Another one where you need to be sitting down ...

[AJB Temple]

Interesting thread.

I think anything can be art. It is all about viewpoint. Things do not need to be complex or ornate to be beautiful. Simplicity is also beautiful.

It so happens that I have quite a few Japanese artisan made chef's knives, bought mainly on my various trips to Japan. I love the cultured simplicity of form, but immense skill of creation. I revere some but use them all.

Quality will always come to the fore in the end. Price is just a set of tokens.

 

[D_W]

Read a little bit more about Jim Leamy over lunch. He had several careers before making planes (dismantling bombs for 30 years, then in retail furniture repair - not sure what the means, but he lives in an area with an unbelievable amount of furniture making, new and old, as well as a lot of old furniture that would need repair. The retail part is confusing, though, as he doesn't live in a large city. There are some aggregating shops around there that just buy furniture from the amish and resell it - mostly to tourists - I guess one of those places could be it....doesn't matter, I guess).

Anyway, the article said his planes go from a couple of thousand to $20K. It also sounded like some of these were planes he made because he wanted to make them (perhaps for himself), and this plane was mentioned as one that he toyed with making for years. The articles all look to be from 2002 to about 5 years ago. If he made this plane and sold it to someone else, they didn't have it long (long enough for the artificial ivory to yellow, but I don't think that takes long).

Slowly getting to the point. It could very well be on consignment from him, as I don't see that he's still making planes.

Edit: still looking further, I see someone else owns the same plane and said he made five of them, so no clue. I can't imagine that his charge would've been too much less than the price from Jim Bode, but it does seem like the kind of thing you could buy for $14k (from the maker himself) and then not find a buyer for $5k.

Since the amount of real ivory is not significant, I could be wrong and have those numbers flip flopped if he made 5 of them.

His website domain has been taken over by squatters offering wedding planning.

Barrett (another maker, but I think canadian) also looks to have quit, maybe long ago. They made more pedestrian planes than Jim Leamy did.

 

[Andy Kev.]

I've been mulling over a couple of the ideas expressed so far on this thread. I think the most astounding one was Derek reporting that there are people who think that LN planes are too expensive to be used. I imagine that that is a minority view of a very few collectors. How many folk on here would take that approach to LN planes?

IMO the bottom line is that any manufactured object has an aesthetic value and that value can of course range from "utter rubbish" to "beautiful beyond words". LN planes are certainly not ugly but I think that those from Clifton are more aesthetically satsifying. However, I imagine that in the overwhelming majority of cases both are bought to be used.

The Bridge City planes, rather like the Karl Holtey ones, seem to be highly functional and to represent an attempt to outperform the competition which means they are designed to be used. Along with that they have developed an aesthetic which one can imagine being seductive to people who collect without having any Intention of using. That said, would you buy e.g. a smoother from either of these manufacturers without intending to use it? They are particularly expensive but they don't look particularly fragile. Veritas planes also have their own distinctive look but would we consider them as anything other than users?

The other comment that I found interesting is AJB Temple's "anything can be art". I don't agree with that but I can see how the notion has emerged: if bluffers like Damien Hurst, Tracey Emin etc. couldn't call the nonsense which they produce art, they would be lost for making a living from the exceedingly gullible but in discussing that sort of thing we are at the Emperor's New Clothes end of the art world.

I think that at the root of all this is the lack of a generally accepted definition of art. In an attempt to counter this, I'd offer the following: a work of art must communicate an idea to an averagely intelligent viewer. If it doesn't, it is either abstract e.g. abstract paintings and instrumental music (note: abstract does not necessarily mean unstructured) or it is a piece of design, something which includes decorative artistry e.g. carvings around the edge of a cabinet or it is a failure as a work of art.

What the above means in terms of tools is that the decorative artistry and/or aesthetic which stems from the design can be much more to the fore in some makers than in others. The overriding criteria according to which tools must be judged must surely be performance. Everything else has to be a bonus. I would even go so far as to suggest that before a manufacturer starts to get decorative, he is almost morally obliged to have got the performance sorted out. If you accept my suggestion of art as necessarily involving the communication of an idea, then we can happily agree that a tool, however aesthetically pleasing any artistry/aesthetic features it possesses are, can never be regarded as a work of art.

 

[AndyT]

Your approach is a popular one, so I think many people would like it to be true. However, I suggest that the only logical definition of art is "whatever is used as art" ie by separating it from the other stuff in the world and presenting it for contemplation.
So, a plane ( or bed, or shark, or urinal) set up in a gallery is art. Your plane or mine, in a workshop, isn't.

The distinction matters since art objects acquire a monetary value unrelated to their cost of production.

 

[Andy Kev.]

I understand what you're saying but there's a case which sort of pulls the rug from under it. Apparently there was an exhibition (possibly at Tate Modern) and there was the usual nibbles and drinks party on the opening night (the day before us oiks would have been able to get in) and a group of luvvy darling cognoscenti were gathered around and excitedly discussing the artistic and social significance of a pair of wellies bisecting the angle of and pointing into a corner of the exhibition room. The discussion was extensive and explored every possible meaning of the exhibit up to the point where a workman, who had been working in another room, came in, saw the boots and said, "Oh that's where I left my wellies" and took them.

Needless to say, I don't accept the shark or urinal as art: they are literally no more than objects plonked in a gallery, which in itself confers no quality on them and of course they fail the communication test. The bed, on the other hand, was IMO a lazy, bad and vaguely tacky attempt at art.

 

[StraightOffTheArk]

Your approach is a popular one, so I think many people would like it to be true. However, I suggest that the only logical definition of art is "whatever is used as art" ie by separating it from the other stuff in the world and presenting it for contemplation.
So, a plane ( or bed, or shark, or urinal) set up in a gallery is art. Your plane or mine, in a workshop, isn't.

The distinction matters since art objects acquire a monetary value unrelated to their cost of production.

Absolutely agree with this - I think the phrases 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and 'One man's meat is another man's poison' are very apt. Eg Someone may think the music I listen to is utter rubbish, they may be able to make long and intellectually sound arguments that uphold their opinion, but I will still enjoy and appreciate that music, and prefer it to their choice. Who is right? Who cares?!

Tara a bit,

SOTA

 

[Andy Kev.]

I accept all that in principle. However, the art world starts to get my back up when taxpayers' money is involved. Art is a bit like politics and crime in that nobody was ever forced into it and there seems to be an endless supply of volunteers. And everybody likes some kind of art. However, when we the tax paying public are called upon to fund this hobby (and art is ultimately a hobby), be it in terms of buying old masters for the nation or paying for public art or paying the salaries of Arts Council grandees etc. etc. then it seems to me that it has to be subject to some sort of quality control in much the same way as we would in any other area of public spending. The argument that "anything you want is art" is a great way of getting bluffers off the hook of accountability.

 

[AndyT]

Indeed. Not all art is interesting, satisfying to look at, or worth the purchase price - but sorting out which art is "good" becomes an exercise in gathering opinions.

Doesn't the art market work by persuading others to agree with the opinions/taste of "experts"?

 

[Andy Kev.]

I don't think the art market matters too much. How much money individuals are prepared to pay for any kind of art is their business. It seems to me that the problems start when art becomes public and I think that the key problem is the lack of sensible public accountability. There was an article a few weeks ago in (if I remember aright) The Spectator which described how the Arts Council has almost no intention of working for the public but rather attempts in a patronising sort of way to offer "challenging" works i.e. stuff no normal person would be remotely interested in. I'd like to see public art purchases involve some sort of equivalent of jury service so that the luvvies are outnumbered by members of the tax paying public.

 

[StraightOffTheArk]

The other way of looking at it is that public funded bodies have a duty to fund good art that would not otherwise be made - of course there is a problem with defining 'good' and also, of course, there should be an attempt to educate the public to appreciate 'good' art. I listen to radio 3, it is publicly funded but only a small minority of the public listen to it - also, I really like the more contemporary composers, you know, disjointed plinkety plonk with lots of dissonance and no tonal centre - most people would hardly regard it as music and without public subsidy the audience base would shrink so that only the very wealthy elite would have access to some of the most exquisite music of this and the last century. So, I think that the major failing of the publicly funded art, is the failure to ensure an education to enable an appreciation of it - good art requires effort to understand as well as to make.

Tara a bit,

SOTA

 

[Tasky]

So, I think that the major failing of the publicly funded art, is the failure to ensure an education to enable an appreciation of it - good art requires effort to understand as well as to make.

I disagree.
Art is basically a range of works in different media, expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual idea, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
In order for that to happen, the message in that expression must be clear.

I've been at a friend's gallery exhibition before and listened to all the poncey arty-farty types wittering on about what the artist is "clearly expressing" in this piece, spouting all the overly florid claptrap that you'd think such folk only utter in comedy films... You know the dung - "Exemplary angst concerning his destitute father", "iconicity of the negative space endangers the devious simplicity of the remarkable handling of light", "menacing/playful because of the way the subaqueous qualities of the biomorphic forms makes resonant the essentially transitional quality".... But they really were talking absolute twaddle.
The kicker came when the artist himself stepped up and said, "Actually I just painted the view out of my back window, because it was pretty"!!

It's like food at a Michelin starred restaurant - It could be as fancy and technical as you like, the ultimate culinary expression of mankind's dichotomy of the postmodernist society..... but if the average person doesn't think it tastes good, or has to have the concept behind it explained to them, then it has failed as art.

 

[AndyT]

I do think that one of the great strengths of this forum is the range of experience and knowledge of the members, united by the love of making stuff. =D>

 

[ED65]

So, I think that the major failing of the publicly funded art, is the failure to ensure an education to enable an appreciation of it - good art requires effort to understand as well as to make.

I disagree.
Art is basically a range of works in different media, expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual idea, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
In order for that to happen, the message in that expression must be clear.

While I completely agree about Arty B*llocks, whether from a critic or the artist themselves, the fact is some works do need contextualising.

I used to hold with the basic sentiment that art should speak for itself but it's too simplistic a view. That's not to say a work, in any media, shouldn't have merits that are obvious to the majority viewing the thing (IMO they should have other merits, especially for me good craftsmanship although this view is far from universal in art circles) but the intended meaning can be multi-layered, too subtle to immediately notice or require a specific cultural knowledge that only those from the artist's country/ethnicity/social background would pick up on. So it's a bit much to expect every viewer to get what an artist is getting across.

And it is true that a great many works of art, including many greats, that are now or have been widely admired by the public are appreciated without realising why they were painted, their true meaning or the original motivation of the painter.

Examples include: the painting popularly known as "The Night Watch" by Rembrandt (not a night scene!), "American Gothic" by Grant Wood and "The Hay Wain" by Constable (most of his oeuvre in fact).

 

[Tasky]

the fact is some works do need contextualising.

In basic terms, yes, but no more than the appreciation of a wild mushroom veloute requires that the diner is not utterly sickened by the taste of mushroom.

but the intended meaning can be multi-layered, too subtle to immediately notice or require a specific cultural knowledge that only those from the artist's country/ethnicity/social background would pick up on. So it's a bit much to expect every viewer to get what an artist is getting across.

Again in basic terms, yes the audience must speak the language (and in many cases fluently, possibly even an older form of that language) in order to understand the poetry... but it's arguable that those who do not speak that language are not the intended audience for the artist's message anyway.

For fine art especially, although arguably art in general, where the purpose of the piece or work is to communicate ideas prompt considerations and convey emotions, these are still dependent upon the artist's ability to communicate effectively through their work.
It's generally when they cannot do this, or where there is no such intent, that all the Up-My-Own-buttocks arty farty types start to witter on about the artist's intentions and go looking for hidden meanings that don't actually exist... and at that point, they can make up any old pineapples, so long as it drives the price up.

 

[Dangermouse 2nd]

Faux ivory , so thats plastic then .............

 

[D_W]

Yes, expensive plastic. As bad as CITES has become, though, it may be better to have zero ivory in anything that isn't really old. That one's mix, which looks even more odd when the plastic gets yellow a lot faster than the ivory.

 

[Tasky]

Faux ivory , so thats plastic then .............

One of several substitute substances... usually celuloid, rather than the PVC-type plastic most people think of. Ox bone is another, and vegetable ivory another.
All depends. Actual plastic, as most people know it, is usually way too obvious.

But if it works and stops the ivory trade, I'm all in favour.