| Author |
Comment |
Christopher
Chan
Registered
User
Posts: 151
(7/26/01 6:41:36
pm)
Reply
 |
Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
One of the better discussions on Maestronet prompted me to ask this
question.
fingerboard.maestronet.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000955.html
What
do you think? Are luthiers artists?
|
BettyLou
Registered User
Posts: 73
(7/26/01 7:03:21 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
You dear sweet provocateur,
Luthiers are craftsmen (and
craftswomen for all you hair-trigger PC mavens). A housebuilder is
not an artist, but basically performs the same task: building a
structure from a specified list of measurements and forms, following
the plans of a draftsperson and architect.
If a luthier
embellishes the instrument with, let's say, some incredible
purfling, or marquetry, he is still a "woodworker", of which very
few are considered "artists".
Yes, luthiers and many other
handcrafters use artistry to create their wares, and while some rare
cellos may be works of art, the craft of instrument making, carving,
varnishing falls under the catagory of craftsmanship. Just look at
any $900 Chinese student instrument and through the runny varnish
drips and mismatched joints, you will deem those luthiers as
handworkers.
I believe I saw Martha Stewart carve a cello
from maple and spruce logs she had sawn out of her Turkey Hill
estate, and I know we do not consider her an artist. She's
considered lots of things, but not an artist!
|
G
M Stucka
Registered
User
Posts: 642
(7/26/01 8:38:42
pm)
Reply
|
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
Sorry Betty Lou. I disagree. I've seen too many cellos in ALL price
ranges that have taken my breath away with a beauty that goes beyond
mere craftsmanship. Just my own opinion/experience. GMS
|
ekifri
Registered User
Posts: 200
(7/26/01 11:05:09 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
Absolutely!
They possess both visual beauty and aural beauty
(even before the player enters the picture).
A painter is
also a craftsman insofar as his skills are learned technical skills-
techniques of drawing, colour-mixing and whatever else goes into his
creation- but an artist goes beyond all that. Not all paintings are
art either, although it is unlikely that the question would have
been asked in the same form about painters.
The luthier is
first a craftsman, but many rise above that into the realm of
artists. -- As do many other wood-workers imho.
It is Not the
material that defines something as art after all.
I mayy
not know what I like, but I know what's art- and my cello is art!
;-)
-eav
Edited by: ekifri
at: 7/27/01 8:05:55 am
|
Paul
Tseng ICS Staff 
Administrator
Posts: 1456
(7/27/01 1:52:16 am)
Reply
 |
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
Yes, Eva....your cello is a REAL beauty whose tone is equally
beautiful! I ought to know! 
Paul Tseng
My Website
Free Cello
Music!
|
Betsy
C 
Registered
User
Posts: 377
(7/27/01 8:29:21
am)
Reply
|
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
Absolutely! Art is subjective, anyway. What one person finds
pleasing to the eye may leave another person flat. I have always
thought instruments in general were works of art in their own way,
and the cello reigns supreme. The cello is full of gorgeous curves,
glowing wood, and magic! Oh yeah, the cello is a work of art.
|
MsCheryl
Registered
User
Posts: 253
(7/27/01 9:22:59
am)
Reply
|
Eye art or ear
art
But the real question, it seems to me, is not whether the look is
art, although this may come into play as well, but has the SOUND the
luthier come up with reached the realm of art. Unfortunately, most
people equate art with the visual, but there is certainly art in the
other senses as well, and this is certainly different from cello to
cello, despite the "formulae" followed by the luthier.
Also,
one must remember that many of our best loved fine artists also
followed "technical formulae" when they painted - it's how they
manipulated it that made it art.
So now my question - are
performers artists or merely craftsmen. After all, we are "merely"
playing what is printed on a page, so isn't the composer really the
only artist?
|
Andrew
Victor
Registered
User
Posts: 365
(7/27/01 9:56:27
am)
Reply
|
Silly Semantics!
Another coffee column??
Let's face it. It all depends on what you mean by
"art."
There are far more artisans (people who are skillful
at producing crafts others find "well-made) than there are artists.
To me an artist is a person who is capable of making objects
to be perceived by the senses of others and can convey to them the
the feelings that induced the artist to make them in the first
place. Sometimes the art is very subtle - as in a Renoir painting
that must be seen in the original to grasp (and gasp) within the
workings of your mind all that is really in it - those things that
for some reason just don't reproduce.
The tears or underlying
emotions that a work of music can bring, and the words any listener
(or professional critic) might waste trying to explicate it. The
power of poetry to convey through the images the poet assembled into
words the inner experience of that writer --- or not! What matter
that a critic will explicate out every image the poet used - it is
not what the poet used, but how they came together for the poet to
make an image 'she' felt was worthy of communicating. DOes it "work
backwards" for a reader to recreate the images and ultimately the
feelings?
Is the art of the painter or sculptor in the
ability to simulate two and three dimension projections of real
things or is it in the ability to convey impressions of such things
in objects that in themselves are complete "universes?"
All
that said - is a wooden instrument a work of art. As a rule, I would
think of it as a craft product - regardless of what it sounds and
plays like. BUT (BUT) some instruments seem to have such a
completeness of form, of curve and strength (or delicacy) of the
scroll, of balance between all the parts, of color, of wood grains
and relation to the body curves, of f-hole size, cut and angle that
one (including I) believes the maker too must have conceived all
this in the making and hoped others too would have the same
reaction. By my high-faluting definition-THAT IS ART, like it or
not!
Andy
|
G
M Stucka
Registered
User
Posts: 644
(7/27/01 10:49:02
am)
Reply
|
Artists or
craftsmen
IMHO, Rose was an artist. Starker is a craftsman.
|
zambocello
Registered User
Posts: 684
(7/27/01 3:29:35 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Artists or
craftsmen
..........had rehearsal this morning -- did not do one artistic
thing -- but my craftsmanship was pretty good...........
|
Laura
Wichers
Moderator
Posts: 1080
(7/27/01 5:40:56 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
BettyLou, wouldn't that be "craftsperson"? 
Laura
|
ashley
Registered User
Posts: 24
(7/27/01 11:58:57 pm)
Reply
|
to G M Stucka...
only a "craftsman"???
I don't think I quite know how to take that!! You can't be serious!
Starker is one of the most amazing artists I've ever seen. What
could you possibly have against poor Janos???
Just curious.
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered
User
Posts: 93
(7/28/01 1:29:21
am)
Reply
|
Beautifully
said, Betsy...
I really like the way you put it - I think you expressed the
cello's character perfectly! May I quote you on that?
-Nick
|
Betsy
C
Registered
User
Posts: 378
(7/28/01 6:35:17
am)
Reply
|
To
Nicholas
Sure! Go ahead- it really is my humble opinion that the cello is
the most lovely of all instruments. It is no accident that I took up
the study of the cello at age 44; and while I do not have the
natural ability I was hoping I would have, I still feel honored
every time I take my cello out of the case to play. It has become a
dream come true!
|
G
M Stucka
Registered
User
Posts: 645
(7/28/01 9:29:32
am)
Reply
|
Re: to G M
Stucka... only a "craftsman"???
Sorry, Ashley. I'll agree that Starker's is an amazing technique.
However, for me, artistry enters the picture when a player can touch
my heart or stir the depths of my soul. Starker does neither of
these things for me. He may amaze with his dexterity, but without
the extra something that comes from a beautifully turned phrase---a
trait that Rose had in excelsis---I simply can't qualify him as more
than a wonderful and enviable craftsman. Just my opinion, of course.
GMS
|
Nicholas
Anderson
Registered
User
Posts: 94
(7/28/01 12:02:16
pm)
Reply
|
I couldn't agree
more!
Betsy - I started studying the cello when I was 8, and still now,
every single day, I feel all those wonderful things about it that
you describe so well!
I think that sometimes, people have
more natural ability than they realize. Anyway, keep enjoying it and
loving it!
-Nick
|
RebeccaCello
Registered User
Posts: 105
(7/28/01 4:11:25 pm)
Reply
|
Work of
art????
In terms of (visual) beauty alone a cello is a work of art.
However, maybe people who make instruments are craftsmen rather than
artists because the end product is something to be used. Also, in a
way "art" cannot be defined solely in terms of beauty as this
something that varies from person to person --- "art" itself becomes
subjective. There has to be an objective way of defining "art";
subjectivity is just the dilution of meaning.
|
lblake
Registered
User
Posts: 410
(7/28/01 4:37:05
pm)
Reply
|
Re: Silly
Semantics! Another coffee column??
Hmm.
Personally, if I had to choose between those terms, I
would call many luthiers craftsmen. BUT, I believe there can be art
within craft. Likewise, there are many painters/sculptors/cellists for example,
traditionally given the title of "artist", whom I, too, would
consider craftsmen.
We assign "artist" to certain crafts,
and "craftsman" to other crafts, where perhaps the labor involved is
more tangible. Where did we come up with these terms, anyway? Why do
they matter?
Those "craftsmen" who are usually considered
exceptional, often are considered so because of the distintive
factor of art in their work. On the other hand, there are craftsmen
who are considered exceptional, because of the distinctive factor of
craft (or, technique) in their work. Likewise, some artists are
considered exceptional (especially by the general public) because of
an exceptional amount of craft in their work.
Then, with
some, it's the combination/balance of the two that makes an artist
OR a craftsman exceptional.
Perhaps the craftsman who builds
an instrument has a goal to create an instrument (ideally) that can
be the tool for another "artist" to use to create music, written by
another "artist," and perceived by an audience. Why do we wonder
where the lines are between craft and art? It's clearly a very
collaborative effort, and each part has some amount of technical
understanding, and the lack of any part may negate the whole piece
of artwork - from some perspective. the "unappreciated" art.
I think
the art is the understanding - the talent - the humanity - that
enters into, really, just about anything.
I agree with a good
part of what's been said here, even parts of the remarks of our Mr.
Stucka. Some very good points have been made.
It is
semantics. Art is not defined by the discipline, or skill being
practiced. Art is that action of conveying something that Andy
mentions. Art is also very much in perception. And in the
intention.
For me, Marcel Duchamp (I think that's who it was)
was unquestionably an artist, conveying a very pure beauty,
ugliness, and powerful feeling, when he put a bottle rack on display
in an art museum. For others, he was a sensationalist fool, just
being wierd for the sake of being wierd, and calling that
"art."
My point: many luthiers are artists... many are
craftsmen. Not even the cello resulting from their work, though, can
definitively be the measure by which we tell the difference.
Edited by: lblake
at: 7/28/01 4:41:15 pm
|
DoDahlberg
Moderator
Posts: 126
(7/28/01 6:07:32 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
I'll take the side that instrument making is done by
artisans/craftspeople; that the instrument is not a work of art. The
tools and skills required for making art and well crafted items can
be of the highest order but I make the distinction in that the
goals/end results are completely different. It might take a
violin/cello maker years to come up with his/her difinitive
instrument regarding sound, quality, design and all the engineering
and skill that gets the instrument to that point. But, it's a
constant refinement of a formula. Making art should be anti-formula.
True enough it may seem as though artists refine their style, their
subject matter, making it obvious the work is theirs but as images,
colors, size, etc. continue to change and as those changes take
place the inventions may move into an entirely new place. The goal
is not to make an exact copy of the last masterpiece. That said, I
don't believe one is better than the other or that one is a higher
form of creativity and skill than the other; they're just different.
Dorie |
ekifri
Registered User
Posts: 204
(7/28/01 6:17:56 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Is a cello a
work of art? violins? instruments?
But that definition would seem to put all (almost all?)performing
artists into the category of craftsmen.
While the functional
goal of instrument making may be as you describe- the other aspects
are not necessarily so. The colour, the carving, the inlay, etc are
not part of the engineering but are purely artistic- beauty for it's
own sake, and each instrument has a different appearance with its
own effect on the viewer.
-eav
|
ashley
Registered User
Posts: 26
(7/29/01 1:09:01 am)
Reply
|
Re: to G M
Stucka... only a "craftsman"???
Hmmm, okay, that's interesting. So basically you're taking the
statement that art is subjective (made elsewhere in this thread) to
the next logical step, and you're saying that Starker is only an
artist *sometimes.* Because to me, he's an "artist", while to you
he's merely a "craftsman." So, I guess he could be both at once!
Right? Because art is subjective...
Well this thread is certainly
getting interesting! Looking forward to any other comments you might
have about this.
|
Internet Cello
Society Forums
Email
This To a Friend
Topic Commands (Moderator only)