Turner Prize

There is no difference.

Oh yes there is!
Craftsmanship is about technique.
Art is about communication.

That's what I think, eva!

All craftsmanship is art.
All art is craftsmanship.

It takes skill and ability to produce beautiful things.
It takes skill and ability to produce well made things.

Art does indeed communicate. But something that does nothing else other than communicate is called a mobile phone.

eva and heliotrope both have good points to make - but art isn't necessarily beautiful - Guernica isn't beautiful but it communicates powerfully.

Craftsmanship can be producing beautiful things in age old ways, in an age old style - original thought isn't necessary but skill is. Of course some craftsmen also produce highly original work. Craftsmanship also encompasses engineering, bridge building etc - and yes these structures are often also beautiful but the fact that they work for the purpose they are designed for is a primary consideration.

Art is I suppose self indulgent to a degree - artists now work to their own agenda on their own interests. If it is their only source of income then market forces come into play - would Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Giotto etc have painted so many religious subjects if they had been free to choose? these were the subjects that their patrons wanted. They take the given subject matter though and create something uniquely their own.

there is no absolute definition.

You're right Vivien.
All this garbage masquerading as art just annoys the hell out of me. Piles of bricks, a tub of Swarfega with a child's doll in it, a blue rectangle etc... Trash.

I'll tell you one of the most beautiful things I own is a perfect 4 inch cube of flourite glass that was used as a beam splitter in a laser built for nuclear fusion experiments.
It's perfect down to a couple of millionths of an inch and is almost perfectly transparent. It has to be otherwise the gigawatts being blasted through it would have vaporised it.

It's an expression of excellence and is beautiful on so many different levels. Fabulous.
I love the thing.

I'd love a perfect sphere too. Preferably made of Osmium.

I couldn't disagree with that Heliotrope in any way, the truly skilled artist can paint "The potato eaters" or "The village wedding"

The true craftsman, like our local lad Thomas Chippendale can craft furniture that people, at auctions today, will almost fight to the death to own.

I wonder how many people will be fighting to own " a pile of bricks, or "a sheep carcass in formaldehyde" 20 years from now.

How many people remember Yoko Ono's art? Story is, she and John Lennon met at a gallery showing her works. One was a piece of wood and a pile of nails, and a hammer. Visitors to the gallery were to pound a nail into the wood. The result was a "sculpture"...

But at the time, she engaged people and affected them emotionally with her creations.

That's a part of what art is. Beautiful and longlasting are other facets of what can be called art.

The meat dress brings to mind the old saying which I quoted recently, "One man's meat is another man's poison." This could be applied to the Turner nomination. This conceptual art movement (and I sometimes think they left "bowel" out of the equation) is living much too long a life. From Duchamp to Bueys, it's already been explored ad nauseum. It's now rather prosaic and urbane, and ultimately the Johnny-come-latelys are beating the proverbial dead horse.

The piece is question reminds me of Kienholt'z "Back Seat Chevy" which caused such a stir in an exhibition in the early 60's in Los Angeles. Give it up!

I saw the exhibition "Yes Yoko Ono" fairly recently
in Toronto. I was very impressed with Yoko...she
was no lightweight in my opinion. I also found
the meat dress rather clever. However, my fear is that these conceptual pieces are so fleeting , so insubstantial and so plentiful and I suppose that is their intent. One wonders what will be left (of value) to the next generation.

I believe we need to get beyond pure shock to make a legacy of memorable art ......but we also need patrons to champion that......

When is a pile of bricks not a pile of bricks?

According to Duchamp, when it is offered as art. The pile of bricks in an instutional setting is suppose to elevate it to the status of high art. Doesn't always work and after all, the judgement is by academics who may or may not be drawing from facilities not many others understand. Thus, Jeff Koon's goofy vacuum cleaners in a plexi-box -- however, there can be an element of satire within this genre. Duchamp's "Fountain," a urinal turned sideways and hung on a wall, it a visual pun on a functioning shape that is certainly inventive. Conceptual art is going to run the gamit from mediocre to great just like all other art.

Agreed. I've seen some nice B&W pictures of gritty streets and construction debris; is that art? (Answer: maybe...)

Thanks for the illuminating response L.W., well
put.

Wy, photographs are considered art but being considered high art is another story. The line's been blurred between commercial and fine art.

Hey, thanks, shepaints -- always a good feeling to be appreciated.