Is a Building Texture a piece of Art or is it a tool?

There was no problem with bringing up music. It's a fair comparison. It was just your analysis that was off base.

It is interesting, though, now that that particular example has backfired on you, that you're saying you shouldn't have brought it up. Are you really interested in having a discussion or aren't you? In other words, are you interested in other people's points of view, or are you just interested in your own?



Von, I don't want to derail the thread to far, but I feel I must ask, do you know ANYTHING about music theory at all? Forgive me, but it sure sounds like you don't have the slightest clue how music actually works. You're description of "other stuff going on" besides the chords is frankly laughable. Please don't take that as an insult. It's not meant that way. It's just that you'd do well not to open cans of worms unless you're sure you know what's inside. Clearly in this case you don't.

Again, I don't want to sidetrack the thread too much, but if you'll indulge me for a few minutes, let me explain something very basic, and extremely important, to you about music. I promise it will prove to be relevant to the subjects of art and copyrightability, which we've been discussing, even if not directly about textures.

The first thing you should be made aware of, simply put, is that every single note you hear in a piece of music is a component of a chord. All that "other stuff" you talked about, like the melody, the harmonies, all of it, only works because it's all part of the chord progression. I'll explain.

From what you wrote about noise gates and amps, I get the sense you probably play guitar. If so, then it might be some small comfort to you that you're not the first guitarist ever to gloss over music theory, and you won't be the last. However, I'm hoping you're at least mildly curious to know at least a little of the WHY behind what makes music work, not just the HOW of following along with tablature, and that you'll be receptive to what I'm about to explain.

I assume you know how to play a C chord, right? Well, the three notes that constitute that chord are C, E, and G. Strum that, and sing along with it. Are you singing in tune with the chord? If so, then you are singing either a C, an E, or G, one of the very same notes that you're strumming on the guitar. Now switch to a G chord. In order to stay in tune, you'll now need to sing either a G, a B, or a D, because those are the three notes that make up a G chord.

Now strum a bunch of chords in a row, and sing along. In order for your voice to stay in tune with the guitar, you'll need to sing at least one note from whatever chord you're strumming at any given moment. Put all that together, and you've got a melody. Get a bunch of people to sing other notes from the same chords at the same time, and now you've got harmonies. Congratulations, you just composed a song. And the entire thing, just like every song ever written since the invention of tonal music, is nothing more than a chord progression. That's the essence of tonal music right there. It's all chords, nothing more, nothing less.

So whether you've got one guy on a guitar all by himself, or 200 people in a concert symphony orchestra, everyone is just playing a chord progression. There is no "other stuff". It's all the same thing.


Hopefully you understood that. But just in case you didn't, let's go back to the example of 4'33". That piece certainly doesn't have any "other stuff". It doesn't even have any stuff. It's just silence. But nonetheless, it's copyrighted, and it's recognized the world over not just for being a piece of art, but for being an extremely important one at that. Take any music history class, and they will spend time talking about it.

If you're wondering what the big deal is, the composer's stated purpose was to have the audience take notice of the music that is all around us all the time, the sounds of the world we live in. By having the instruments tacet (not play anything) for over four and a half minutes, that goal is accomplished very effectively. Attend a performance of the piece some time, and you'll see what I mean. It might seem unimaginably silly to you now, but I can assure you that as you sit there, you WILL end up listening to all kinds of things you've never listened to before. It's inescapable. It's just plain hard to sit in silence for four minutes and not end up listening attentively to whatever sounds happen along. It might be someone coughing, a door creeking, the wind blowing, anything at all. You've heard it all before, but you've never actually listened to any of it, and now you are listening to all of it. What could be more artistic than that? In a very real sense, 4'33" is probably the most beautiful piece of art ever composed.



[life story snippet] Yes, I was a music major the first time I went to college, in case you were wondering. My concentration in school was on music theory, and I don't mind saying I was very, very good at it. I was actually able to test out of my first three semesters of theory classes at one of the top music schools in New York state, and start right directly with fourth semester courses in my first semester. I was the only freshman to do that at that particular school, at the time. (If you hadn't noticed, I tend to get obsessive about learning what makes things work.) I tell you this not to toot my own horn, if you'll pardon the pun, but merely to demonstrate that I do happen to know what I'm talking about on this subject. I hope you'll walk away from this discussion with at least a little more understanding of how music works. Music theory is a fascinating subject.

Like you, my main instrument is guitar. I also play double bass, piano, a little cello, I can get by on the drums, and I used to play trumpet as well.

I wanted to be a rock star when I grew up. Didn't quite work out. Oh well. I got into graphics when I went back to school 10 years later, which is how I ended up doing what I do now. [/life story snippet]




Who is to say what constitutes "expression and uniqueness" in an artistic sense? I could very well slap some orange paint on my house and call it art. You might not see what I see in it, but you don't have to. You don't get to decide whether what I might or might not consider to be art is right or wrong.

I have no idea where you get this notion that a work has to be recognized by the Copyright Office in order to be art. The Copyright Office exists simply to protect certain rights of artists. They're not an authority on what makes art art any more than you or I are.

Further, getting back to the subject of textures, I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think that just because a texture is meant to be used as a component of a larger work, it's somehow not a copyrightable work in and of itself. As a professional texture artist, I can promise you, every texture I've ever made has been copyrighted.

Here's an example of something that you might consider to be "just a tool", but others, including the Copyright Office, consider to be art. Did you know fabrics are copyrighted? That's right, weave patterns are legally considered artistic compositions. I don't know jack about weaving, so I look at a piece of cloth, and I just see cloth, something to be made into a jacket or a pair of pants or a shirt, nothing more than a "tool", to use your word. But to the trained eye, there's a whole world of artistry right there. I don't see it, but I don't have to understand it to appreciate it.

Clearly if something as mundane as a piece of fabric is recognized as art, then textures, even boring textures, must be art as well. There's nothing that says a composition needs to be exciting or interesting in order to be art. It just needs to be. That's it.

Interestingly, while fashion designers are universally recognized as artists, and successful ones are often world renowned as artistic geniuses, their actual garment designs are not treated as art under the law. How's that for bizarre? The boring fabrics they make they clothes out of can be copyrighted, but the clothes themselves, no matter how original or exciting, cannot. By the legal definition, garment design is "functional", not "artistic" (which is why knockoffs are legal). Crazy, right?

Does the fact that garments can't be copyrighted in any way mean that garment design is not an art form? Of course not. Fashion has been an important, if not crucial, part of human expression for thousands of years. Fashion design IS art, even if it can't be copyrighted. So there goes your notion of "copyright equals art". One does not define the other at all.

Here's another example. One of my favorite hobbies is I build guitars and other stringed instruments completely from scratch. These works of art - and they ARE art; don't even try to say they're not - each take anywhere from several weeks to as much as a year or more to complete. But for the most part, just like garments, they can't be copyrighted. The body shapes, no matter how intricately carved and well crafted, are works of function, not works of art, according to applicable copyright law. Certain aspects, such as a particular finish pattern, or the inlay I might put on a headstock, etc., can be copyrighted as imagery, but not the physical shape of the instrument as a whole.

Now, when I make an inlay, its only purpose is go into the guitar. It will never ever stand alone. It couldn't even if I wanted it to. Inlays of that sort are extremely thin and delicate, very fragile. They simply fall apart if they're not used. They're meant exclusively to be part of a larger work, just like a texture, but they're copyrightable, while the larger work (the guitar) is not. Both are still art, though, regardless of how copyright law has has or hasn't been written to define them. Again, copyright isn't what makes art art, not at all.

To go back to the music comparison, claiming a texture is not art because it's intended to be part of another work is like trying to claim a song is not art because it's meant to be part of an album. A 3D model that has textures applied to, just like an album, is legally defined as a "collective work". Any or all of the components of a collective can be individually copyrighted separately from the collective itself. A texture enjoys the same status and the same protections as a song or a short story or an magazine article or any other work that is part of a larger collection.

But I must repeat, copyright is not what makes art art. Your original question had nothing to do with copyright. Why you saw fit to change the subject to copyright half way through the discussion, I don't know. I'd thought you were interested in a philosophical discussion about the nature and meaning of art. What was your real goal? Was it to attempt to bash texture artists as somehow not artists? That's my best guess after reading what you've written so far.

The OP seems to be equating art with fine craftsmanship, which is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether. A good job well done, even if it is only a seamless texture of bricks might easily be regarded as art if it is applied in the right context, which is where the expression of some original idea comes into play but it is just a texture otherwise.

Art is no more dependent on the issue of ownership than it is dependent on traditional techniques of oils and charcoal. Questions of copyright and ownership of a piece are jumping the gun somewhat since they are otherwise moot unless an artwork either becomes a commodity or credit is required or both. Many artworks are either too ephemeral and effectively unsaleable or far too commonplace to be realistically tied to the issue.


The deliberate absence of a "unique" quality can be a form of expression in itself, which is more or less what Duchamp was saying with "Fountain". He endorsed an otherwise mundane object with his signature and effectively transformed it into an artwork by having it accepted for exhibition by the Society of Independent Artists.

Frequent objections to superficially simplistic artworks such as this, like "my five-year-old kid could have done that" or in the case of Duchamp's ready made, "my plumber" for instance, are simply ironic since every one of us, including five-year-olds and plumbers, is perfectly capable of creating a work of art: all that is required for the artwork to become known is that at least one other recognises it as such.

Otherwise, it is enough for the artist to recognise that fact for himself. Nothing further is required.

Great post, Ephraim. I'm glad we finally found a subject we can agree on.

You're welcome, Chosen. I think you'll find that we agree on quite a range of issues apart from that one, of course.

Counterexample: Ansel Adams.

Photographic art, my own stuff:


Saigon, Viet Nam.

(^_^)y

Ok.. I will adress some of the points you mentioned, but you make it very hard not to derail the thread by talking about music. Responding to everything you wrote would take me 3 days because I type using the "2 finger eagle system"


I know you are knowledgable in certain fields, and are creative etc etc, and just as any artist could claim, are always right no matter what and everyone else is always wrong no matter what.

I am going to shrink everything that I was going to say in response to your lengthy well written post into this simple 2 word sentence:

Eat me!


hahah

no seriously ..

This thread was more about my curiosity on how other people feel about what constitutes art with regards to a basic building block like textures. I am not talking about elaborate artistic textures that are mathematical masterpieces and hand made custom things that take a lot of skill and time to make. I am not preaching my views here, but am trying to keep it simple.

I am questioning that photosourced snap and crop textures that then get sold for a utilitarian use are Art. That is as simple as it gets. Besides, this particular forum isn't exactly a impartial audience.. everyone seems to have an agenda here, which is why I chose this as the place to ask the original question.

again, Me bringing up music was just a habit, but it was out of context and I am not running from it like you said but want to keep this specifically to the point..

oh..and .. show me an axe you made, and better yet let me hear your music and playing.. You probably are better than me on Guitar too. Maybe I can learn something and copy your best stuff to use on one of my next songs..

and I wasn't talking about Orange Paint - The Orange Nightmare is code for Homo depot

That was a better answer than the long one before that. Easy to follow and no need for a starbucks run in the middle of it.

Quality of art is not in question, you cannot rate quality when it comes to art. Its more of a question on how is something used.

Do you call the Toilet Brush your Housekeeper uses to clean your bowl a piece of Art?

There's a man who passed off urine as art. I don't see why a toilet brush would be any less so.

Just saying >.>

I think that's really the nub of the question, and it is hard to answer with a straight face. I wouldn't normally consider a bowl brush a piece of art. I wouldn't consider a urinal one either, or a pile of dirt with a shovel in it, or a totally blank white canvas. However, each of those objects HAS been displayed as a work of art. Like John Cage's 4' 3", each of those "art" objects becomes art when we stand back and think of it as something more than the object itself ..... when it becomes a metaphor for something else, or it forces us to see reality through a different lens.

What makes this a difficult conversation is that no two people will see the same things in a work of art. In fact, there will always be some people who have a hard time seeing the metaphor that turns mundane objects into art at all. For them, a blank canvas is a blank canvas and nothing more ... and a bowl brush is nothing more than a bowl brush. When do we cross the line into "art?" I don't know. Whether something is "art" really IS a matter of how it is used, and who is using it, and who is watching. The line is fuzzy, and we each draw it differently. There is no uniform answer to your question. .... but it's a good question.

Do you call that a serious question?

I know the answer..

The second you mic up that shovel and use it as a instrument

Einstuerzende Neubauten did that.. and it worked for them..

<insert nothing here>

did you believe him?

look what I found - a definition other than the one in the Dicktchionary

“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article

and:


A “work of visual art” is —

(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or

(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.

A work of visual art does not include —

(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;

(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;

(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);

(B) any work made for hire; or

(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.25



Guess where this came from...

How perceptive of you. Take an A.

Well, if you're interested in what may be copyrighted, your quoted piece tells us what the lawyers think. It's one more opinion, although I'm not sure I would trust a lawyer to tell me what art is.

I would not trust a lawyer ...
I would not trust a ...
I would not trust ...
I would not ...
I would ...
I ...

There's no need to respond the music theory stuff. I hope you learned something from it. If you did, great. If not, oh well.

Other than that, my main point in dwelling on it was just to try to get across that you shouldn't try to use something as an example if you don't know anything at all about it. It really makes you look foolish. I'm sure that's not how you want to look.



Riiiiigggghhhhhtttttt. OK.



Yes, I'm knowledgeable in certain fields. No, I'm not right all the time. It's just when someone posts information that is clearly incorrect, I feel an obligation to respond with truth. Much of what you've said so far has been simply absurd. I'm sorry if it bothers you when that's pointed out.



Nice.




Then why is it that when other people respond with a view that differs from yours, you just respond back with the same things you've already said? You have yet even to say anything to anyone even remotely resembling "You make an interesting point, and I understand what you're saying, but I disagree for the following reasons..." All you've said so far, over and over again, is "Textures aren't art. Textures are tools." Your original post was in the guise of a question, which by all evidence was completely disingenuous, since all you seem to want to do is keep repeating YOUR OWN answer to it, while disregarding everyone else's.

Seems to me, you only curiosity was on whether or not a lot of people would agree with you, not about how other people actually feel.



Then the simple answer to the simple question is yes, they're art. But you won't accept that, will you?



Agenda? Who's got an agenda, and what is it? Tell me, what's mine?

As I said, I entered into this thread, assuming you were sincere in your opening questions. I was looking forward to an interesting philosophical discussion on the nature of art. You then turned it into some weird tirade about copyright. Tell me, what was your "agenda", because clearly it had little if anything to do with your questions as worded.



It's not out of context to bring analogous outside examples in order to illustrate your point. As I said, your error was not in bringing it up; it was in your analysis. You just don't know enough about the particular subject you chose as your example, so your comparison worked against you, rather than for you. When that was pointed out, all of a sudden it was "out of context".



I'd be happy to. Come on up to Buffalo, NY. If you've got a couple grand on you, you can even buy one.



You wanna jam some time, great. I'm always open to that.



Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea whether you're a good or bad player. All I know is you have little to no understanding of music theory. No matter how good you might be, learning theory would only make you better. But the fact that you don't know it now doesn't necessarily mean you're bad. If I had to guess, I'd bet that like the majority of guitarists in the world, you're mediocre.



Huh?



I'm not familiar with that particular "code". Maybe you'd do better just to "keep it simple", as you said you wanted to do, and just refer to things by their proper names.

As for the slur towards gays you just threw in there, all I can say is the maturity level of your posts is simply astounding.





There we go with that maturity level again. How old are we today?





Again, I can't imagine why you think the Copyright Office is any kind of authority on art. That "definition", as you put it, is simply a description of a certain legal category, as I'm sure you well know.

If you were to follow that as the ONLY definition, then the celiling of the Sistine Chapel is not art because it was work for hire. Same goes for The Last Supper, the statue of David, every portrait ever painted, and anything else that was ever commissioned. I know you're reaching as hard and far as you can to try to stick to your guns on your argument, but come on. A little common sense would be in order, don't you think?





OK, so if I take the Mona Lisa, roll it up, and use it a flyswatter, you're saying it's no longer art?



Actually, yes. Someone had to design the thing. Someone put their own personal touch on the handle shape, the color scheme, etc. Industrial design is absolutely an art form.

If you want an interesting experience some time, take a class or two on industrial design. It's fascinating how those guys are trained to marry art with utility.

I rather love this visual.

Jumping in here as a person who values other people’s points of view, as well as my own.



A question for the teacher here…what made you assume that Von doesn’t know anything about chords, progressions, music theory? Von is an accomplished award-winning musician, and having personally experienced his talent first-hand always leaves me wondering how on earth anyone could ever put so many wonderful musical and rhythmic progressions together and with such precision, diligence, and power.

It made me laugh out loud to hear someone speculate on his talent when they had never experienced his music and again made me laugh even harder to think someone was trying to teach him grade school basic music lessons of the “theory”. Note to the prosecutor: Von is an extremist who is far from mediocre in music or any other endeavors.


Again – more laughter - Von takes great pleasure in any type of noise – and repeating noises he finds interesting, even if it is the refrigerator door creaking (he could make a song from such noises). Von knows “how” to listen and he doesn’t have to go to a 4'33 concert to find that “place” of nothingness exposing nature. Being a nature lover myself, I see Von’s nature as creative, disturbing (in a good way) with a positive force of love for life. A final note to the teacher – Von actualized your dream – he IS a Rock Star.

Now.. I could be wrong, but you seem rather altish. Created a few days after 'Von', essentially empty profile, despite being two years old, and very few groups (Or just all hidden)... and so on.

Also, I'd like to say that the assumption of a lack of music theory knowledge was based on a display of a lack of music theory knowledge (Or at least a display of a complete disregard for the aforementioned grade school basic music theory lessons). So, more of a hypothesis, according to my grade school teachers.

I'm not Von...I live with Von. I created my profile a long time ago in hopes of finding a new creative venue but decided I did not like 2nd life and never used the 2nd life forum until now because I never had a reason to, until I read what was on Von's screen tonight and felt compelled to put my two cents in where it most likely did not belong but better me - than him - responding. I'm impulsive by nature, not creative.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. No way to know, really.

Not that it matters.

Done with the whole 'sidetracking the thread for unimportant things' thing, now. Probably. Well, I mean I am.

Ah well that's all right then. Why didn't ya say so in the first place?