Do you consider yourself an artist?

[Dangerous Beans]

Right... I am jumping on the Mike is/is not an artist bandwagon. 
I have some little credibility in the leather world... some... he is an artist, a wonderful one, I am bigger than he is so that rule stands.

I am now going to take umbrage on being referred to as a 'performer' I am a maker, a little tongue in cheek but this comes up in conversation quite frequently with students.
I would define (within the realms of leatherwork) an artist as someone who creates something of artistic value and as so eloquently mentioned, evokes emotion by the viewer.
In the medium of leather, people like Michael Dale, Peter Main, Britt Nantz, Al Stohlman and many more too numerous to mention are: artists. 
As for I, the performer, I do not create anything of artistic value, my work is functional, strong, yet aesthetically pleasing. It looks nice, but you would not hang any of my items on a wall or put them on display, by that rational, I am not an artist, an artisan perhaps.

There is a quote, "art is art if someone calls it art" by that measure, anything can be called art, and often has, a cow in vat of formaldehyde was seen as art, that, I do not get, to me, art is the application of talent and skill to create something wondrous. 
Mike, that ticks that box and you have no foundation to argue the point.

To now take ownership of this tirade and answer the original question, I am not an artist, I am not a performer, I am a maker, I make stuff, I am proud to be a maker. if someone wants to call my items art, that is their right to do so and I will defend their right to do so, but I think they are wrong.
Art is a subjective subject, quality is not, just because something is bespoke, well made using traditional skills, does the job and is aesthetically pleasing does not alone make it art. If you then adorn that item using your talent and skill you add artistic value.

Just my subjective opinion.


Still not a performer :-)

 

Nige
 

 

[BDAZ]

10 minutes ago, Dangerous Beans said:

Right... I am jumping on the Mike is/is not an artist bandwagon. 
I have some little credibility in the leather world... some... he is an artist, a wonderful one, I am bigger than he is so that rule stands.

I am now going to take umbrage on being referred to as a 'performer' I am a maker, a little tongue in cheek but this comes up in conversation quite frequently with students.
I would define (within the realms of leatherwork) an artist as someone who creates something of artistic value and as so eloquently mentioned, evokes emotion by the viewer.
In the medium of leather, people like Michael Dale, Peter Main, Britt Nantz, Al Stohlman and many more too numerous to mention are: artists. 
As for I, the performer, I do not create anything of artistic value, my work is functional, strong, yet aesthetically pleasing. It looks nice, but you would not hang any of my items on a wall or put them on display, by that rational, I am not an artist, an artisan perhaps.

There is a quote, "art is art if someone calls it art" by that measure, anything can be called art, and often has, a cow in vat of formaldehyde was seen as art, that, I do not get, to me, art is the application of talent and skill to create something wondrous. 
Mike, that ticks that box and you have no foundation to argue the point.

To now take ownership of this tirade and answer the original question, I am not an artist, I am not a performer, I am a maker, I make stuff, I am proud to be a maker. if someone wants to call my items art, that is their right to do so and I will defend their right to do so, but I think they are wrong.
Art is a subjective subject, quality is not, just because something is bespoke, well made using traditional skills, does the job and is aesthetically pleasing does not alone make it art. If you then adorn that item using your talent and skill you add artistic value.

Just my subjective opinion.


Still not a performer :-)

 

Nige
 

 

Well said! BTW I lectured in Photography  at Trent Poly in the 70s.

Bob

[charon]

This is a real fun discussion and I enjoyed reading the comments so far. This is something I also often thought about. My history in leatherwork is really short so far but I consider myself a crafter, since my approach and my goal is to master the techniques and create beautiful made, functional items. From that perspective people like Nigel are "master crafter", they create perfect made, aesthetically but functional items. For a leatherworker, such items can be viewed as art since we know how much experience and effort is necessary to produce so clean and well made things. But the non-leatherworker will always see it as the functional item.

When I look at work such as Mike does I always see that as art since it's adding decorative value to functional items at a very high skill level. Also, there's some sort of "own style" involved when making such items, which in my opinion is a property of art. 

The transition between craftsmanship and art is smooth for sure and I think we all cross the border from time to time while living mostly on one side.

[BDAZ]

I think an analog is found in musical instruments. There was a perl engraver in the early 20th century named Consalvi who engrave pearl to be inlaid in banjos produced in New York and Boston:

 

Many of these banjos are still being played today.

In addition to these high end musical instruments, some were produced for exhibition at major international expositions and were made as pure art. If you visit the Boston Museum of Fine Art, there is a whole gallery of similar instruments that were built and decorated far beyond their actual requirements as a musical instrument. This next image is from their exhibit:

I recreated the Consalvi "Gryphon" for t-shirts and also had a stamp made for decorating banjo straps. It took me a month to retrace and recreate the design in Photoshop, and I followed every cut made by Consalvi. It was not unlike carving leather. I see some of the saddles produced by leather artists as being more of a show case for their work, than a functional item. As for the exhibition banjos, I doubt any were ever played on stage and went straight into collections.

Bob

[immiketoo]

On 5/17/2018 at 2:51 PM, Dangerous Beans said:

Right... I am jumping on the Mike is/is not an artist bandwagon. 
I have some little credibility in the leather world... some... he is an artist, a wonderful one, I am bigger than he is so that rule stands.

I am now going to take umbrage on being referred to as a 'performer' I am a maker, a little tongue in cheek but this comes up in conversation quite frequently with students.
I would define (within the realms of leatherwork) an artist as someone who creates something of artistic value and as so eloquently mentioned, evokes emotion by the viewer.
In the medium of leather, people like Michael Dale, Peter Main, Britt Nantz, Al Stohlman and many more too numerous to mention are: artists. 
As for I, the performer, I do not create anything of artistic value, my work is functional, strong, yet aesthetically pleasing. It looks nice, but you would not hang any of my items on a wall or put them on display, by that rational, I am not an artist, an artisan perhaps.

There is a quote, "art is art if someone calls it art" by that measure, anything can be called art, and often has, a cow in vat of formaldehyde was seen as art, that, I do not get, to me, art is the application of talent and skill to create something wondrous. 
Mike, that ticks that box and you have no foundation to argue the point.

To now take ownership of this tirade and answer the original question, I am not an artist, I am not a performer, I am a maker, I make stuff, I am proud to be a maker. if someone wants to call my items art, that is their right to do so and I will defend their right to do so, but I think they are wrong.
Art is a subjective subject, quality is not, just because something is bespoke, well made using traditional skills, does the job and is aesthetically pleasing does not alone make it art. If you then adorn that item using your talent and skill you add artistic value.

Just my subjective opinion.


Still not a performer :-)

 

Nige
 

 

Nige, I'm not at all comfortable with my name being bandied about with the likes of those you have listed.  In fact, I am decidedly UN-comfortable.  However, I am comfortable with the application of the word art being applied to a functional item regarding the imagery I put on things.  Calling a piece of work art is ultimately up to the viewer, but I stand on my statement that I am not the artist.  I apply other people's art to leather in a skilled way.  BIG difference.

And your work is at such a high level that it could also be considered art.  Making plain things is much more difficult than making them fancy.  Nowhere to hide, as it were

[JiffyJones]

You should tool everything!! It’s so fun, you can definitely get the hang of it if you give yourself time!!

I personally think people overestimate "inherent ability" in artists. Most of the time what appears to be an innate “talent” is actually the result of hours upon months upon years of grueling study and practice and failure and practice and observation and more practice. Everyone starts out with stupid useless baby hands- translating your thoughts through your hands/body is a demanding skill developed over a long period of time. Not to mention say, someone that doesn’t practice a visual skill, but has a lot of experience in focused observation might have an faster time picking one up. Aaaaaand! A lot of core visual skills translate through mediums! So there are a lot of factors at play in any given human being.

There is a quote that I find interesting (but don't necessarily agree with) by Louis Nizer: “He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.”

The term “art” is so complex and open for interpretation, that people can basically get degrees in theorizing about it! I am not educated enough to make any call on “art” vs “craft” or the implied worth of either title. It’s hard for me to consider myself an “artist” even though I’ve spent my entire life making anything I can get my scummy little mitts on. “Artist” also has a lot of baggage associated with it. I generally don’t interpret anything I make as “art”- as opposed to what it literally is, which is more like “a creepy drawing of a hairy nipple with teeth on a post it note” But draw enough hairy nipples with teeth on post it notes and almost certainly someone, somewhere will call you an artist…where was I going with this?

I prefer forward and technical terms like “painter, illustrator, leatherworker, ect”. The “art” aspect is usually nebulous and problematic to define. I think "artistic value" is what most people interpret as the skill level combined with what individual choices the creator made with the medium. And those choices become better informed with experience (with the skill and in life)- so get to tooling, my friend! Go ahead and start making bad decisions today- they will get better! In fact, start your day off with a piping cup of bad decisions! If anyone questions you, stare at them intently and yell "ART" until they go away!

 

Apologies for this long, rambling , pretentious response!!

P.S. The value of a piece is determined by the observer and you’re all artists in my book please please keep making things this forum is so fun

[BDAZ]

33 minutes ago, immiketoo said:

Nige, I'm not at all comfortable with my name being bandied about with the likes of those you have listed.  In fact, I am decidedly UN-comfortable.  However, I am comfortable with the application of the word art being applied to a functional item regarding the imagery I put on things.  Calling a piece of work art is ultimately up to the viewer, but I stand on my statement that I am not the artist.  I apply other people's art to leather in a skilled way.  BIG difference.

And your work is at such a high level that it could also be considered art.  Making plain things is much more difficult than making them fancy.  Nowhere to hide, as it were

Art?:

The Keen stuff was popular in the 60s and is now seen as a cultural artifact 50 years later. The Rembrandt has always been "art" as it transcends the cultural aesthetics of the time. Rembrandts are worth $50M plus, Keens going for <$500.

[Tugadude]

On 5/17/2018 at 6:51 AM, Dangerous Beans said:

Right... I am jumping on the Mike is/is not an artist bandwagon. 
I have some little credibility in the leather world... some... he is an artist, a wonderful one, I am bigger than he is so that rule stands.

I am now going to take umbrage on being referred to as a 'performer' I am a maker, a little tongue in cheek but this comes up in conversation quite frequently with students.
I would define (within the realms of leatherwork) an artist as someone who creates something of artistic value and as so eloquently mentioned, evokes emotion by the viewer.
In the medium of leather, people like Michael Dale, Peter Main, Britt Nantz, Al Stohlman and many more too numerous to mention are: artists. 
As for I, the performer, I do not create anything of artistic value, my work is functional, strong, yet aesthetically pleasing. It looks nice, but you would not hang any of my items on a wall or put them on display, by that rational, I am not an artist, an artisan perhaps.

There is a quote, "art is art if someone calls it art" by that measure, anything can be called art, and often has, a cow in vat of formaldehyde was seen as art, that, I do not get, to me, art is the application of talent and skill to create something wondrous. 
Mike, that ticks that box and you have no foundation to argue the point.

To now take ownership of this tirade and answer the original question, I am not an artist, I am not a performer, I am a maker, I make stuff, I am proud to be a maker. if someone wants to call my items art, that is their right to do so and I will defend their right to do so, but I think they are wrong.
Art is a subjective subject, quality is not, just because something is bespoke, well made using traditional skills, does the job and is aesthetically pleasing does not alone make it art. If you then adorn that item using your talent and skill you add artistic value.

Just my subjective opinion.


Still not a performer :-)

 

Nige
 

 

Nigel, my sincere apologies.  I looked back at my post in this thread and it was I who referred to yourself as a "skilled performer" .  I meant no disrespect.  In fact, I remember a video you did some time ago where you demonstrate making a tub and there is only background music, classical guitar, I believe.  That to me was a performance.  Something to sit and watch, mouth agape while you demonstrate skills and techniques I can only hope to achieve some day.  Your instructional videos are responsible for whatever success I've had in learning the saddle stitch.  I'm sure same could be said for many others.  So again, I did not mean "performer" in a disparaging way or in any attempt to cheapen what you do.  Quite the contrary as I consider myself one of your biggest admirers.  Keep on making and I'll keep watching.

[Retswerb]

14 hours ago, BDAZ said:

The Keen stuff was popular in the 60s and is now seen as a cultural artifact 50 years later. The Rembrandt has always been "art" as it transcends the cultural aesthetics of the time. Rembrandts are worth $50M plus, Keens going for <$500.

Hmmm. If what you’re saying is that one is art and the other isn’t based on what it sells for, I definitely can’t get on board with that.

Some artists are better than others - that’s undeniable. But Keane and Rembrandt are both artists in my book. 

I heard many years ago the phrase “learning to draw is not a matter of learning to draw - learning to draw is a matter of learning to see.” This, to me, is one of the things at the heart of art. In its various forms, it is created by those who have learned to truly see, and have taken the time to do so. This skill and mindset can be applied to leatherwork as much as to oil paints.

[BDAZ]

6 hours ago, Retswerb said:

Hmmm. If what you’re saying is that one is art and the other isn’t based on what it sells for, I definitely can’t get on board with that.

Some artists are better than others - that’s undeniable. But Keane and Rembrandt are both artists in my book. 

Totally disagree. Keen was an illustrator with a formula that found a market, Rembrandt was an artist and his vision is still unique and valid hundreds of years later.

I heard many years ago the phrase “learning to draw is not a matter of learning to draw - learning to draw is a matter of learning to see.” This, to me, is one of the things at the heart of art. In its various forms, it is created by those who have learned to truly see, and have taken the time to do so. This skill and mindset can be applied to leatherwork as much as to oil paints.

I totally agree. Learning to draw (or carve) is a skill and a craft, but what one draws or caves may or may not be art.

No, what I am saying is that Keen is NOT art, it's illustration, craft, which was designed to sell. I was a tenured Fine Arts professor at a major university, and taught both graphic design and fine Arts streams. I used to tell the fine art students that their program would help them develop their art and vision, and prepare them for a career flipping burgers. The Graphic Design students were there preparing for a career in practical art and ended up working in advertising, print and graphics production, etc.

Being able to draw is NOT an indicator of an artist, as demonstrated by all the technical draftspeople out there. I think the same can be applied to leather. There are many leather artists that create beautiful and aesthetically pleasing designs that express their personal vision, and then they posses the skills and mastery of the craft to create that vision in leather, Then there are crafts people like myself, that can copy a pattern to produce a competent item in leather, but it's not art, just craft and style. I personally don't do it as an art but because I like working with my hands and it produces an income stream.

Bob