I agree that it's rediculous. I think wood is a perfectly legitimate medium
for sculpture, but for dead-to nuts representational art it does not leave
much opportunity "follow" the medium. IMO, it's as if the sclpture was
executed in spite of the medium rather than coming forth from the meduim.
Which is not to diminish the craftsmanship... it's just not my cup of tea.
Referring specifically to the quilts rendered in wood: Art representing art
is a bit too removed for me. My wife makes some awesome quilts, I can't
imagine rendering them in another medium that exceeded the original. I guess
I can get my mind around that as a specific "concept piece" but not as a
This is coming from the guy who used to write software that ran on computers
for the sole purpose of helping to make more computers.... I found that a
bit unsastisfying too.
How is his work ridiculous? His humorous pieces, like the VW boat, are
terrific. It's not a "serious" piece but it's nice to look at,
exhibits a lot of skill, is functional and puts smiles on peoples'
faces. His more straightforward pieces take everyday items and makes
you look at them again.
I also don't know that the medium dictates such "form follows function"
type of rules. Those are the artist's choices. The David would have
been a far different work in sandstone, limestone, granite or whatever.
This http://www.liviodemarchi.com/ukmain3.htm is an amazing work. The
wood choice certainly doesn't interfere with the representational art
It's well beyond craftsmanship, certainly art and astonishing
regardless of what criteria you use to view it.
Hell, if I wanted a work of "art" that looked like a filthy, unmade bed
I could do that myself every day. So who needs Tracey Emin? Yet there
she is. This guy has it over her ANY day!
"If you can't create, your life will consist of nothing but your
opinions and other people's facts."
Don't know who Tracey Emin is, either- but that doesn't sound very
appealing. There are a lot of things in the world that people with
too much disposable income will pay outrageous sums of money for- and
they're not always easy to create. But IMO, calling some of this
stuff "art" is slapping the faces of the old masters.
But I never got it, and probably won't. I suppose it's my loss- but
it's easier on the bank account.
All things considered, if I were decorating a place and had unlimited
cash, I'd prefer any one of Michelangelo's works to a rumpled overcoat
made of knotty pine or a boat that looks like a car. Doesn't make me
right, just a personal preference- based on Michelanglo's depiction
of the heroic in man, as opposed to depictions of the common.
I actually do really admire the skill of the artist who sparked this
thread- I just can't understand why that skill was applied to
reproduce such common objects. Kind of like making a model of a
toaster from Italian marble- even if it is flawless, it serves no
purpose (unless it can toast bread, too)
Neither, really. If I had some extra money, I'd probably use it to
finish making my own furniture for my house. If I had enough to go
beyond that, I'd buy machine tools and use them to make tools and
parts. It'd take a lot of scratch before I ever got around to buying
or making "art", unless you lump turned objects in that category. I
find functionality and good engineering more aestetically appealing
than most art, new or old.
I didn't have his website address. I didn't even know who he was. I
saw the pics in a mass e-mail I received from a friend who knew I was
interested in wood but she had only received it from someone else and
then forwarded it to me.
Now I know who the artist is!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.