Can someone do art with Playmobil? & What is art?

[Timotheos]

Art is communication. If an artist wants to communicate something, he/she will accept questions about it, so the beholder of the art understands what is being communicated. It is not uncommon for artist to explain further about what appears to be obvious (or not obvious).

Yeah, but communication includes "lecturing" among its subsets.  Seriously, how many of these professional artists approach art as a dialog with the consumer? 

And, why do we even need a dialog?

Delacour's photos are interesting--yet he adds the spin about "yankees representing positive morality" as a complete non-sequitor.  There is nothing about his photos that in any way suggest this positive morality.  He's what we laymen might call "talking something up." 

While I understand where you are coming from, to completely remove all cynicism from a very human enterprise (promoting one's professional career; generating livilihood), separates "art" from the rest of human experience and places it on a pedestal.

Other than a person's ability to talk his way into a market, why are obliged to give "art" special consideration not reserved for other mundane interactions between people--ie. like a ranting radio show by Rush Conservative?

It is for this reason that I argue modern minds imbue "art" with a sort of mysticism it isn't entitled to.

[Timotheos]

I throw in the towel.

Maybe I understand you now, Knightmo.

We are talking about different "genres".  What you're describing sounds like this:

A person puts forward an object, work, whatever and gives it a "philosophical / moral / political interpretation" (in Delacour's case, "positive morality").  The patron then "contemplates" this premise--possibly even divorced from the actual work.   

But, regardless, this is clearly different from classical styles, which were based around aesthetics and visual stimulation.  I mean, Van Gogh's painting of that field really was a painting of a field.  He was experimenting with techniques and visual stimulation--not trying to preach something about "positive morals."

[Richard]

Yann Delacour obviously used his "art" to dupe Zirndorf into giving him a very large Playmobil army to play with, so that he could revisit the toys of his childhood.

His photographs are laughable. The quality of his "art" pales in comparison to the many excellent "amateur" photos posted here by the members of Playmofriends.

Hopefully, he privately laughs at himself and enjoys the humour of the farce that he continues to inflict upon his audience of fools.

The photography of someone like Ansel Adams can be legitimately compared to the truly great artists of our cultural history. Delacour, on the other hand, can legitimately claim P.T. Barnum for his cultural heritage.

A quick search of the "worldwide interweb" produced a couple of photos of Playmobil by Delacour that seem to prove that he is indeed "talent free" ... 

All the best,
Richard

see attachments

[Martin Milner]

He certainly can't focus his camera correctly!

I found his website too



what a load of doo. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that I don't want to waste more eyetime on.

[Martin Milner]

Dissageement with the subject matter does not invalidate something as art. A creation is a creation. We can criticize Moral, technical aspect of the arts. For example, a painting that is viewed as morally depraved can be viewed negatively because its depraved. Saying "thats not art (or any less a work of art)" isnt correct. It is just as much art as a morally uplifting painting, it was just inspired by depravity. In the example of the child piling toys on a table: Just because a "pile" is mundane to most, doesn't invalidate the craft. To the child, the pile is an ordered form that he/she created either from inspiration or from experience from witnessing someone create a similar form.

So by your definition, Art is Art because the person who created it says so?

Is Art defined by the "artist" or the viewer? Or by an "expert" third party, the Art critic, who can tell us all what we should think?

I agree that the subject matter is irrelevent. A painting of a rotting corpse may still be art if it is skilfully rendered, no matter that most of us won't want to look at it.


There was a guy in the papers the other week who paints with his tongue. He has normal working arms and hands, and feet, but he chooses to paint with his tongue. Does this make the final painting more or less Art than if he used brushes, or the same?

[Indianna]

For me the difference between art and craft is the special response that art invokes in the observer.  Excellent craft is certainly to be admired for the skills employed in its creation and most art is also fine craft.  Art transcends craft when it causes the observer to feel something more than admiration for the skills involved.  I am unable to define what that "something" is (and it may well be different for different people) but I think we all know it when we feel it.  Great art also transcends time and place and even culture and elicits that special response from a great number of people.  Great art does not require an accompanying context.

Van Gogh is one of my favorite artists, but I knew nothing about him when I first saw "Starry Night" and fell in love with it.  Learning about V.G. and visiting Arles and vicinity enriched my appreciation of his work but was not required for that initial gut reaction.

About 30 years ago I saw Dürer's "Melencolia I" at a museum and was instantly captivated by it, again knowing nothing about the artist or his times.  Since then I have learned more about him and his other work (most of which does not appeal to me, as it is mostly religious in nature, although I am sure that it still qualifies as art. )  I obtained a modern reprint of the etching and I still enjoy looking at it and thinking about it.

When I saw a photo of Jeff Koons's stainless steel "Rabbit" about 20 years ago I was entranced.  Since then I have become more familiar with the artist and I really don't like most of his work (and he doesn't even make this stuff himself - he comes up with the design and has a whole studio full of people who actually make it.)  I finally saw the rabbit in person when it recently visited the ICA here in Boston - I LOVED it!  It was more wonderful than I ever could have imagined.

Fifty years ago my father-in-law had some materials that were left over from the building of the new family home and he was inspired to put them together in an interesting way.  He attached a block of one inch black tiles to a larger sheet of black formica and poured a large blob of white paint near one corner of the tile block so that the paint seeped between the tiles, creating the effect of a gigantic full moon rising behind the corner of a modern building.  He framed it with some pieces of aluminum sliding-door track.  It is very cool!  He is not an artist but, simple as it is, I feel that this is a work of art.  I compare it to Picasso's bull's head which he crafted from a bicycle's seat and handlebars.  Both are brilliant uses of found objects.  But "Moon over Miami" ain't worth a million bucks!   

- Anne

[Knightmo]

oy.

I am just looking at the question "what is art", not "what I think is art". The latter is a fair question too, but I am approaching first question form a broader view. Its not about genre or morals. I am not dismissing anything from my standpoint. I have said this but I guess you think I am approaching it in a different way.

Art can communicate crap and do it in a crappy way.
It can be technically executed wonderfully but the image itself can be disturbing to point it is assigned no good value.
It can be a barely recognizable image that evokes good feelings or some other meaning.
Etc..
etc..

If someone takes horrible pic and adds some blathering that sounds ridiculous, I wont hesitate to call it absurd. That's a fair critique of its technique and whatever social statement its supposed to make...but, I will give a creator the benefit of the doubt that there is communication there. That, however crappy it is, it was deliberately forged to say what the creator intended. Art. Communication and expression is soooooo varied. execution and subject matter is sooooo varied. I wont presume to steal a persons voice because it doesn't speak to me for whatever reason.

Indianna has a good post.

I guess I have little more to say also.





 

[Gustavo]

i

So by your definition, Art is Art because the person who created it says so?

Is Art defined by the "artist" or the viewer? Or by an "expert" third party, the Art critic, who can tell us all what we should think?

I gladly welcome back the Morris Dancer, Martin!

About the artist, I think that, putting in the square,
there will be:

1. person who says to be an artist and who actually is;
2. person who says to be an artist and actually isn't;
3. person who says to be something else and is an artist;
and 4. person who says to be something else, and actually isn't an artist.

#1 is a professional artist;
#3 are many designers (...); a guy like this is both a (e.g.) designer and an artist, and he is said to be so by others;
#4 is maybe me (I don't have enough production to think myself as an artist (writer), and I don't persue* this, or care about)

*Well, maybe I do, I mean, I do search for getting better in what I do, but not as a profession, for very personal reasoning.

ii

Indianna brought some very interesting -- and illustrative -- examples, based on her perception of art ...

Thx, Anne!

iii

I was thinking about one other thing, concerning what had come up ... (I don't use to write during the week, but it isn't at all a rule ... )

On message, there are some things that are somewhat obvious, for example:

Message in attached art with Playmobil by Ralf Gemein brings me one clear message: "I like Playmobil".

Message in "Night of the Reaper" brings me one clear message: "I like Playmobil & Humour"

& Message in Delacour's art brings me one message: "I like the effect of an army of USCW Playmobil figures" ... It doesn't bring me the message "I like Playmobil" (all right, I only saw one picture, I'm talking about what I saw).

Ralf Gemein clearly works the figures. Each one. And these sets he made up aren't even what he would put in a portfolio, or consider his professional art ... Maybe he considers that a hobby ... But it has the message "I like Playmobil", does anyone disagree? Maybe Gemein's presence in GW-PC is a paralel to an interview ... It's something he says apart from his artistic production, and the message his "hobby" brings is "I like Playmobil".

The message Delacour's interview brings is "I like Playmobil, as long as they pay me ... I can do what I do with any other toy, if they stop paying me ...". Come on!: this guy is a mercenary! Or he doesn't measure his words. There are fans of Playmobil, somewhere in the world! Playmobil doesn't need him! / (Which doesn't mean his art isn't art ... No matter he offends someone with his interview, which is something apart.) (P. Picasso was man very full of pride himself, and he is recognized for the work he did, and was, even during his life ... Which also characterizes an artist for profession. Someone is supposed to live of what he does.)

iv

And to finish with something that I'd like to say about my own words ... I'm sorry (I really am) about the way my speech comes up. I have a very annoyong way of speaking "in lecture mode" most of the time I hope I'll manage to change this. However, before I find out the way of doing so, I will annoy you a bit longer. / What I ask of you is that you try to pick whatever is interesting in the middle of what is said. Although it is a speech full of pride, it does bring some ideas, you know? I'll appreciate your view on the ideas I bring ... I don't know everything -- Not me.

Only Timotheus does! ... Um, I hope you know I'm kidding, master Tim


G.

[Gustavo]

Through Playmobilmania.blogspot (in Catalon ... a language between Spanish and French, in many ways ...), I got to Rafael Morgan at blogger, source of these interesting chairs, that may have to do with this thread ...

Chair




Idea of the chair

quick_G

[Indianna]

That chair is fabulous!  Thanks for the link, Gustavo!  I wonder if it was ever produced in quantity for retail sale.  It actually looks comfortable, too.   

iii

I was thinking about one other thing, concerning what had come up ... (I don't use to write during the week, but it isn't at all a rule ... )

On message, there are some things that are somewhat obvious, for example:

Message in attached art with Playmobil by Ralf Gemein brings me one clear message: "I like Playmobil".

Message in "Night of the Reaper" brings me one clear message: "I like Playmobil & Humour"

& Message in Delacour's art brings me one message: "I like the effect of an army of USCW Playmobil figures" ... It doesn't bring me the message "I like Playmobil" (all right, I only saw one picture, I'm talking about what I saw).

Gustavo, I think you make a very important point!  When someone is truly inspired to create something and truly enjoys the process, that has to be part of the "definition" of art, too.  Maybe we can identify a true artist by the way he or she would answer this question: "Would you be compelled to do whatever it is that you do even if there was no material reward for it?"   Or, for Playmobil artists, the question would be, "Are you compelled to do this even though it's costing you a fortune, your friends think you're weird (if you even dare to tell them) and your family thinks you're crazy?"  We already know the answer!   

- Anne