Hi Earl,
you wrote:
"Only when we come out of our mystical state, do we start to analyze the tree and think "look at the branch structure, look at the pot, look at the age." But then we have moved from ART to CRAFT."
--------------------------------
No. There are all kinds of levels of appreciation and there are all kinds of levels of artistic success. Some art is poor and some is magnificent. Good art is (usually) based primarily on great craft. Recognizing the craft in the art in no way detracts from or diminishes the art - and in no way means that it is not art, but merely craft. Don't try to imply a separation of craft and art because there is none. Without the one, there is not the other.
--------------------------------
you wrote:
"Come to think of it, maybe that's why so many people have criticized the Artful Environements display (see the threads about that elsewhere). They go to the display to examine the craft of growing the tree, instead of standing back and appreciating the mystery and awe of the natural scene the artist is attempting to convey."
--------------------------------
No again. Don't mistake what happend with this exhibit. The level of craft in the exhibit is wonderful. However, the artistry is somewhere between poor and non-existent. The main problem with the exhibit is that there is no "artist" involved. There are two artists who, individually, did great work, but then their work was thrown together to make a horrible mishmash that has no artistic relevance. The works on display were not meant to be used together. This exhibit is an example of the vaccuous idea that if 1 piece of art is good, 2 pieces together must be great! That's idiotic and this exhibit is testement to that fact.
Unless there is artistry in the composition of even good works of art used together in combination, the work fails and no amount of mysticism or magesty or even craft can overcome that failure.
Kind regards,
Andy Rutledge
b u n j i n | d e s i g n ::
www.bunjindesign.com
zone 8, Texas