View Single Post
  #57   Report Bad Post  
Old 12-18-2015, 08:12 AM
RCTent's Avatar
RCTent RCTent is offline
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 985
Hails from United Kingdom
Re: The photo-realist as craftsman

Judging? Planning? Action painting places the emphasis on the act of painting rather than the final work as an artistic object.

Yes, the attention to detail in some cases being put into the way the paint is applied, that would be the action of painting. In photorealism the attention to detail is in getting the right colour onto the precise location on the surface.

There is no right or wrong on "craft". It is not a holy word you need to attach to artistic endeavors. I'm not sure anyone has said that is even necessary in the actual making of a work of art. So why graft it onto all art?

I don't think good crafting is essential to a valid work of art. I just happen to see attention to detail as present in a lot of abstarct work, it just is not attention to the same details as extremely realistic art. I don't think attention to detail is crucial to craft either, but you asked if "fine craft" was dependent on attention to detail and I do think it is key to craftwork being excellent, as opposed to ordinary.

Who said great art has to have "Craft"?

It doesn't to me, but I do think that people are free to believe it does, in which case, I suppose they would be saying it. My opinion as to what is valid art is nothing but my opinion, everyone is allowed their own as far as I am concerned. The same principle applie to what constitutes a "great" work of art.

To me, craft is a thing is made for a practical purpose, and visual art is a thing created to communicate and serves a spiritual/mental/emotional purpose. Finely tuned skill can apply to either or not.

"It doesn't make much difference how the paint is put on as long as something has been said. Technique is just a means of arriving at a statement." this is what Pollock said.

This appears to conflict with what you are saying about action painting being about the act of painting, is the important part the action or is it irrelevant? Attention to detail may however still apply to the issue of "Did the technique arrive at the statement?".

Another thought about this point is, was he addressing people who were questioning the validity of his art because of his technique at the time when he said this? Was he trying to explain his thinking to people who wanted to know what it was because they were intrigued by his methods, or confused by his work? If so, perhaps all he intended was to answer those points, and not to make a profound declaration about all important art. Is he actually just saying that there is room for a wide variety of techniques (of applying paint), rather than that he is pouring paint on because that is lousy technique and technique is irrelevant?

Just an aside: I like Pollock's work. Especially Autumn Rhythm.

I have never seen any of it for real, and I find it very hard to relate to art when I have not. I would like to see his work because it means a lot to so many people and I have respect for the impact it had, but I am a bit too busy to drop everything else and get to it right now.