Just being a little bonsaial today.

I borrow this little bit of dialog from the Norfolk Bonsai Assoc. site ( http://www.norfolkbonsai.co.uk/defa...Display=9&Title= ), from thier Bonsai news section, it's seems it's still a raging issue, only now the "artists" are defining that bonsai aren't art, because they aren't art - see below for a mixed up definition of why bonsai are not art. I put the highlights in, and throw it out here because they invite this issue to be discussed at "your own site" ( I don't think I am breaking any copy right laws because they offer it for discussion) - mine is BT by the way so read away. This by no means is an endorsement of this conclusion.

The Federation of British Bonsai Societies (FoBBS) have reported that the British Arts Council the organisation concluded that they could not accept bonsai as an art form because quote:

"Bonsai tree growing is considered a craft and in order for it to be an artform you would have to be using your bonsai as part of contemporary visual arts practice. Growing bonsai trees is not an artform and therefore will not be recognised as such. If you want to apply for funding then the bonsai tree growing would have to be innovative in terms of bonsai tree growing or it would have to be used within an artistic project. An exhibition of bonsai trees would not be eligible for funding because it would not be considered an artform.



I scratch my head on this one, maybe you have to be an artist to understand it, but how about we ask them "What is THE definition of art". Bet we get the same dance with no answer.

Bill

A very thought-provoking topic, Mcspeed, thanks for posting it.

There's actually several ways to approach this story. First, can we accept that any single group of people have the authority to judge what is and is not "art?" I would suggest that yes, that is reasonable. It sounds elitist, but those who live and breath in the realm of aesthetics quite simply are better equiped than a plumber whose closest brush with the art world is watching American Idol to decide what does and what does not fall into the category of "artwork." Does that mean that every philanthropic organization that claims to support the arts has this authority? Almost certainly not. It's quite possible that this British Arts Council is simply more interested in paintings, photography and sculpture to have money to throw around for other artistic endevours. I'll let those more informed about this particular group hash this out.

Then there is the idea of "craft" vs. "art." For an excellent discussion of a more basic form of this argument, I'd suggest reading Martin Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art" where he addresses what elevates "common things" to the prominance of "artwork." I feel that the truth of the matter is that most bonsai does fall into the realm of craft or hobby, with only a relative few worth of the title "artwork."

Speaking from my professional background, there is a difference between a meer building and an architectural masterpiece. We fondly refer to it as the difference between "architecture" and "capital 'A' Architecture." The vast majority of buildings are simply serving a function for human habitation. Some exhibit certain pleasing aesthetic qualities such as harmonic proportions or elegant forms, but still fall short of greatness. Even the most precisely crafted and flawless designs lack a certain quality that really makes them "sing." Then, there is that rare occasion when you encounter an ediface that speaks to the soul of man, elevates the spirit, and/or produces an indescribable response that, unlike the hundreds of buildings you passed along your way, makes you stop in your tracks and catch your breath. THIS is art. THIS is Architecture.

Now, it doesn't have to be elaborate, convoluted, or require a Ph.D to appreciate. I believe it was Venturi who suggested that the first and most powerful Architecture was the unmarked tombstone in the forest. It produces a profound "man was here and marked his passing" sensation that so so many works of architecture fail to evoke.

How this informs the current discussion, I'm not certain. I was just hoping to share how this kind of debate courses through almost every form of human endeavour that's in the least bit concerned with beauty, elegance, or the sublime. It's relatively easy to become a proficient technician and master techniques to produce a variety of wondrous effects, but it is another thing entirely to become an artist. Everyone who tries to do something "artistic" gets their ego wrapped up in the notion that they *are* artists and produce at least some works of art. I would gently suggest that that is seldom the case.

All in all, I would guess that there are plenty of things funded by the British Arts Council that only barely scrape at the surface of "art," and that there are plenty of "capital 'B' bonsai" that are more worthy of their funding, but throwing suspicion on the practice as a whole is an easy way for them to spend money on what they want to spend money on without much worry about being accused of nepotism. (Oh, wait, I said I'd leave that kind of talk to others. Oops.)

Obviously they're talking about a definition made for the purpose of providing funding (grants, etc.) for the development of works of art. It sounds like they're saying that whoever controls the purse strings has a definition of "art" that precludes bonsai, so don't get your hopes up that they will buy you a tree or a pot.

Personally, I couldn't care less about that kind of definition. To me, bonsai (at least when done well) is an artform. It may also be a craft, but many crafts are capable of being artforms. I don't think any really clear line can be drawn between the two.

So then my question is this: If art is different than craft,and yet both art and craft are artistic endeavours: ie:the intervention of the hand of man to either create or manipulate a subject in some way that produces a function or an aesthetic,How is it that bonsai doesn't qualify?

My opinion on the matter is that bonsai(with the possible exception of jazz) is the quintessential art form(Once given the proper respect and study), simply because it is a living sculpture that is ever changing,ever redefining itself,and requires a deeper understanding by the artist in order to achieve it's highest aesthetic potential.In most mediums,the artist is in complete control of the outcome. Bonsai,not so.
Any experienced bonsai enthusiast will agree that a great bonsai is great because the true bonsai artisan's direction is dictated by the tree. What could be more artful than the medium painting the artist and the artist reflecting that back into the medium in the form of form and refinement? I dare say that those who think bonsai is not art are demonstrating their limited perception of what art IS. It's the ultimate dichotomy. Call art limitless and without boundaries,only to confine it in a box with walls made of criteria...... but then,ironically....paradox is artful...... right....?

I'd say most bonsai doesn't qualify because art doesn't necessarily have anything to do with aesthetics.

Using your conclusion digs another open pit in the semantics war this discussion has taken us down for years; specifically what is aesthetics.

In my opinion the "Official Ruling" that bonsai is not art is nothing more than the rubber stamping of an opposing opinion by a bone-headed-narrow-minded-bureaucrat with the authority assigned to him/her by a bone-headed-narrow-minded association of bone-headed-narrow-minded-bureaucrats who in keeping a "stiff upper lip" slobber all over everything they touch. Finding themselves with the same capability as a cat who continually licks its back side (because it can), they make arbitrary rulings because------they can. Finding that this is a comfortable way to make judgements, with heads firmly planted between their respective limbs, little effort is made to remove themselves from this warm and fuzzy environment and actually make a significant contribution. Instead they surface occasionally with some off the wall pontification filled with esoteric bovine scatology. They give the verbal equivalent of the one finger salute to the most concise eloquent argument and continue the way they always have; assigning legal status to their own personal opinions.

Kind of like what we are doing.....difference is we are right.

When I say aesthetics I mean things that are considered pleasing to the eye (wich of course is subject to change).

Too funny Vance, but I guess that would be my stance, I'm not very pc sometimes, and this is the kind of stuff that brings it out of me. But of course we 're right.

Mindcrime - "When I say aesthetics I mean things that are considered pleasing to the eye (wich of course is subject to change)". - Exactly "Beauty, it's in the eye of the beerholder".

lehket - we all know by now it's money that makes the world go round.

I often make great efforts to not be PC, mostly because pc is nothing more than agreeing with the opinions of people whose opinions I disagree with, who have the power to make your life miserable or worse. The trick is to do it in such a way that the ignorant doody-heads don't know they have had it stuck to them in one way or another. One way is to use the Wayan brothers mode of elocution, verbosity, and abundant circular reasoning accented with a bit of irreverent intolerance peppered with a bit of double entendre and salted with the spice of veiled profanity.

Today's understanding of art is not so much what you have done as it is who you are and how you have done it, and in many cases who you have done it to. If you are one of the approved personages or belong to one of the approved groups of personages-es you can pretty much put cheeze whize in a mason jar and call it art, or any other form of whize you may choose, it doesn't seem to matter, it will still be considered art as long as what you do offends those who the "pc" consider to not be "pc". It is sad to say that a lot that passes as art today is more a representation of the kind of inane insanity and mindless tolerance for the worst mankind has to offer. In short we have allowed the inmates charge of the asylum.

Those things that in times past were dropped into holes in the ground, thrown into rivers, or over the walls of enemy castles are now given places of honor and displayed prominently for all to see and admire---they better admire them or else....It is in this way we save the environment in that we no longer flush away down the sewar the stuff we now think of as art; thus saving lots of water.

Vance, when it comes to knowing how to push my buttons you are a true master!