WarmGlass.com

Could you please guide me to some books or thoughts (your own are very welcome) on the difference between having access to objects that we can see, touch, handle, to decorate our homes, our surroundings or ourselves, versus electronic/digital forms of decoration, such as light projections etc (or others, I am not very familiar with these).

I am looking for an emphasis on how we feel as human beings, how we enhance our lives, how one form or the other has a beneficial or otherwise influence on our personal development and our surroundings.

Is it important to have all our senses engaged (visual, tactile, spacial etc) or is it as satisfying to see something that we can't touch or hold. Why one or the other?

For example a few years ago we had 5 days without electricity. Life became very simple: no cooking, no computers and internet, no hot water and no many other totally accepted conveniences, except for the landline phone.

We brought our small collection of art pieces to the living room (the only room where we had light, from our battery back up). Some paintings, some ceramic pieces, some glass pieces.

It made us feel connected with the rest of the world (we do live in a semi remote area). It gave us a sensation of continuation, a physical affirmation of our existence, and a sense of comfort. It is difficult to describe, but this is what happened.

I need the above rather urgently to argue against the takeover of facilities currently used by artists/craft people that make objects with their hands by the “Creative Arts” part of a University where the main focus is electronic and digital art.

All your thoughts and literature suggestions much appreciated. Have done extensive searches on the internet, but haven't quite found what I am after. A few lines, words well put together, someone's quote that make a convincing argument for the need of a parallel existence of both forms of art, where both are of - at least - equal value.

Many thanks for your help, seachange.

Not that this would help, but I know the AP community is wrestling with this topic now. Is it 2D or 3D art if a child renders a 3D object on Photoshop? Is it only 3D if you print it out with a 3D printer? I tend to agree with you, that art must have a tactile element... though now I think about it; I have never touched museum pieces. Maybe there isn't much a difference after all?

In the book "The Art of the Possible", psychologist Dawna Markova suggests that each of us has three communication channels: visual; auditory; and kinesthetic. One is primary, another secondary and the remaining is tertiary. Your primary channel is the main way you learn. Some people prefer visual input, with vivid graphics while others can listen to a recording and learn. Then there are those who learn by doing. They are the kinesthetic learners. The secondary channels are your subconscious communication channels. People who work well with music playing in the background have auditory secondary channels. If you have an auditory tertiary channel, you may find sounds, voices or music distracting while you are working in your primary channel. If you had a visual tertiary channel, that would make having a TV in the corner of the room a definite distraction.

What this suggests is that a strictly visual or audio means of communication may be ineffective or inefficient for people who have a kinesthetic primary channel.

Tony

Judd wrote:Not that this would help, but I know the AP community is wrestling with this topic now. Is it 2D or 3D art if a child renders a 3D object on Photoshop? Is it only 3D if you print it out with a 3D printer? I tend to agree with you, that art must have a tactile element... though now I think about it; I have never touched museum pieces. Maybe there isn't much a difference after all?

That was my first thought--that art engaged all the senses. I was specifically thinking of glass--its luster, color, smoothness, coolness, shape... Then I thought about paintings--they are purely visual.

Perhaps it comes down to what has been said before, that art evokes emotion. Does a digital image evoke less emotion than a physical one?

Is it process related? If I sit down with a brush in my hand, is that "more" art than some means of digital input? Does physical art have a greater impact on the artist as opposed to the"consumer"?

Is it about permanence? If that were the case, we wouldn't refer to Tibetan sand paintings as art...

Lots of thoughts; not many conclusions!

Dana

Dear Judd and Dana,

many thanks for your replies. This is exactly the position I am in at the moment. Trying to find some solid arguments, but then seeing that they are inconclusive...if I can knock them down myself, no point to put them up in a meeting with someone who'll tear them apart instantly.

Hmmm, more thinking needed.

Thanks again, seachange.

Tony Smith wrote:In the book "The Art of the Possible", psychologist Dawna Markova suggests that each of us has three communication channels: visual; auditory; and kinesthetic. One is primary, another secondary and the remaining is tertiary. Your primary channel is the main way you learn. Some people prefer visual input, with vivid graphics while others can listen to a recording and learn. Then there are those who learn by doing. They are the kinesthetic learners. The secondary channels are your subconscious communication channels. People who work well with music playing in the background have auditory secondary channels. If you have an auditory tertiary channel, you may find sounds, voices or music distracting while you are working in your primary channel. If you had a visual tertiary channel, that would make having a TV in the corner of the room a definite distraction.

What this suggests is that a strictly visual or audio means of communication may be ineffective or inefficient for people who have a kinesthetic primary channel.

Tony

Hi Tony

I think this is one step forward. Whenever I try to argue with myself about the value of physical versus digital/electronic art I find myself in shifting sands, no solid ground in one direction or the other.

When I searched on the internet an article somewhere said "....is found in books about cognitive psychology", but I didn't know where to start.

Will see if I can get the book on time and read it before meeting with the uni.

Many thanks for the explanation above, it will make some useful arguments.

I'll be very thankful for more recommendations and thoughts from this board, need to educate myself

Best regards, seachange

Although not directly related to how you posted your question, I would like to provide more food for thought.
I came to glass around 12 years ago from a background in clay. While working on my Masters degree in ceramics there was the constant debate of form verses function or what exactly is utility. Pieces can function both aesthetically and practically. A good mug can be attractive but also must be comfortable and allow the user to drink without spilling the contents while drinking.
Often times physical objects rely on the appreciation of the user as well as a technical expertise that was set about during the apprenticeship programs of past generations. Physical art changes daily, by the hour due to light sources, individual perspective, and familiarity with process or material.

Many thanks Steve, I specially liked the last line about the daily changes in physical art.

Thanks again also to everyone that contributed. It has helped me a lot to get my thoughts in line. The meeting went well, probably only one of many to come, but a good starting point.

Best wishes, seachange

Yes, that is a very good point about the changing light affecting a piece. I think of this question as similar to the difference between live music and recorded. Recorded is never as natural as the live, nor as immediate. It is also the difference between seeing a painting or sculpture in a museum, or a photo. How many of us, on seeing a famous famous painting, have been surprised at the scale---either smaller or larger than we imagined, from a photo? The scale is part of the artist's vision, and how we relate to that scale, as humans, affects our experience.

Nina Falk wrote:Yes, that is a very good point about the changing light affecting a piece. I think of this question as similar to the difference between live music and recorded. Recorded is never as natural as the live, nor as immediate. It is also the difference between seeing a painting or sculpture in a museum, or a photo. How many of us, on seeing a famous famous painting, have been surprised at the scale---either smaller or larger than we imagined, from a photo? The scale is part of the artist's vision, and how we relate to that scale, as humans, affects our experience.

Sitting here musing about why some people prefer analog records over digital recordings, old guitar pickups and old amps over new ones and all the pedal effects guitarists keep at their feet. I suppose in the sixteenth century people liked the old handwritten sonnets over the newfangled gutenberg printed versions. Wonder if we'll see retro digital artists some day that insist on displaying their creations on CRT monitors.

sometimes progress really is progress.

Here's free academic article from Wiley publishing. The subject matter is objects.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... id=1991927

You gotta admire the effort these people put into analysis of art. I get tired just trying to read it. Here's a heroic paragraph:

'More pithily, to strike a theme that takes on variegated life in our essays, these traps were becoming trapdoors. And many questions remained. If reflexive or even self-aware, were clever objects also necessarily self-critical?11 How could we reconcile the insistent, often awkwardly excessive, materialities of our artefacts and the quasi-numerological fixations they spawned among their interpreters with any compelling story about cleverness? Although our means through these gnarly thickets have been empirical and agnostic – any account of the clever object, we said, was always going to have to proceed upwards from engagement with particular objects and the kinds of cleverness they manifested – our collective aim has been utopian: to bring the phrase ‘clever object’ into a life as a category of analysis.'

More pithily?

oy vey.

Don- that was a slog, I gave up after a paragraph or two. I must be a very shallow and ignorant person; I'm going back to the cold shop to continue objectifying objects. Cleverly.

Any paragraph that starts with "MORE pithily" is automatically suspect. And ya gotta admire the logic train this guy is on. Traps becoming trapdoors? Self-aware objects? Empirical agnosticism?

How much don't you believe?

For me it doesn't even get to belief/nonbelief. I just don't understand what they're saying, it might as well be in wolof.

what is wolof?

foreign language
(Senegal)

forget it, I looked it up. you can get Berlitz tapes to learn it.