View Single Post
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
Tom Watson Tom Watson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default New Studio Phrases - back on topic

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:40:30 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

Back to the proliferation of Studio Woodworking
Terms and Phrases - ie woodworking ArtSpeak
- I'm in a quandry.

There's plenty of How To information about almost
any aspect of woodworking - "How I did this joint,
or this edge treatment, or this texture, or this
finish.". Finding information about The Why is
more difficult. "Why this edge treatment, joint,
texture, finish - instead of that ________?".
I've found that Krenov's books answer many of
those types of questions - more his philosophy/
approach to woodworking.

But the new Woodworking ArtSpeak is more about
What I Want The Piece To Say or What I Want People
To Feel or Think When Viewing/Interacting With My
Piece.

This seems to be more the realm of Art Critics
and Art Historians who, though not "atists", attempt
to explain What The Artist Meant and What The
Artist Was Trying (and pehaps even succeeding)
to Convey. These folks use words like "juxtaposition",
"visual elements", "linearity / curvilinear", "mass",
"balance", "contrasting" as well as "evocative",
"provocative", "disturbing" and so on.

My question is
Should the questions
What Is It?
What's It Suppose To Be?
or
What The Hell Is That?
need to be asked when one encounters a
piece made from wood? Or is ArtSpeak
from woodworkers merely a marketing
tool?

charlie b


CharlieB:

I believe that you are caught up in what the philosophers/logicians
call a "category error".

"Studio Furniture" or "Art Furniture" is propelled into reality by a
different set of questions than those that initiate the projects of
"Cabinetmakers", "Furnituremakers", and "WoodDorkers".

Those who inhabit the latter grouping ask questions like; "What is my
need?", "What is my want?", "What will fit?", "What can I afford",
"What does Aunt Betty want for Christmas?".

Those who belong in the former group are sculptors. I don't think
that they ask any questions other than; "What would look cool to me?".

This is not a slam on them. They are sculptors and that is their job
- to be useless, or only useful by accident.

To be fair to these artists, I don't think that they come up with all
the bull**** language that seems to encumber their realm.

I think that comes from commentators on their art, rather than from
the artists themselves.

Artists are useful - most commentators are not.



Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/