Gus Landt

Most expensive single mini ever?

53 posts in this topic

I guess any endevor can be considered art - a wise person told me once that what makes a piece art is the motivation behind it's inception.  The age old question - what is art.

Your view really surprises me...do you remember the other half of our conversation?

In my humble opinion art is two fold.

 

"what makes a piece art is the motivation behind it's inception" to the artist

 

When someone is transcended by the making, that's art (The artist).

 

When someone experiences and is transcended, that's art (The viewer, the listener etc).

 

Art can be anything, anywhere, to anybody. It doesn't have to be pretty. It doesn't have to be political, or purely for decoration. But it can be.

 

I have a difficult time with "craft" versus "art". I think many fine artists and pieces of art are lumped into this generic "craft" grouping because their work is physical (set design, interior design) or practical (the blacksmith, basketmaker, quilter, seamstress etc).

 

so you're all right, but you have to realize that everyone else is right too :huh:

 

~Jenna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[That is an absolutely exquisite paintjob. However, if I ever even thought of buying that, sleeping on the sofa would be about the least of my worries... :blink:]

 

I have to agree with Qwksilver. If my husband spent that much on a miniature, he may be sleeping on the couch too...and it wouldn't necessarily be our couch ::D: Just kidding...or am I?

 

I have to say though, that is an impressive paint job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the record saint alot of the painters i know dont do it for gaming or competitions etc, that may be where it will end up at some point but the reason they paint is to make the figure beautiful to look at, or grotesque as the case may be, lots of people paint minis just to have them sit on a mantle or book shelf to be seen by others, and coming from canvas painting i dont see how this is any different than a picture on canvas, and i apologize if i am harsh but i just find it insulting to say this cant be art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time classifying art based on the intentions of the artist.

 

1) Unless you are the artist in question, you can never know for sure what the artist's intentions were. The artist may lie. The artist may only be trying to create something you perceive as art with no real inspiration of his/her own. Take any classically reknowned piece of art that has influenced people for generations. If we found out that the artist was lying about his intentions is it suddenly not art anymore or does the perception of the rest of the world and the influence the piece had allow it is be classified as art? Go to any museum or art exhibit and you will see people standing around talking about the artist's vision and what artist was trying to 'say' with the piece, but you never really know.

 

2) Does this mean that purely intending to make art succeeds, regardless how bad said piece is to the rest of the world? Is there a point where art can be so bad it doesn't even count as art? I mean if everyone in the world says a particular thing is not art, I'd say it isn't art regardless of the intent of the artist. I'm not a big fan of subjective reality. Though you can create a world unto yourself and make something art in your mind, your reality does not influence mine or the world as a whole. Now, I realize that it's nigh impossible for everyone in the world except only one person to share the same opinion, but I feel it's easier to exaggerate in order to make the point. It's a little like fashion. Though I might hate a particular fashion trend, my personal view on the item or even as its creater, does not define whether its fashionable or not. Fashionable is a status given/accepted by a crowd. Yes, things can be fashionable in one crowd and not another, but there is always a crowd and it is the perception of that group that makes the distinction, not the feelings of an individual. My intent to create art or my personal perception of art will not influence a culture. The perception of a group of sufficient size that something is art can influence a culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you are being harsh at all. I'd like to say that I didn't say that mini-painting wasn't art. I felt that in my opinion much of the motivation behind it isn't art. I had mentioned examples where mini-painting could be considered art. Perhaps in the case of my bedroom you really like the color I used and admire the way the trim brings out the character of the room and to you, thats art. Fine.. it's art. I would disagree with you that it's not and we'd still both be right.

 

In the case of this particular model, it was a winning Games Day entry and was most likely created with the sole intention of competition. This isn't so say that all contest entries are painted with these motivations - but generally this is the case. I know people who enter competition to see how they rank against other painters.

 

I personally paint simply to have figures that look nice to play with, or to display on shelves. Well partially as it's a great way to unwind from work. I don't view them as art. I also stated that if people wanted to be refered to as artists in their mini painting, I would be happy to do so - as it's really up to them about their motivation behind creation. Do you have any training in paint, and was art history or art theory covered? I'm curious as to what you have have been taught. You should realize that just become someone lays paint to canvas, it doesn't automatically make a pretty picture art. And conversely, should an artist actively chose to not lay any paint on a canvas, this act can still be art.

 

I find your lack of capitalization, punctuation and sentence structure art since it flies up in the face of convention and in it's disregard for proper usage it acts as a great illustration of knee-jerk haste due to frustration and anger. It's sheer poetics :)

 

Let me give you the digest form -

 

1) I don't see a large percentage of mini painting as art. Some of it is, in my opnion (thats the important bit there, this is my opinion).. most of it isn't. For every one person who paints for display, there are 10 more who do it for gaming. How many do it just for competition and/or profit on top of that.

 

2) I happily respect and support anyone's wishes to be called an artist. If you see it as art.. cool.. it's art. It's your opinion, and you are entitled to it - as I am entitled to mine. We can disagree and both be right.

 

3) There are some DARN FINE painters around these bits - and I'm forever in awe of what people can do. I just felt this needed to be said again, cause they deserve to know. :)

 

4) I find that crafstmanship, which is a nobel endevor, can also transcent art. Beucase it's created for just practical reasons, it can still be art. Same with if it's created simply for aestetic reasons.

 

Does that clarify things further? I'm sorry if I offended you or insulted your sensibility in anyway, as it wasn't my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cade - Good points :) Perhaps this should be spun off into another thread.

 

Jenna helped clarify on the definition of it being two fold in that it's the intent of the artist as well as the experience of the viewer. If the person experiencing a creation gets something out of it, to them it's art. I'll disagree with the idea that you can never know what the artist was trying to say though. Perhaps this is true sometimes - in which case the question can be brought up on if a piece works or not (this is true for poetry, film, music etc...). Many times, if an artist is successful, his or hear meaning will come through. Warhols commentary on pop culture, for example. Bosch's views of heaven, hell and judgement. These are pretty universally accepted by viewers. The works for Robert Frost are another example - but yes, you can never really know what was going on in the artists head - just what is interepreted by the viewers and that changes over time.

 

And I'd definately say that if someone intends for something to be art, it's not always a success. Perhaps to them it will always be art, but if it's not received that way, it's not art (at least to the participating parties)

 

Interestingly enough, many artists we consider to the "Masters" today, were not in vogue at the time, and were even considered to be "trash"

 

I have to bug out now - but this is actually a cool discussion - you guys want I should spin it off into Off Topic Rampancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the really basic summary of what we've got going on is that some of us have an inclusive definition of art that defaults to something being art if it meets ANY criteria, while others have an exclusive definition of art the defaults to something not being art if certain criteria aren't met...

 

That about sums it up to me... and I won't even try to step around the subject... I'll just avoid it!!! ::):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now