No one cares about ornamental design anymore, for the sake
of beauty or art. Art you say,,, I'm not familiar with jeweler
history,, but Gaudi, Van Gogh,,Horta, Soutine,, guimard... Art
cannot be made with the intention of selling,, it can only be made
with the intention of creating and inventing.
I missed who originally posted this message. At best, you are
misguided. Please name One famous, recognized and lauded artist who
never tried to sell any of his or her artwork in his or her
lifetime. It’s not possible.
Now, you are stating what you see as a moral “should”, when you say
that the intention of creating and inventing must be the overriding
purpose. (First, let me say that I agree with you, but…) Let’s
take for example a master artist like Lalique. You may not like
what he created, but it is art, even by your definition, given his
innovation. Historically speaking, he intended his work to be
saleable. (He created art with the intention of selling.)
If you cannot grasp the Lalique example, let us look at Van Gogh.
After deciding to be an artist (self-infllicted “title”), he created
many many works, and tried and tried to sell them, to no avail – no
one wanted them – save one sale during his lifetime equivalent to
about $40 USD. He created, trying to sell, and you can always study
his sad biographical if you doubt it. He was looking
for external validation and wished to be proclaimed an artist.
(Just in case you can’t tell, I like some of his work, but that
doesn’t mean he wasn’t trying to sell it.)
How about Gaudi? Are you actually trying to say that an architect
had no interest in selling his designs? (You don’t know many
architects, do you?..) Architecture doesn’t get built without
selling, and architects want to see their designs built – until
it’s realized, it’s just a dream.
Now another concern to me is your statement, “No one cares about
ornamental design anymore, for the sake of beauty or art.” I
suppose before disagreeing with this statement, I should consider
what you meant by ornamental design. Since the artists that you
later listed were not strictly ornamentalists (Lalique used mystical
symbolism and Van Gogh was an abstractor from reality, etc.), it’s
hard to even look at the statement fairly. If I disregard the other
sentences, and take your statement out of context, then I would have
to direct you to the magazine publication “Ornament”, as well as the
many many contemporary art and craft museums around the country, as
well as the hugely successful fashion and jewelry industries, etc.
Just because you don’t like the pieces, it doesn’t mean that it
isn’t beautiful or it isn’t art. It certainly is ornamental since
the primary purpose is decoration!
Since I missed your original post, obviously this entire rebuttal is
based on a paragraph taken out of context. I apologize if I have
mis-interpreted what you meant – I just have a problem with a
statement of misgoing out and possibly coloring what
others will say in the future.
Art is out there. There is no litmus test to assure it – no matter
how many people you think should agree with your own taste. There
is good art and bad art and everything in between. But if you
believe that innovation is the true measure of art, well, I’ve seen
some really gross and disgusting art…in museums…blech.
–Terri, who studied art for a really long time…