> By hand work,I mean what ever one individual does with his personal > skill > art- music,poetry,etc..
some one in control of his art till the finish > I'm not referring to machine made objects that are designed and > rigidly controlled by the designers. I agree ,I have done art this way myself. I USE SOME ANCIENT TOOLS TO ENLARGE MY WORK MYSELF. > And it's not the medium or concept approach that I'm concerned about. > that william refers to, i do both at times, but I have not placed a > Michael > Angelo upside down,and call it "my art " AS Duchamp, not yet anyway. this is in reference to Duchamp's Urinal, which was presented upside down and took on a new meaning. > Im referring to the fairness of those who CLAIM TO do very > realistic work > without any skill OR TOOLS in the doing of it, BUT HAVING IT DONE AS IF THEY DID, and selling it "as their work' to serious buyers who lack awareness. > > > In spanish we call it, Venta de"Gato por Liebre",,selling a "cat > for a hare". > mando On Sep 29, 2009, at 9:11 PM, William Conger wrote: > Folk expressions aside, there's no reason why a completely machine > made object cannot be termed an artwork. Actually, many are, from > furniture to coffee pots to readymades, to appropriated imagery to > types of collage to typography to digitally sprayed paintings, > billboard, textiles -- on and on. Machines have been used for > artmaking for centuries. The intention and claims of the maker are > never sufficient to establish something as art. A claim is a claim > and in the case of art, all claims are equal. You're just > expressing your opinion, in fact you are making a claim and it is > not universally validated by history, art, or practice, despite the > reference to a single piece (by Michelangelo) and to a class of art > objects (hand wrought 'realist' art). > wc > > > > ________________________________ > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:26:42 PM > Subject: Re: Facture > > > On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> In a message dated 9/29/09 4:41:55 PM, [email protected] writes: >> >> >>> If you say the quality is in the object and if you require >>> handiwork to >>> produce that quality then your judgment is justified. >>> >> >> If you require handwork to produce an object which you can then >> call art, >> then you are justified in your judgment inasmuch as your judgment is >> confirmed by your culture. Handwork is not an attribute of all art- >> music, >> plays, >> poetry - therefore it is not a universal attribute of art.I agree >> with mando >> about the computer generated sculpture but not that anything >> machine made is >> not art. >> KAte Sullivan
