness of the artistic political structure to recognize this genius. Remember: "Still waters run deep." in the contemporary art world going back to the time between 1820'2 and the 1920's.

 

If you take some time to plow through art history, you'll see what I term "The Politics of Art." and how this artistic political influence affects one's notoriety.

 

Look through all of photographic history of the last hundred years going back to Stieglitz and you'll see the majority of noted's are very well connected. Look at Atget's bio-history of becoming noted and who did the noting. Personally, I can't recall one, that doesn't have some sort of linage of notoriety at their foundation. Even my favorite to "dis", Eggleston, came to NYC in order to become noticed.

 

The point of my above is not to cast aspersions on any one of particularity but to point out that notoriety, in the case of the "art world" is not as much about genius as it is about your ability to sell yourself and maintain yourself in this saleable state by the power brokers, long enough in order to be noticed for what some "might" consider your genius; Szarkowski anybody.

[shadetree407]

> If, however, you mean that works of fine art, by photographers widely aclaimed to be geniuses, are actually products of the excessive hard work and prodigious output of their creators, then I would disagree with you yet again.

 

 

heh heh heh.... so can you offer more than what you find fault in here? that is to say, what do you believe could be said to capture the essense of it takes to produce "works of art"

 

would it be a whole list of things connected with and's and or's?

 

 

 

your drink is on the counter

(lowering leg)

 

:)))))

[shadetree407]

> Look through all of photographic history of the last hundred years going back to Stieglitz and you'll see the majority of noted's are very well connected. Look at Atget's bio-history of becoming noted and who did the noting. Personally, I can't recall one, that doesn't have some sort of linage of notoriety at their foundation.

 

>> The point of my above is not to cast aspersions on any one of particularity but to point out that notoriety, in the case of the "art world" is not as much about genius as it is about your ability to sell yourself and maintain yourself in this saleable state by the power brokers, long enough in order to be noticed for what some "might" consider your genius...

 

 

======

 

* ka-chingo-dingo*

 

 

N E T W O R K I N G is K E Y moreso than Q U A L I T Y and/or Q U A N T I T Y

[but it all still takes work (effort)]

[wigwam jones]

<p><i>lost coyote Photo.net Patron, nov 18, 2005; 01:40 p.m.<br>

> If, however, you mean that works of fine art, by photographers widely aclaimed to be geniuses, are actually products of the excessive hard work and prodigious output of their creators, then I would disagree with you yet again.

</p><p>

heh heh heh.... so can you offer more than what you find fault in here? that is to say, what do you believe could be said to capture the essense of it takes to produce "works of art"

</p></i>

<p>I do not think that any set of words can capture the essence of genius, and I certainly am no judge of what is and is not a 'work of art' other than my own.</p>

<p><i>

would it be a whole list of things connected with and's and or's?

</i></p>

<p>No, I am under no such delusions. There is no formula that I am aware of.</p>

<p><i>your drink is on the counter (lowering leg)</i></p>

<p>Mea culpa, I should have specified that I prefer beer.</p>

[shadetree407]

so then perhaps it is best to delete the word, genius, from our vocabulary?

[h._p.]

I think it would be a marvellous thing to delete the word 'genius'. It's just another of those nonsense words applied without thought by people who can't be bothered to think.

[jhenry]

Art is work? not sure, art is a gift, can be a passion too. you can work on the technique, you can perfect it by learning but without talent you don't get art by only working IMO, you can reproduce existing things at best, but not create art. <br>Not a matter of hours or number of 'clic' the shutter. You can make your art a business, then it becomes a work! but if your art is passion you don't feel working, it's almost a drug...

[shadetree407]

art is a gift?

 

explain....

 

we all have aptitudes, genetic blueprints, dispositions, or whatever you want to call them.... and we either develop them or we do not. if this what you mean by gift or do you mean the more conventional (something the system [an authority] has taught you) "handed down to me through the chimney by god?"

[ben conover]

Gift? BS

 

Look at the facts: China now has 12 million people studying classical piano, probably twice that studying violin.

G.W. Bush has just gone over there bashing his bible about

telling the Chinese they 'need' to embrace other cultures etc.

What's the connection? A Gift is something given to you by Santa Claus, and somehow I don'tthink Bush is playing Santa..........

 

The Chinese have become and are becoming increasingly powerful in many ways, art being one of them. Bush is bargaining with his book but he faces the mountain he never intended to climb.

 

If there is a sensitive and logical answer to your question all art is work? then it is this: Chinese folks are far more able to make wonderful works of art because they work harder at it than most westerners. It comes down to work.

 

Example: I charge a minimum of Euro 10,000 for a 'Cello I make. In China a maker will charge a fraction of that and he will make as good or better a 'Cello than I can make. Reason? he works harder.

It is not up to Bush to exploit his talents by exporting art out of China behind the cover of his bible.

 

If you seriously believe that art is a gift given unto thee by the good Lord above who resides in Texas, then I feel sorry for you.

 

'Bye.

[jhenry]

indeed with work you can master a technique... art is something different, certainly something more subjective, make learning easier and creation of art, some are born with this talent or ability, some can work hard all their life and will never obtain such level of achievement... photography, drawing or music composition are good examples among many other. <p>You can learn piano and music and never become an artist.

[beeman458]

"If you seriously believe that art is a gift given unto thee by the good Lord above who resides in Texas, then I feel sorry for you."

 

A few words to consider in your price comparison of Cellos, "Standard of living."

 

Hi cousin, my son says hi also, coming at you from America.<div></div>

[shadetree407]

some art is inspiration...

 

 

some art is luck...

 

 

some art is being in the right place at the right time...

 

 

(do those 3 sentences work? why or why not?)

[jwd]

<i>Owen Flood , nov 17, 2005; 11:47 p.m.

Just to clarify, my question was raised in order not to question the nature of genius; if we assume that such people are that but rather to question the whole perception of artistic process; to question the whole devine inspiration myth. I myself believe that art is work, purely and simply.</i>

 

You could define art to be work the artisan feels confident enough of to allow it to pass from his possession to another's. This is true regardless of whether you are a creator of fine photographs, fine ceramics, or fine woodwork. In photography I think that there is such a range in the approach and subject matter that it is impossible to compare work "volume" in the sense of the number of shots a person takes. The real production lies in what you ultimately consider finished enough that you don't mind another looking at or using.

 

JD