Foo - "Art is purposely useless."

A sentiment uttered by Richard Serra, an American sculptor. In a 2001 interview with Charlie Rose, Mr. Serra argued that buildings are not art, furniture is not art, etc, that art, to be art, had to be purposely created to be useless. That anything else is simply not art and should not be considered as such.

It's an interesting notion and I wonder what others think of this.

Years ago, I took my daughter to an interview for admission into an art program. The furniture we sat in wasn't the least bit functional, but was borrowed from an exhibition. It was made of particle board and extremely uncomfortable. But the artist had excellent woodworking skills (the joints were very good).

It was at that moment, that I knew that I was incapable of understanding "art".

It was at that moment, that I knew that I was incapable of understanding "art".

But I do get this "art":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/ArtOfComputerProgramming.jpg/200px-ArtOfComputerProgramming.jpg

that's why cars are never art, they're just elegant cars.

Plain and simply put that happens to be Richard Serra's opinion which he is entitled too but is most certainly wrong.

Plain and simply put that happens to be Richard Serra's opinion which he is entitled too but is most certainly wrong.
Why?

That quote is certainly a close-minded, elitist attitude. Just because something is functional doesn't mean it can't be art.

There are many items that fall into this classification. Matter of fact, sculpture isn't useless. It serves a function as decoration, as do paintings. An elaborately painted sawblade can be hung on a wall or even mounted up and used. Many smoking pipes are beautiful pieces of sculpture, but they are made to be used. Many types of furniture fit this category. Frank Lloyd Wright (sp?) type architecture is certainly art. I could go on and on. Functionality (or the lack thereof) doesn't define art.

That quote is certainly a close-minded, elitist attitude. Just because something is functional doesn't mean it can't be art.

There are many items that fall into this classification. Matter of fact, sculpture isn't useless. It serves a function as decoration, as do paintings. An elaborately painted sawblade can be hung on a wall or even mounted up and used. Many smoking pipes are beautiful pieces of sculpture, but they are made to be used. Many types of furniture fit this category. Frank Lloyd Wright (sp?) type architecture is certainly art. I could go on and on. Functionality (or the lack thereof) doesn't define art.
He brought up Wright's furniture and scoffed at it as well, asking, "were do you draw the line?" Why are dull pipes not art but elaborate ones are? What's the difference?

An elaborately painted sawblade actually loses its usefulness. To use it would be to destroy the art but to not use it makes it useless. That's actually a perfect example of his statement.

Regardless, it's still a sawblade. Look at chess pieces. They can certainly be rendered as exquisite examples of sculpture. But still, they are chess pieces and can be used as such.

Where do you draw the line? Frankly, that's a question that has as many answers as there are people. And there will likely be little to no consensus on the answer. Further, I suggest that your answer to that question will reveal much about you.

Lastly, why are you appearing to argue in favor of such a closed minded approach to art? Is there something that we should be learning about you by this?

Architecture is not art...Right...these works are not art...

Frank Gehry, Star Wood Hotel

http://artlitideas.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/frank_gehry_star_wood_hotel_3.jpg

Daniel Liebeskind, JEWISH MUSEUM, Berlin, Germany

http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/J/2/libeskind-berlinjewish.jpg

Steven Holl, THE NELSON-ATKINS MUSEUM OF ART (http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=museums&id=19&page=0), Kansas City, MO, United States

http://www.stevenholl.com/media/files/Nelson-Atkins/NAMAP-0025-SHA---W-PROJECT-.jpg

Santiago Calatrava, City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain

http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/images/uploads/CalatravaCiutadValencia.jpg




Don't get me wrong, I don't think that ALL architecture is art, but to make that blanket statement is a little short sighted, in my opinion.

Art: any act of expression, that takes practice to prefect, and where the meaning of the act is dependent upon the opinions of the observer.

Art is something humans create that isn't required for survival, therefore it's useless. You could sit on a rock therefore a chair is useless art.

Bugatti Type 57

Supermarine Spitfire

Herreshoff International One Design

All examples of functional art to this texican cretin.

Architecture is not art...Right...these works are not art...

Frank Gehry, Star Wood Hotel

http://artlitideas.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/frank_gehry_star_wood_hotel_3.jpg

Daniel Liebeskind, JEWISH MUSEUM, Berlin, Germany

http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/J/2/libeskind-berlinjewish.jpg

Steven Holl, THE NELSON-ATKINS MUSEUM OF ART (http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=museums&id=19&page=0), Kansas City, MO, United States

http://www.stevenholl.com/media/files/Nelson-Atkins/NAMAP-0025-SHA---W-PROJECT-.jpg

Santiago Calatrava, City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain

http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/images/uploads/CalatravaCiutadValencia.jpg




Don't get me wrong, I don't think that ALL architecture is art, but to make that blanket statement is a little short sighted, in my opinion.
Gehry is apparently a friend of Serra. When asked specifically about Gehry, Serra made the above statement.

Again, I ask, what makes these art but not this?

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/1c/88/b2/holiday-inn-kingston.jpg

Art: any act of expression, that takes practice to prefect, and where the meaning of the act is dependent upon the opinions of the observer.
Then anything could be art and art loses its meaning.

I think he was pointing to the impulsive intention of the artist. If your intention is to build function, you have limited your ability to produce art in the purist sense since the end result is established before you've begun.

Gehry is apparently a friend of Serra. When asked specifically about Gehry, Serra made the above statement.

Again, I ask, what makes these art but not this?

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/1c/88/b2/holiday-inn-kingston.jpg

That did not require practice.

I think that art is something that appeals to each person in a different manner. I will never comprehend Maplethorpe or even much of the pop art movement. A Campbells soup can is simply a way for me to get bad noodles and way too much sodium into my system to further enlarge my cow heart.

However, sitting in a fine automobile, listening to the mechanical symphony of a small displacement V8 at full throat as you carve through a perfect corner is art to me. The curve of a spinnaker that is trimmed just right is art to me. And the beauty of much of God's creation is art to me. All of those things have purpose and use. To me, it diminishes art to say that is purposelly useless.

That did not require practice.
Tell that to the architect who designed it. Of course it required practice.

Then anything could be art and art loses its meaning.

An art object's first purpose is to express (what is dependent upon the observer) and any subsequent functionality is secondary.

For example:
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5582/franklynf3.jpg
Wright didn't care that it leaked.

Then anything could be art and art loses its meaning.

Hardly. Art's "meaning" (such a nebulous concept) is going to be different for each person that views it, and also for the person that created it. If it has any meaning whatsoever. Much art is nothing but the result of the creative impulse of the artist, regardless of the end form.

I think that art is something that appeals to each person in a different manner...
To me, it diminishes art to say that is purposelly useless.

I'm the opposite. It diminishes art to apply it so freely to common occurrence. I consider your examples craft, great fabulous craft, but still craft.
BTW, I make my living in "craft" and am flattered you consider it "art".

Tell that to the architect who designed it. Of course it required practice.

Functionality was its first purpose; the green roof is to match the corporate logo, and the stucco was picked by an accountant for its cost.
The only act of expression there is the green roof.

An art object's first purpose is to express (what is dependent upon the observer) and any subsequent functionality is secondary.
Wright didn't care that it leaked.

but he sure woulda cared if it fell down.

Bugatti Type 57

Supermarine Spitfire

Herreshoff International One Design

All examples of functional art to this texican cretin.

Browning A5,
Remington 700
Colt 1911A
And yes, even a Bugatti Type 57 all qualify as functional art to the redneck that I am.

Browning A5,
Remington 700
Colt 1911A
And yes, even a Bugatti Type 57 all qualify as functional art to the redneck that I am.

The 1911 is most certainly a beautiful pistol. Possibly one of the best designed ever. Yup, art.

I'm the opposite. It diminishes art to apply it so freely to common occurrence. I consider your examples craft, great fabulous craft, but still craft.
BTW, I make my living in "craft" and am flattered you consider it "art".


How can one differentiate between art and craft then? There have been tens of thousands of cars designed. There is only one Bugatti Type 57. You can find a car to get you through a corner faster and in more comfort than a Ferrari 308, but the experience will not be the same.

How can one differentiate between art and craft then?

It goes back to the thread title. "Art is purposely useless". I'd argue that is wrong as well, how about, "Art should attempt to reveal new truths".

How can one differentiate between art and craft then? There have been tens of thousands of cars designed. There is only one Bugatti Type 57. You can find a car to get you through a corner faster and in more comfort than a Ferrari 308, but the experience will not be the same.

True art challenges the mind, evokes emotion and requires interpretation by the viewer. Art is a measure of society's growth and serves as a historical record which will outlast all the utilitarian objects that mankind creates.

There's a distinct purpose to the masterfully handcarved lugwork on a custom bicycle frame. Where's the line between art and craftsmanship? Is it only the utilitarianism of the design?

There's a distinct purpose to the masterfully handcarved lugwork on a custom bicycle frame. Where's the line between art and craftsmanship? Is it only the utilitarianism of the design?

I'd say it's the distinction of the original impulse to create. If your impulse is to hold two tubes of steel together, you got craft, no matter how fancy. You have to separate the end product from the intent. Explains why so much modern art is "ugly" or indecipherable, you haven't tracked the artist's intent.
Course by my distinction the Sistine Chapel is just craft, so maybe there's a societal dimensions as well.

That quote is certainly a close-minded, elitist attitude. Just because something is functional doesn't mean it can't be art.

There are many items that fall into this classification. Matter of fact, sculpture isn't useless. It serves a function as decoration, as do paintings. An elaborately painted sawblade can be hung on a wall or even mounted up and used. Many smoking pipes are beautiful pieces of sculpture, but they are made to be used. Many types of furniture fit this category. Frank Lloyd Wright (sp?) type architecture is certainly art. I could go on and on. Functionality (or the lack thereof) doesn't define art.

ignorance is bliss.


Gehry is apparently a friend of Serra. When asked specifically about Gehry, Serra made the above statement.

Again, I ask, what makes these art but not this?

http://media-cdn.tripadvi sor.com/media/photo-s/00/1c/88/b2/holiday-inn-kingston.jpg

apparently? obviously you don't know much about either.

Then anything could be art and art loses its meaning.


Bugatti Type 57

Supermarine Spitfire

Herreshoff International One Design

All examples of functional art to this texican cretin.

bongo. disappointed.


Browning A5,
Remington 700
Colt 1911A
And yes, even a Bugatti Type 57 all qualify as functional art to the redneck that I am.

incorrect.


The 1911 is most certainly a beautiful pistol. Possibly one of the best designed ever. Yup, art.
:lol:

ignorance is bliss.
apparently? obviously you don't know much about either.
bongo. disappointed.
incorrect.


:lol:


One man's art is another man's trash....

Botto, can you weigh in on the functionality of art for us. I may not always agree with you, but I enjoy your insight.

also, I would like to request that you post the bongo pic for me. I have never knowingly been graced with a botto bongo award.

I have a question....using the OP's definintion of art being useless.....do Botto's one word responses qualify as a form of art? ;)

I have a question....using the OP's definintion of art being useless.....do Botto's one word responses qualify as a form of art? ;)

incorrect

incorrect

this is how you answer a question? You fail.

You fail.

it's an art

One man's art is another man's trash....

if you had some knowledge of art, instead of knee jerk reactions, then you'd be correct.

thing is, i don't recall you ever showing any knowledge, let alone interest.

I think he was pointing to the impulsive intention of the artist. If your intention is to build function, you have limited your ability to produce art in the purist sense since the end result is established before you've begun.

It took me a very long time and a lot of study to distill that definition.
Take it how you will.

What if you use a painting to cover up a water stain on the wall? The painting now serves a purpose doesn't it?

if you had some knowledge of art, instead of knee jerk reactions, then you'd be correct.

thing is, i don't recall you ever showing any knowledge, let alone interest.

The man has respectable talent with a potter's wheel.

What if you use a painting to cover up a water stain on the wall? The painting now serves a purpose doesn't it?

No, the canvas does.

What if you use a painting to cover up a water stain on the wall? The painting now serves a purpose doesn't it?

kollege

It took me a very long time and a lot of study to distill that definition.
Take it how you will.

inappropriate for foo?

if you had some knowledge of art, instead of knee jerk reactions, then you'd be correct.

thing is, i don't recall you ever showing any knowledge, let alone interest.

You should lighten up francis. Art is to be enjoyed. There's more then one type.

The man has respectable talent with a potter's wheel.

shhhhh...let the ignorant remain so.

You should lighten up francis. Art is to be enjoyed. There's more then one type.

really? i didn't know.

really? i didn't know.

correct




:p