art review

[redsage]

A few weeks ago, I was reading SFGate and came across an art review. It was bitchy and catty and scathing, so even though I was unfamiliar with the artist or exhibition in question, I read it. It was funny, and made interesting points about what makes something "art" in the first place. I read it aloud to metaphorge.

A couple of weeks later, I saw a response. Apparently the author had managed to seriously upset a number of readers with his negative review, and he got a lot of angry responses. He wrote a column in reply.

Below the cut you can read the response column. I think it's brave and insightful, and I'm still thinking about it even now a week later. You don't need to read the review to get context, or to know anything about the works of the artist in question. It talks a lot about the nature of art criticism, and what distinguishes art from the merely pretty.


Unfavorable 'Chihuly' review sparks emotions
Kenneth Baker
Sunday, July 27, 2008

My recent review of the exhibition "Chihuly at the de Young" polarized reader response as nothing else I have written for The Chronicle ever has. A torrent of angry e-mails followed, along with a trickle of approving ones.
Because so many of them have points in common and touch on basic critical issues, it seems appropriate - and practical - to reply to them en bloc. So here goes.
Many respondents insisted that they do not need a critic to tell them what art is or how good it is. Most complained that I denied Dale Chihuly's glass works the status of art and have no business doing so.
One sensible reader found a middle path: He agreed with me that Chihuly's baubles do not merit a major museum show, but found it useful to figure out for himself why, through firsthand experience. Yet another, though she deplored my effort to discourage people from seeing the show, described how she came to see the emptiness of Chihuly's work on her own - after three visits.
Critics dream of finding readers as honest and as committed to looking as these.
The detractors are half-right about not needing a critic, but not for the reasons they imagine.
In today's culture, people need not merely critics to tell them what art is, but also artists, curators, art historians, art dealers, collectors - and the viewers' own education and sensibility.
In the consensus as to the art status of a piece or a body of work, each such participant has something to contribute, and each type of contribution has to be valued differently.
The critic owes his readers not reassurance or even judgment, but a point of view, and thus, an example of how a point of view forms.
Hence, my practice of comparing one artist's works with those made by others. Art is made of connections - connections available to any informed observer - not just of materials and good intentions.
The several readers who faulted me for comparing Chihuly's work with his more serious contemporaries' uses of glass misunderstood my purpose: I was looking for redeeming linkages between his work and art - sculpture - of canonical stature, and could find none. No one who wrote to me in his defense mentioned any either.
Some visitors to "Chihuly at the de Young" seem to take the cheery insularity of his work as its strong point. But its disconnection from the main lines of thought around the visual art of the past century places it on the same footing as the luxury items in department stores' home-furnishings sections.
A few readers denigrated Chihuly as "the Thomas Kinkade of sculpture," which even I consider too severe, though I also wish I'd thought of it first.
Most of us would prefer to believe that "art" is a quality inherent in or infused in certain things, but the history of modern art, and of its enveloping social reality, has left us in a much more complex and ambiguous position. Those who refuse to acknowledge this are the very dupes that the culture industry banks on.
Quite a few people found the tone of my review ugly. I agree, which is why I reserve that tone for occasions, such as this one, when I see fraudulence or some other real public disservice afoot. As a practical matter, nothing I or any other critic can say will slow the juggernaut of Chihuly's success. In all likelihood, as experience suggests, such a damning review will bring more people, not fewer, to the exhibition.
I took a caustic tone because I believe, more or less as the poet John Ciardi put it, that we are what we do with our attention.
Every newspaper critic argues that readers ought to spend their attention in some ways and not others. A critic, no matter what his field, must be an expert in the uses of attention and their rewards - in terms of pleasure, expanded insight, challenges to habit and prejudice and much more.
Today art critics also find themselves having to push back against the tendency of many museums to market their programming as entertainment, which inevitably tends toward escapist uses of attention. "Chihuly at the de Young" is a prime example of this sorry cultural drift.
A nice guy

For the information of those who read what I wrote as a personal attack on Chihuly, let me acknowledge that I have met him once, thoroughly prepared to dislike him by the contemptuous attitude of others known to us in common. I was pleasantly surprised to find him down to earth and full of wry humor, even about his own well-piloted good fortune in the market.
One reader seemed to speak unawares for many others when she asked: "If Duchamp's urinal can be art, how can you discount Chihuly?"
Political philosopher Hannah Arendt defined artworks as "thought things," that is, things that materialize thought, things to be thought about and, in rare cases, things to help us think.
Making a statement

Marcel Duchamp's notorious "Fountain" (1917), a mass-produced plumbing fixture turned on its back, signed with a pseudonym and presented as sculpture, proclaimed a fissure between the concept of art and its unambiguous embodiment in objects.
If Duchamp's gesture had found no resonance in the wider situation of culture, his prank would have been forgotten long ago. But the peculiar cultural condition that he diagnosed persists: We still seldom see thought and thing brought together seamlessly outside the realm of mechanical engineering. Artists' struggles with this problem continue to produce bizarre and fantastically various results, some provocative, illuminating and pleasing, most not.
Does the art public need critics, specialists, to help it sort these struggles out? Yes. It truly is a full-time job. Bloggers cannot - at any rate, do not - get it done.
Chihuly does not participate in the struggle I have just described. If he is aware of it, he appears not to care, and so he excuses admirers of his work from knowing or caring. That is his prerogative, but the same cannot be said for the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, which continues to muddy the distinction between education and showmanship.

Comments

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

That'll teach the motherfucker to fuck with Chihuly. //Kidding, mostly.

Mind you, the only Chihuly installation I've seen was at Phipps Conservatory where he was establishing his work in context; specifically a botanical garden. It was amazing.

I have no idea what the review was about, but that show was incredible. Of course, half the work was done by gardeners, but the glass installations where incredible in that environment.

Seriously, it was like I fell into Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Gene Wilder version).

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Well that's kind of the larger issue, something isn't art just because it's pretty to look at, no matter what Juxtapose magazine, or any hipster asthetic fetishist tells you.

A skilled craftsman and an artist are not always the same beast.

I think there's plenty of room for doing things that are just pretty plesant places to spend some time(land scapers, architects, and interior designers do that sort of thing as an example) but I do take exception with comparing that to art. Sometimes these things can be blurred or combined intentionally, but this critic (and generally I dislike professional critics) hits the nail on the head about why a difference when applicable must be observed. This is essentially about art versus commodity.

I think it's also about the role of the artist as stewards of art (and other people who find themselves in a similar position), which is what I believe is being commented on at the end.

Though I would disagree with the idea that it is on some level ok for the artist to be ignorant of, or ignore these issues.

[merovingian.livejournal.com]

>Though I would disagree with the idea that it is on some level ok for the artist to be ignorant of, or ignore these issues.

I would love to hear more! What's wrong with this?

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Because actively discouraging people from thinking critically about themselves, the world, and the relationship between those two things is a bad idea for a wide variety of reasons, especially considering the wide array of economic, enviornmental, and social justice issues confronting the world and people living in it whether those people would like to think about those things or not.


There's plenty of time for chilling out, or goofing off too, I'm not suggesting all art be deadly serious or overtly political, or that you have to be hardcore with it 100% of the time, but I am saying as an artist you have responsibility toward your art and toward what art is/can be whether you want that responsibility or not.

Also you may find this interesting:

http://www.openmagazine.co.uk/performance/exclusive-john-harrigan.htm

Since it adresses many of these same issues.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

At the same time, a lot of abstract art addresses many of these issues in an indirect way. It's fairly easy to come up with a cultural critique of representational or narrative art, but a lot harder with abstract art. Where do we classify Mondrian or Pollack in all of this?

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Most abstract art requires an education to appreciate it I agree. I hated it until I went to art school. In many ways I think this is more at the heart of an art for experts (or at least dedicated amateurs) versus art for the people.

One way we can classify it is by the context the artist put it in. Now if the case wants to be made that it's the same with Chihuly (I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other), that's another issue, but I do think that as an artist if you make the choice to be abstract or obscure your motivations and context there is a penalty that may have to be paid for that and this kind of a debate is sometimes that penalty.

Considering the art vs craftsman angle of this debate I found this article sort of amusing:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/visualart/266884_dalelawsuit17.html

This is also an issue that in some ways is more about artistic process than art, for example my mother does not (as I do) struggle to reconcile her enjoyment of some avante gaurd art with a belief that it's also fairly self indulgent and often so isolating and cliquish that it risks not serving the function I feel good art must which is to communicate something about the world and our place in it..the roles of truth and beauty even if that truth or beauty is hard to witness, or is painful.

And the reason for that is I think that as an artist I have a reverance for the artistic process as well as art, but at the end of the day it is my own belief that art is more important than the people who create it.

[merovingian.livejournal.com]

Interesting!

So I think you're saying that artists in general have a responsibility to make their work with an awareness of what's happening in the field as a whole, and that if something is made without that responsibility, it may be entertainment but doesn't really qualify as art.

Would you say this responsibility apply only to non-performing fine arts, or do other media bear the responsibility as well?

(I'm wondering about, for instance: music, theatre, literature, and perhaps some fields that are less agreed-upon as art like cuisine, fashion, and architecture.)

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"So I think you're saying that artists in general have a responsibility to make their work with an awareness of what's happening in the field as a whole, and that if something is made without that responsibility, it may be entertainment but doesn't really qualify as art."

I don't think they need to be an expert, but they should be somewhat familiar with it. Great writer's are typically voracious readers and I don't think that's a coincidence. For me I wonder too how do you become a writer or a painter, or a muscician unless you love and therefore are familiar to some extent with them. When I took sculpture classes in art school part of that was a broad stroke introduction to sculpture, because as my teacher said even at an introductory level you need to be baically familiar to understand how sculpture works.

And I will admit in theory it is possible to produce art despite being ignorant of your field, especially if you are producing works that relate to the human experience, but if your works are devoid of both a connection to your field and to the world at large the case in my mind is pretty hard to make that it's something more than entertainment.

I also have to say in some ways I agree with something Graham Greene said about the books you read as an adult not influencing you. I think it's a weird middleground. As a writer it's not my job to write something that is a response to say Lolita, but it is my exposure to literaure especially as a child and teenager that gave me the tools I needed to start to serve art in the first place. I'm more influenced by Madeleine L'Engle than I am by books I read now. So in that sense what I write may not be tracable to Nabokov in any way, even though I'm familiar with his work. I suspect that would hold true despite the medium.

"Would you say this responsibility apply only to non-performing fine arts, or do other media bear the responsibility as well?"

I think it applies across the board, but also as I said above I think there is wiggle room so long as you are creating something that is demonstrably something other than entertainment or something pretty to look at.

"cuisine, fashion, and architecture"

Here I don't have anywhere near enough of a familiarity to feel comfortable isuing an opinion on how it might or might not apply.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Also, since it's interesting to me, I find that I am at times influenced by what some writers say about writing, even if not by their novels.

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

I take exception to denying the status of art to a claimant. There are no gatekeepers, no guardians at the gates of art-hood. People may try and bar the doors to the temple of art, but they suddenly find that people have simply built another temple down the street and have taken to ignoring them.

If someone, anyone, says it's art- it must be. That doesn't mean that it's good art, or particularly valuable as art, or even vaguely interesting by any stretch. But the status of art-hood is established by the claimant, not the would-be gatekeepers.

I'll admit, I'm a "pretty to look at" artist. I've got my mediocre photography with a sharp eye and a dilettante's technique. I've got my programming, which- when I'm really in it- takes on the character of art.

This is not to absolve the artist from having to accept critique. ONce you slap the label "art" on something, you have now opened yourself to artistic critique. Art should communicate. What are you communicating? Is the message meaningful and pertinent? Is it clearly expressed? Does it move the audience in some way? Does that movement convey the message? Could it express the same idea more clearly or simply?

As I said in my original comment, walking through Phipps with Chihouly's work, I was transported to an entirely different world. There was a cohesive logic and internal motion that moved beyond merely being aesthetically pleasing and into experiential mind bending (although the Thai room's neons were less than impressive; the Miami Vice look and feel spoiled the mood in that room).

As I said- I haven't seen the show in question. But, if someone says it's art- it's art. Whether or not it's good art- that's debatable.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"I take exception to denying the status of art to a claimant."

As an artist I take exception to the idea that everything and everyone gets to be validated as art and as an artist just because they would like to be.

"Barely Legal Anal Gang Bang 25" doesn't get to be art in my world no matter how badly someone wants it to be recognnized as such. Similarly someone who produces recreations of other people's art and sells them is a craftsman perhaps, but not an artist.

I will agree that you can have a od art vs bad art debate, but I don't think it's the same debate as is this art or not?

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"will agree that you can have a od art vs bad "

*good vs bad

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

You've got too options: you either need to have an objective verifiable definition of "art", or you have to open it up to any claimant. Since no one has ever really established an objective criteria that's gained broad acceptance, I swing the other way.

If you can propose an objective test as to what is, or is not, art, then maybe we can move forward. It's not enough to be able to establish what isn't art- there needs to be a test to establish what is.

If you've got such an objective test, let's hear it. Otherwise, I'm sticking with the "If someone says it is, it is."

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Just because there isn't an objective standard for art doesn't mean I personally have to default to letting everything be art.


It's an odd line of logic actually too considering the field best known for objective science swings the other way...if you can't prove your claim it's not true. Merely claiming it doesn't count.

But while we're on the subject many people have proposed and adopted standards for what is art, that's in part, part of the reason there are art critics and art movements. The idea that everything must be universal on a binary scale it to be honest off putting to me.

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

Saying nothing is art is the same as saying everything is art. The label quickly becomes meaningless in either case. The difference between this and science is that science deals with observed phenomenon, art is strictly constructed. Art only exists because humans say X is art and Y is not. Without humans, there would be no art. Gravity would continue to operate regardless.

The problem is that it's a binary proposition. It is either art or it isn't. It can't be a little bit art any more than I can get my wife a little bit pregnant. A few hundred years ago, it was probably a simpler question, I'll grant that. A movie poster, alone, is probably not art. A movie poster recontextualized as found-object installation is. But then, in that case- the poster isn't the art, the context is. By saying that it's art, it becomes art.

In the absence of an objective definition, we have only subjective definitions. If we allow subjective definitions, then anybody's opinion on the matter is as good as anyone else's. Critics are nothing more than people with popular opinions. That doesn't make them "right" (unless they're critiquing on technique, which is objective).

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"Gravity would continue to operate regardless."


Prove it ;)

"Art only exists because humans say X is art and Y is not."

Then by your logic if art exists we can say something is not art.

"It is either art or it isn't."

I agree.
But what gets to be art is still a valid thing to discuss, even if we never see eye to eye on the answer.

"the poster isn't the art, the context is. By saying that it's art, it becomes art."

No the new context in theory makes it art, not someone saying "look this is art"

"we have only subjective definitions"

And this is a problem because?

"If we allow subjective definitions, then anybody's opinion on the matter is as good as anyone else's. "

Maybe if you're a postmodernist. Otherwise you can agree on some general terms and argue over the rest. Opinion/theories/movements whose logic and execution demonstrate that they have merit, are developed to the point of being a standard which can be applied even by people who don't like /agree with it are better than ones that can't/don't.

You can hate Dali and know why he was a surrealist and it wasn't;t just because some said it was so.

On the other hand if I tell you I'm a dgbiffidist and define it as something you either get or don't, my definition is not as good as the definition of surrealism.

"Critics are nothing more than people with popular opinions. That doesn't make them "right""

What about artists who have critical views of art or artists?

"unless they're critiquing on technique, which is objective"

Is it? Then why did Van Gogh have to wait so long to be recognized as a master? Once you have a defined category like impressionism you can critique an artist technique in that milieu but it doesn't make the master's technique objectively better than the master of another discipline's technique.

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

If you agree that art is binary, it's unfair to bitch about people demanding it be treated as binary. I didn't invent the concept, and I'm not entirely sure in exists in any verifiable fashion. But I'm the generous sort- I'm willing to, in the face of vague and ill-defined definitions allow the word to apply to anything that somebody wants to apply it to.

Dali was a surrealist because someone said so. More specifically, there is a well accepted (and mostly objective) standard of what constitutes surrealism and what doesn't. So is the case with cubism, futurism, classicism, etc. These definitions are made up, but broadly standardized. There are clear classifications that define them and separate them from others. It's pretty clear what the difference between a pre-Raphaelite and a cubist work is.

I'm arguing that "art" is far more poorly defined. While I can cubbyhole one school vs. another, it's a far more daunting task to cubbyhole art vs. not-art. Science vs. non-science is far easier- science has a very specific definition of what is and is not science. It's an explicit method for doing something.

Your definition of dgbiffidist is neither better nor worst as the definition of surrealism. But it offers far less utility. I can discuss the details of Star Trek technology until even the staunchest nerd would surrender, but that has very little utility to the outside world. I hesitate to apply "good" or "bad" on it because those require a context- good for what?

As for Van Gogh- he wasn't a master until he was recognized as such. He was one of the lead innovators of a technique, so by the standards of critique available at the time- he was awful. But when the technique received recognition, it became broadly accepted and the details of good impressionistic work became codified and testable.

It's pointless to say that Mucha was a horrible cubist. That has nothing to do with whether or not his work is art.

[merovingian.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the Chihuly show, but I've been planning to do so and it looks pretty exciting and fun. It may be that I'll end up having WRONG BAD FUN and enjoying DISAPPROVED ART, but I'm prepared to take that risk.

I am always suspicious of people who argue for the relevance of their expertise and position. I'd say the burden of proof is on the person making that claim, to prove their usefulness to others, rather than just demand it.

This art critic seems to be saying that people can't, or perhaps *shouldn't*, consume art, without experts to provide context.

I think the writer is saying "This is fluff, not art." I'm not sure I agree with the distinction.

This may signal a greater schism between "art for experts" and "art for laypeople," and I suppose the same thing has happened in other forms of art in the past century: music and theatre, most obviously. Maybe it's hit the museum too.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

I think it's part of the great "what is art?" debate. For a long time, various people have debated the difference between "surface" and "substance" and whether there's a difference at all, and in what combination they should be approved.

I think part of the critique is about putting this exhibition in the museum - a museum creates an intellectual context for art that doesn't necessarily exist if you buy it and display it at home, or even show it in a gallery. By putting art in a museum, you're saying it has significant cultural relevance and joins the greater social "body of art" - in effect, the museum legitimizes and authorizes art as being a part of a certain class of works. The whole reason we have museums of "modern art" is because the very context of a museum evokes the idea of classical art.

It may be that Chihuly would be better suited for a museum of modern art, or a postmodern gallery that takes less issue with a perceived distinction between surface and substance.

[merovingian.livejournal.com]

Oh! An objection to the decision of the museum to add popular entertainment is an interesting and defensible one.

[merovingian.livejournal.com]

I think I'm still all about the bazaar instead of the cathedral (if you're familiar with the metaphor, which is generally applied to software), even in museums, but I'm not sure. That definitely merits thought.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

When your art goes for as much a 10k for a piece you aren't making art for the people, you're aking it for people in love with the idea of being an artist and in love with art subculture.

I don't necessarily fault him for taking the 10 large either, but let's be honest.

It may be pretty and fun, that doesn't mean it's also art. Somethings can just be entertainment.

[elf]

Replying *before* I go look at the Chihuly page, so that I know I'm discussing abstracts rather than this particular situation.

I'm not sure I agree that "just plain entertainment" is not, or cannot be, art. That "pretty" isn't a form of "meaningful."

I do believe we're going to have to rethink a whole lot of concepts around "art," because most of them were created in a setting of scarcity: art included the concept of /unique/, and between easy copies and mathematical formulas arranged aesthetically (fractals) and various forms of digital reproduction, that's being seriously challenged. If a stained glass window is art, is it less art if the same shapes and colors are printed on clear plastic and placed in a window? Is a fractal run through Photoshop's "stained glass" filter, and then printed, not art?

And so on. The issue of how much & what kind of human attention is required to make something "art" needs some new considerations, along with the ongoing issue of "who's qualified to decide if something is really art?"

*now I'll go look at the glasswork, 'cos art or not, I like the pretties.*

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I think art can be entertaining and pretty, but I don't think entertainment and pretty get to be art by default.

I don't think form alone constitures art so whether a photoshop piece is art or not depends on more than just the fact that it's photoshop and was made quickly or that it can be easily mass produced.

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I follow- is design for mass production not art? Because a big swath of 20th century art would like to argue that point.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Again, it depends on the example, and the reasoning.

I don't recognize advertising as art as an example, though it typically involves graphic design and mass production.

Moreover there are many artists and movements I disagree with, that's part of the beauty of art imo.

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

Well, I can't think of an artist or a movement that I agree with. But then again, I can't think of much that I agree with.

[chaoflux23.livejournal.com]

I saw a documentary about this guy when I was on acid, many years ago.

My friend walked in and it was during a scene where he was like riding on a boat in venice, but like right on the tip with his feet almost in the water. Plus the guy has an eyepatch.

All I could muster to say I think was something like, "No, it doesn't end at the eyepatch..."

^_^

[hel]

Knowing nothing about the artist he's reviewing, it seems to me the reviewer's argument is 'His stuff isn't like the stuff other people are doing right now or have done, and it doesn't speak to me/I don't get it, so it must not be art!' I find that argument to be so clearly ridiculous that its ridiculousness doesn't need to be expounded upon.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

Look up pictures of Chihuly's work. He's a glass sculptor known for installations of cool looking class things.

http://www.chihuly.com/

Whether or not you like his stuff, I think it's a valid critique to say that it is pretty craft and not art (not sure I agree, but I can see where the opinion comes from).

[otherwise-nyc.livejournal.com]

I don't understand the distinction between "pretty craft" and "art," particularly not in the case of someone who works in large forms like Chihuly. In fact, I find it kind of offensive that this critic gets to decide what's culturally relevant "enough" to count as art. I agree that we (as a culture) look to experts to do that defining for us -- but the museum, in curating the exhibition, calls it art and puts it on display for the public. *They* think it is art, and not "just" craft.

I'll have to think about this some more. Thanks for pointing out the article. And good luck with the moving!

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"I find it kind of offensive that this critic gets to decide what's culturally relevant "enough" to count as art."

Well....he doesn't. But he does get to voice his opinion, and because he's a pro people might trust him, but I'm sure somewhere out there is another pro art critic who gets all tingly over Chihuly's work, and just because their view is positive, is that somehow less offensive? I mean it's still a pro telling you why something should count as art.

"but the museum, in curating the exhibition, calls it art and puts it on display for the public. *They* think it is art, and not "just" craft. "

Or...and this is really the meat of the issue, they think it will bring in money to the museum, it's artistic merit is a distand secondary concern if it's a concern at all.

You know, Brittney Spears probably makes more money than Robert Johnson ever did but I will be pretty upset if I ever see that become the basis of her music having the same or more artistic merit than Robert Johnson's music.

I'm pretty sure Transformers The movie made more money Kurosawa's Dreams but I don't think that means it's art.

And while it's certainly debatable if Chihuly is only a money making enertainment machine, considering the state of art and the world examining these issues is fairly important.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I didn't get that...though it may have been what he was saying.

Using hardcore punk (the first real art movement I was exposed to)as an example..yeah it was derided as just noise or being technically basic, but it was for better or worse a response to trends in rock music, the culture surrounding that kind of art, and a response to the society in which it was all being created.

If someone is making shit that doesn't relate to anything be it work in that medium by others, (whether its pro or trangressive in its stance) or to enviornment in which it's created it is simply just spectacle.

[zare-k.livejournal.com]

I heard about this a while ago and wondered what all the fuss was about. Yeowch!
As it happens I enjoy Chihuly's work quite a bit. It's aesthetically interesting and fun to look at.

If one holds that there is in fact a dividing line between "art" and "artist" versus "craft" and "artisan" then yes, perhaps Chihuly's glass is more craft than art. It does not necessarily challenge the viewer or attempt to capture a complex emotional state in the same way as work by, oh, Picasso or Kahlo.

Personally, I don't hold that there is a clear line between Art and Craft. At the core, art to me is that which is aesthetically interesting and made with careful intent, and that can encompass craftwork-- but then, I am not an artist. However, even if one does hold that there is such a bright line that does not necessarily mean we should run Chihuly out of town (or out of the museums). A still life with fruit is nominally unchallenging and hardly a unique idea, but we certainly see plenty of them in museums and have no particular trouble calling them art.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

Here's the original review. It's extremely bitchy.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/05/DD9811I6MN.DTL

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

But also kind of funny.

[elnigma.livejournal.com]

Chihuly's stuff is good enough it gets critiques saying "its not art" from the art elite. If it was a silly plastic Jesus thrown in urine, it'd get rave reviews.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Do you equate technical difficulty with artistic value?

[elnigma.livejournal.com]

There can be a relationship. I think someone with some technical ability and skills is probably going to make better art.

[criollo.livejournal.com]

I'm so pleased you posted this. I'd given up on the Chron (aside from Chris Colin) so I'm happy (and surprised) to read anything not slaveringly worshipful of The Gav-pals and/Wilsey. Re: Chihuly, yes, he is all the bad things people say about him (eg "crabby bossypants"), and he does not (and has not for decades) actually blown any of the works himself. That's my big issue with him. afa "decorative arts" vs "fine arts", for me the question is, "Is this about an Idea that's challenging the status quo and/or sharing the artists quest for an ideal other than pure profit?". An Arts & Crafts clock may have been sold in the Gumps of 1912, but it was there as a challenge to machine-made junky crap. Does Chihuly's stuff move people in the way that "Great Art Should"? Maybe, maybe not. If someone can see god in a blade of grass, maybe they can see it in an oversized paperweight. It doesn't move me personally, but if they want to shove crap into that hideous sandcrawler (the DeYoung) and it will fund actual good (and less profitable) exhibitions at the Legion, ok.

[box3.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Distinctions between art and craft make my eyes glaze over. It's a demarcation based on class. Not sure why entertainment and art needs to be mutually exclusive either.