[=
But the point is that IF you choose to bring a tree like that to a show and IF you choose to have it compete with all the others, you have absolutely NO choice when, where or what you do. You do what is EXPECTED. How on earth can that be considered art?
That's a fair point, though I don't show my trees (or at least haven't to date), so don't see things through that filter. Nobody expects anything of my trees but me. I intellectually understand what you're saying but don't have the first-hand perspective on that one. But even with those constraints in place, I would probably still argue that it's art. In fact, sometimes the best art arises from constraints.
For example, I play blues harmonica. The blues scale is the very definition of a constraint. You're either playing within the scale or you are not. Yet some of the most beautiful, creative music ever created lives within it. And if somebody masters a piece of music enough to perform it well, and maybe even improvise within it, they are constrained by the piece and by the scale, but their individual creativity comes out in more subtle ways. You know when you're listening to somebody who has mastered the instrument, and there's no question that they'd be called an artist, even if they're covering somebody else's work. It's the
performance itself that's the art. Similarly, how is the masterful performance of creating a particular tree, even a very standard style, NOT art?
[=
Do you really believe Bjorn consciously chose to do that work in that way and achieve that outcome? That decision was made by outside forces. We are all slaves to convention to some point. All I'm saying is it's good to be aware of that.
Of course he consciously chose to do that work in that way! He wasn't asleep when he worked on that tree! It sounds like what you're really saying is that he just followed a formula ad nauseum and out popped that tree. In my experience, the material is almost never so formulaic as to allow you to take such an approach.
[=
That's the problem with definitions of art. Talk about nebulous! But anyway, take the first part. Where is the imagination in doing what has been done before? It's skill AND imagination. Not skill OR imagination.
Ok, this is the crux of it. First, I don't believe it
has been done before. How could it be? The tree is continually changing, and the tree he sees before him is different than any other tree that's ever existed. It may be very similar to other trees, but they are definitely all unique.
Similarly, if I paint a picture of the Eiffel tower, something that's been painted and photographed countless times, is my painting not art?? It may not be good art, and it may not be the most original art, but it's still an artistic expression that originated from me. I just don't see how things like this are NOT art, frankly. Similarly, I just don't see how what he's created here is not art, even if it's quite similar to other trees shaped in this style.
When I approach material that's already been worked, I still have to consciously envision the new, more refined form that I desire in order to do the work. I think saying there's no imagination required here is a HUGE assumption on your part, and one that would only be settled by speaking with Bjorn himself about his process.
[=
Thanks music maker for taking the trouble to reply. It's been fun! I think we had better stop now because the thread is drifting away from Adair's initial message.
But it's his fault because he used the word artist. (just kidding
)
Yes, this has been an interesting discussion. It doesn't seem that we're likely to convince each other of anything here, but always good to explore alternative points of view.