http://www.moebelsnedkerforeningen.dk/E ... intro.html

English translation further in the page...

Rondo..........love this quote from the link found under "storage"



It always gets back to the build!!!!

Neil

"The proof of the pudding is the eating."

http://www.moebelsnedkerforeningen.dk/E ... homas.html

That is pretty slick. I like the way he solved his clamping problem.

This link is a part of creating that gets lost in the states. We seem to dump on projects like this "Globe" and never think of ....as the builder states the countless enjoyable conversations the project enabled.

Sometimes we just have to loosen up a bit and have fun with our woodworking. Who cares if once in a while we make a piece out of our comfort zone. Could lead to something else.....like half the globe being a lamp shade maybe. I need an approach to a lamp shade.

This initial post comes from the Brazilian living in France who always provides a different and thoughtful view........thanks Rondo!!!

I'm not sure I wholly agree with Neil's (and wouldn't it be boring if we all did) statement "We seem to dump on projects like this 'Globe'...".

In other posts I've tried to explain my problem with understanding the artistic side of projects. I can't tell you what is art but I know it when I see it, as it were. With my other hobby, photography, I've been asked to write artist's statements and I've spent time editing statements and helping to hang exhibitions. To be quite honest, most of what I read in statements is just so much puffery. By vocation, I'm an engineer and that means for most of my waking hours I have to be technical and blunt. Hard to curtail that behavior sometimes.

Because of this I've called what I write an "enthusiast's statement" or "amateur's statement" (not to dredge up discussions of the meaning of the words enthusiast and amateur again). This frees me from the need to write puff and I can just say in plain terms what I want to say.

The 'Globe' project has such a statement. Seeing the picture of his clamping solution for the veneer and a short sentence about using some shaped concrete was plenty of technical detail. And not having to read about saving the penguins (don't get me wrong, I like penguins, they are delicious) as a motivation but instead just wanting to push personal craft/skill boundaries and enjoy the viewer's reactions to the finished product was refreshing.

I don't make objects as wonderful as the 'Globe' (and I may never do so) but one thing that does sort of get to me when people react to things I've made is the comment "You made this?". Sometimes it sounds like a complement and other times it has the ring of disbelief as if the complete statement should have been "How could a bumbling idiot such as you make this?". Either way I suppose it is a conversation starter, wonderful or otherwise.


p.s. the original post caught my attention primarily because I'm in the middle of re-reading Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" series.

(edited for typos)

Hey Rob.....How are you??..... for those who are interested, Rob recommended a very good book to me on this sort of "Artmaking" called Art and Fear by Bayles and Orland.

Rob.....I'm not sure I get where you are going here. I'm a big confused about the mention of "statement" and how you are using it. Can you clarify a bit.

I'm doing well Neil, if not a bit fuzzy headed and overwhelmed these days.

Yeah, maybe not my clearest post ever and it might not get any better...

"statement" as in "Artist's Statement". These are the little blurbs you often see published next to the image/installation. Usually it gives a little bit of information about the piece, inspiration, media and philosophy of the artist. More and more, I've been seeing "statements" that are syntactic garbage and mumbo-jumbo. Pick apart the sentences and you end up with nothing. I could go on about what I see as the state of liberal arts education but I won't (you're welcome).

Anywho, taking the "Globe" piece from the link posted by Rondo, http://www.moebelsnedkerforeningen.dk/E ... homas.html it has an artist's statement to accompany the pictorial (it is labeled CV on the page but it doesn't read as a curriculum vitae, at least to me). This is an example of what I think is a good artist's statement. He gives concise information on the technical aspect of making the globe and spends the balance of the statement discussing, inspirations and how the work affected him and how he perceives its effect on others. The last sentence "(As well as endless wonderful and delightful conversations which this amazing project has generated so far.)" being the best.

My post is trying to make the point that even for such an eclectic piece that has the potential for a fluffy and content-free artist's statement, Mr. Hoyrup did a wonderful job on his statement and an even better job on the piece itself. It is written not to (try and) impress the reader with a bunch of philosophical babble and art-speak but instead lays out in simple form the why and how of the work.

Rob, you are an engineer? How big is the train you drive?

Rob I see where you are going now.



Thanks

Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck...

As a follow up, I now have the feeling he didn't make the piece so much to impress others ("Hey! Look at me, look what I can do!") but more as an elegant bit of sculpture and conversation starter. But I wonder if its role as a conversation starter was conceived at the beginning or came later. I ask this because lots and lots of works of "art" seem to exist only to be jarring and provoke a response.

Compare and contrast "conversation starter" and "provoke a response".

Art has always (and will always be) a reflection of those who make it and the world in which it is made. It could be argued (quite effectively I believe) that the primary reason for art is to provoke (as in cause) a response in the viewer and if a creation fails to do so it is by definition not art. The fact that the response might be negative is not the issue.

Response to an art form tends not to be static. There are many examples of this throughout history.

There was a time when the paintings by the now beloved French impressionists were universally viewed as abominations by those who felt it was their position in life to dictate what art was 'acceptable'.

It is very easy to become complacent, to dismiss the unknown, the unfamiliar, the difficult to understand, but these things are in part what makes life rich, full of all sorts of interesting (even jarring) experiences.

When I wrote "I ask this because lots and lots of works of 'art' seem to exist only to be jarring and provoke a response." I should have also added, "In the same way a child misbehaves solely to attract attention."

Using art to provoke a response where there is a goal of creating a societal change is fine by me. But screaming at the world just for the sake of screaming at the world doesn't feel like art. It just feels like somebody needs a time-out...

The small-scale pieces in the original link are much more contemplative in their nature. A few, like http://www.moebelsnedkerforeningen.dk/Exhibitions/2010%20MP/My%20precious%20The%20proces/Rasmus%20H.html are less contemplative and more whimsical. It is not clear to me if the headphones are adjustable for size but then again, if you are making or having wooden headphones made I suppose a custom fit is in order. Also in my whimsical category would be http://www.moebelsnedkerforeningen.dk/Exhibitions/2010%20MP/My%20precious%20The%20proces/John.html. It puts a slightly silly twist on a more practical object. Oh, and I wouldn't recommend trying to smoke anything from a wild tobacco tree, there is little to no nicotine present and in some cases even more harmful compounds.

As I see it, art is a form of communication. Ideally, the artist should "speak" to the viewer in some fashion, telling some kind of story. It may be a short-short or an epic novel, but if there's no story, it isn't art. At best, it's illustration.

I have yet to go to the web site mentioned, but will do presently, so these comments are generalities.

Furniture can be art if well enough made and embellished. A simple box shaped with shelves will hold the family chinaware as well as the fanciest cabinet ever built, but art it is definitely not. It may be well constructed and sturdy as all get out, but it's not art.

Add a careful selection of wood grain and type, do some tasteful and elegant embellishments, do an exemplary finishing job, and presto! You now have a piece of art. It tells a tale of the love of the wood the maker has. It tells the story of the thought given to sympathetically displaying the chinaware to enhance its appearance without overpowering it. It tells of the respect for tradition of the maker, while not being a slave to the past.

In short, to those who take the time to "read" it, the story is there to be read. That is what makes it "art".

Paul
the opinionated little guy

I have now viewed the web site and I love the globe. The work and research done to arrive at the place he wanted to go was evident. The story he wanted to tell was there to be read, if with much thought on the viewer's part. After all, shouldn't art make us think a bit? The idea that it was his first journey into this medium was even more impressive, both for the courage and the results.

In my humble opinion, it's art, and good art at that.

Paul
the opinionated little guy

Art doesn't have to have a goal in order to be art, in fact a creative work that has a specific goal can be rightfully describe as propaganda.

Art is more of an interaction than some form of 'communication'. There is no requirement nor is it really possible for art to 'tell' the viewer anything. One experiences art. What the viewer 'brings' to this interaction is more determinative of the experience than the artist's intent. Art in a very real sense is a construct of the mind.

Edit: I been intending to actually say something about the original post (all the work appears very well crafted) but the whole notion of 'My precious' is all a bit to much (from several different angles) for me to take seriously (not that I take anything very seriously)...

Looking at the projects, they are all a bit whimisical so not taking them "seriously" but instead as a diversion seems apropriate.

(Now I'm off to scream at world for no particular reason as I wind my way to Orodruin.)

Orodruin?, oh I can see why you are screaming...

I was asked by a friend about when woodworking becomes art. My quick answer was right after the woodworker dies. A more serious consideration led me to think that it is more about whether the object is primarily functional or primarily decorative. Granted that a lot of stuff crosses the lines like Sam Maloof but I think if you primarily designed the object to be looked at and biased your design choice to emphasize form over function you are creating art.

For me personally, I will leave things up to the beholder.

Steve

To adequately define what constitutes 'art' is difficult (if not impossible), however to use a filter of "primarily decorative" to establish what is or is not art is to ignore the vast (and significant) political and social aspects of art. Art is not primarily without function, even if a work is 'purely decorative' then its function is simply that, to decorate.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, to steal from an old phrase. If someone sees it as art, for them it is art. This explains much of Andy Warhol's work I guess. I never saw the art in a Brillo box myself.

Paul
the critical little guy

Saw Steve post last evening this statement brought me back to a quote I've had for 20 or more years.....even typed in Word Perfect for those who remember DOS
This quote by Thomas Benton has hung on a paper clip prominently in all my office locations.

Big T touches on it and JL is absolutely correct about trying to define the term.

Defining art is an ongoing saga that constantly gets redefined. I've always found that the indivdual who is absolute about his definition of art, craft, art vs craft, design, or presently designing art never really took the time to seek an answer. I love these guy who throw around the term "art" as a means to raise the level of who they are when in essence they are expressing frustration, shallowness and lack of study.

JL hits on "decoration" which I always apply to craft and the Decoative Arts wing in a museum. Jl also mentions the social aspect of art followed by Big T giving us Andy Warhol and his pop of print technology into culture.

My bug-a-booh that I've struggled with for years has been when the word "purpose" is used to define art. I've used it, I've totally disregarded for a long time frame, now I'm "re-purposing" , it's always changing.

As usual you guy show thoughtfulness and that's appreciated.

Neil

Salient Warhol fact: he had a successful career as a commercial illustrator prior to his transformation into a Pop artist.
In a nut shell: he was a master of the double-take. The fact that you still have an open question as to the meaning of the Brillo pad boxes simply confirms this. Thus he is a good (perfect?) example of the political and social aspects of art.

Btw art can also incorporate religion which I failed to include in my previous comment.

Religion is probably the biggest propellant of art production over the centuries.



I agree with JL, you have to "experiment" art, just "seeing"
(or another adequate term for music and other forms of art)
it is not enough to get past the bounds of function/décor
or "I would not have it in my living room", etc.

-Ronaldo