From: IN%"al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 26-JAN-1994 08:59:45.97
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: art & functin
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H84SJ1PS788WVYKP@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 26 Jan 1994 08:59 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 6573 for HRL@PSUARCH; Wed,
26 Jan 1994 08:59 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6325; Wed, 26 Jan 1994 08:58:25 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 08:31:04 -0500
From: Larry Boswell <al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: art & functin
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-id: <01H84SJ1PS788WVYKP@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
>
>cognitive experience is not the thing, is it?). Then you can begin to make
>sub-catagories of art. There can be eating-art, making love-art, going to
>the bathroom-art, studio-art, illustration-art, non art-art, art-art, and one
I have no problems with any of your categories, or evaluating them in
terms of each other in a hierachical relationship because at least then
'art' would regain a sense of the dynamic.
Better bathroom-art, studio-art, non art-art then philosophical constructions
which in the end leave art as some idealistic non-entity.
>art? or is it that the art resides as scultural (?) images on the doors?
>Manzu's doors are certainly art, but the doors qua doors are not art. If
>you took function away (say welded them shut) the art would remain. The door
>function would be gone. If you hammered out the bas-relief, the doors would
It is the images on the door, of course. It's also in the way the cold
northern light creates changing reflections as the day progresses (doors
face north). It's also in the functioning of the doors, the feel of
the doors as the great weight pivots responding to touch--weld them
shut and they are nothing. (I wish Garner had access to this because
he would be interested in this seperation of function from art).
You can take function to a ridiculous level, of course, I can hold
a painting over my head to stop the rain...(or umbrella-art...or
raincoat art). That's not the type of function integrated into,
and explored through, the creation of a work of art which I am
referring to with the example of Garner's doors.
There is an earlier (and lengthy, where's the complaints now?) post
which quotes a radio source on distinctions between art and craft.
It does a lovely job describing what is craft, but gets a little
tenuous in it's conclusions about what is art--(from a quick scan
of it.
>interferes with the most appropriate and complete expression of the idea of
>that object, then it is inferior to what might have been. I suppose that
>is why some think that architecture is the most noble of the arts since the
>function and the ultimate idea are one. I think that art occurs when the
>function (and, OK, everything has some kind of function) and the ultimate aim
>of the work have a coincidence or (better yet) are one thing.
I'm one of those who think architecture "the most noble of the arts" for
that very reason, but I have a bias towards looking rather favourably in
that direction. I think these doors come close to the marrying of
idea and function. Certainly the loss of one (function--movement, opening,
intimidation--it's a government centre, centre of power etc--border
between outside/inside) or the other (purely surface effect--images,
reflective capability, appeal) would destroy them as a work of art.
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: art & functin
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H84SJ1PS788WVYKP@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 26 Jan 1994 08:59 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 6573 for HRL@PSUARCH; Wed,
26 Jan 1994 08:59 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6325; Wed, 26 Jan 1994 08:58:25 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 08:31:04 -0500
From: Larry Boswell <al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: art & functin
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-id: <01H84SJ1PS788WVYKP@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
>
>cognitive experience is not the thing, is it?). Then you can begin to make
>sub-catagories of art. There can be eating-art, making love-art, going to
>the bathroom-art, studio-art, illustration-art, non art-art, art-art, and one
I have no problems with any of your categories, or evaluating them in
terms of each other in a hierachical relationship because at least then
'art' would regain a sense of the dynamic.
Better bathroom-art, studio-art, non art-art then philosophical constructions
which in the end leave art as some idealistic non-entity.
>art? or is it that the art resides as scultural (?) images on the doors?
>Manzu's doors are certainly art, but the doors qua doors are not art. If
>you took function away (say welded them shut) the art would remain. The door
>function would be gone. If you hammered out the bas-relief, the doors would
It is the images on the door, of course. It's also in the way the cold
northern light creates changing reflections as the day progresses (doors
face north). It's also in the functioning of the doors, the feel of
the doors as the great weight pivots responding to touch--weld them
shut and they are nothing. (I wish Garner had access to this because
he would be interested in this seperation of function from art).
You can take function to a ridiculous level, of course, I can hold
a painting over my head to stop the rain...(or umbrella-art...or
raincoat art). That's not the type of function integrated into,
and explored through, the creation of a work of art which I am
referring to with the example of Garner's doors.
There is an earlier (and lengthy, where's the complaints now?) post
which quotes a radio source on distinctions between art and craft.
It does a lovely job describing what is craft, but gets a little
tenuous in it's conclusions about what is art--(from a quick scan
of it.
>interferes with the most appropriate and complete expression of the idea of
>that object, then it is inferior to what might have been. I suppose that
>is why some think that architecture is the most noble of the arts since the
>function and the ultimate idea are one. I think that art occurs when the
>function (and, OK, everything has some kind of function) and the ultimate aim
>of the work have a coincidence or (better yet) are one thing.
I'm one of those who think architecture "the most noble of the arts" for
that very reason, but I have a bias towards looking rather favourably in
that direction. I think these doors come close to the marrying of
idea and function. Certainly the loss of one (function--movement, opening,
intimidation--it's a government centre, centre of power etc--border
between outside/inside) or the other (purely surface effect--images,
reflective capability, appeal) would destroy them as a work of art.