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

Bonsai is pet manitenance...and I'll believe its art when my neighbors housecat composes the equivalent of Beetovens ninth symphony...could be awhile

Says who? You ever seen a Mid-West display of quilts? It is possible that art can exist within the craft of scarf knitting.

That comparison makes about as much sense as a screen door on a sub-marine. You are in essence saying that Bonsai is not an art and no time or no thing will ever change your mind. Why? You give this ridiculous parameter as your reason? I would think that in an instance where people are trying to have a serious discussion that you would offer up a little more thought out and intelligent response than that inane and glib retort you came up with. You are certainly welcome to your opinion and if this is your opinion you owe it to yourself to be a little more eloquent about it, or a little more concerned about your self image in posting such dribble.

Technically for the uninitiated, bonsai could more accurately be described as (pet) plant abuse, instead of maintenance.


In the same sense we are perhaps splitting hairs over art and craft. A craft does in fact require a certain level of special skill possibly in and of itself an art as follows:
In my experience art is simply the product or outcome of an act of expression. This is normally (but evidently not always) associated with an adherence to certain aesthetic principles. The medium used therefore should not be an issue at all. Whether it is shaping clay vs. dance, or music vs. a jack hammered rock, in the end, what matters is the creation itself. As such, should a plant somehow be excluded as a viable means of expression?

I think not!

Cheers,

_gonzo_

I believe that there are three tones of art, and each artist is made unique by their own personal attraction towards each tone. Each of these tones are strongly related to one another and most artwork of value tends to combine at least two of these tones. There is ...

Traditional ( Representational ) - Form Based Art - This tone of art places much value on the skill of representation and construction, the mastery of the medias an artist must employ. Most "great" artists were at one point formally trained in the rules of representation and illusionism. Gaugin, for example, was classically trained and his earlier work was very realistic and traditional. Before the advent of impressionism, most art was representational or utilitarian, used to depict stories or symbols.
Examples: Praxiteles, Carrivaggio, El Greco, Sargent, N.C Wyeth

Conceptual ( Philosophical ) - Idea Based Art - Unlike Traditional art, Conceptual art deals with the idea of art itself, and the innovation and inclusion of what is considered art. The conceptual artist's work places value over mastery of a state of being, or an idea or conflict. The Conceptual artist spends as much time thinking about and analyzing his art as the Traditional Artist does observing and drawing or painting their art.
Examples: Pollock, Rothko, Kandinsky, de Kooning, Paik, Duchamp

Commercial (Utilitarian) - Function based Art - This art serves a purpose, and is usually made as a support for a greater function. A good example of this is concept art made for video games and movies. Architecture and Illustration also fall into this category, I'd say, though its very rare that an artist is simply an commercial artist. Most good commercial art is a commercial application of either Traditional or Conceptual art.
Examples: Frank Lloyd Wright, Andrew Wyeth, Nicholas Bouvier,

As I've said, good artists in today's society take from each tone, and well known artists are rarely ever one tone specifically. An exception to this I'd say is John Singer Sargent, whose skill alone makes him notable and worth remembering. It could also be argued that Marcel Duchamp had little traditional skill, and was solely a conceptual artist. In his view, artists of the future would simply point at an object, and in doing so that object would become a work of art.

What I've seen, though, is that the artist that is incredibly good at his medium, but lacks any concept or any other greater themes in his work isn't really much of an artist. The concept artist who knows nothing about the materials he uses and simply thinks about it rarely gets taken seriously. Pablo Picasso was very skilled as a traditional artist, and also as a conceptual artist. His works, while unappreciated at his time, broke traditional standards of art and forced artists around the world to redefine what art is.

You have to put yourself into your artwork, and not simply follow a set of parameters and rules that have been done before. If you're copying another artist stroke for stroke you're not doing much more than just that. If i were to see Damien Hirsts "the Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" and then put a dead dolphin in a vat of formaldehyde, I wouldn't be doing anything worth remembering, because I was copying the ideas that were innovated by Hirst. The value in contemporary art is found by the artists interpretations, innovations and realizations of themes or aesthetics that they found worth investigating, what they were drawn to.

The problem that I think most Capitol-A Artists, or at least the ones here in the letter, seem to have with the art of Bonsai, is that its laws, themes, and aesthetic has remained relatively unchanged for hundreds if not thousands of years. Let me clarify that I do consider Bonsai an art, but ask yourselves (and inform me) as to when the last major innovation in bonsai occured? How is Goshin different from any of the other thousands of trees done by masters over the years? Are the trees you lovingly care for and carefully design innovating and expanding on the traditions of bonsai, or simply following in the footsteps before? Is the art of bonsai an actively changing one, a media that communicates with other media and can serve as a platform for a variety of themes?

Or is it too steeped in tradition - is it something that is so clearly and strictly defined that if it breaks from the laws its not bonsai but simply topiary?

I believe that Bonsai is an art form. I believe, however, that it is in great need of innovation and improvement. It is a 'Traditional' tone of art, just waiting to be met with a conceptual approach - the fusion of two tones. John Naka and Walter Pall, great though they may be at their media, are just that. What are they saying by styling those trees? Are there greater themes, or are they simply doing it because they enjoy making miniature forests or trees? What keeps their artwork, and indeed, all Bonsai from being recognized in the artworld is the lack of out-of-the-box thinking that the art sorely needs. In short, the east needs to join hands with the west.

To some extent, it already has begun down that path. in 2003, Bonsai inSights exhibited at The National Bonsai and Penjing Museum, as well as the National Arborteum, in DC. I suggest all interested in Bonsai as art
look into the exhibition as I feel it has begun to take the first steps towards revolution, as it explores the interaction of Bonsai and Ceramic artists. Art from the show

I'm not saying we turn away from the traditions and aesthetics of what Bonsai is today, as I'm sure many of them have value, and can inform what we as artists make. However, I don't think that we should let ourselves be shackled by tradition.

----------------------------

The letter is clear, but also bit odd in their use of "craft"

Dictionary.com sez craft means: "an art, trade, or occupation requiring special skill, esp. manual skill: the craft of a mason"

so by that definition, Painting, Photography, Sculpture ... all would be craft

wikipedia sez "The term is often used to describe the family of artistic practices within the decorative arts that traditionally are defined by their relationship to functional or utilitarian products (such as sculptural forms in the vessel tradition) or by their use of such natural media as wood, clay, glass, textiles, and metal. Crafts practiced by independent artists working alone or in small groups are often referred to as studio craft. Studio craft includes studio pottery, metal work, weaving, wood turning and other forms of wood working, glass blowing, and glass art."

Which leads me to conclude that "Craft" would fall into both 'Traditional' and 'Utilitarian' tones of art, which I think is safe to say about Bonsai. This does not mean it is not art, but simply not the type of art they value, e.g. art with a heavy conceptual overtone.

Divinder22- You get a 10 from the Russian Judge.

How did this one float back to the surface?

Cheers,
John

This is why when someone wishes to hide a body in the water they weigh it down with rocks and stuff because as it decomposes it fills with gas and shoots to the surface. That's probably what happened here. Forgive the dead body analogy.

[QUOTE=zombat] The Conceptual artist spends as much time thinking about and analyzing his art as the Traditional Artist does observing and drawing or painting their art.

Examples: Pollock, Rothko...QUOTE]

Zombat, it's not clear to me, did you come up with this?

If you did, I believe you have been seriously duped!


One only has to compare Michelangelo’s “The Last Judgment” in the Sistine Chapel to Mark Rothko‘s “Orange and Yellow” for instance. Then check out Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” vs. Jackson Pollack’s “Lavender Mist” to see a glaring and intentional misrepresentation.


As for innovation...


Rothko printed what amounts to the same thing over and over thousands of times. Since the print was around well before Rothko, the only “innovation” I can see was that he changed colors from time to time. If you have ever seen one “Orange and Yellow” (of hundreds) you are already well on your way to knowing everything you will ever need about his work. Ditto for Pollack dribbles by the hundreds.


As for bonsai, I believe this type of "conceptual artist" actually DOES take the required time and effort to analyze.

Cheers,


_gonzo_

You mean the art of scarf knitting(?).