The Armour Archive

Is it art if you work in someone else's style? When Kolman Helmschmied built an armor, it was art. But, what if someone faithfully copies what Kolman did, without letting anything of himself enter into the work? Would the resulting armor be art?

Mac

I think yes. I would argue that there is an art to copying! XD

The main problem with any discussion of art (or otherwise) is the meaning of its creation.

But this is complicated by those who do not understand the purpose of its creation, or the full reasoning for it. A glowing sphere from the future might be perfectly mundane to its contemporaries, but if it came back in time to 2011, it might be "beautiful art" without any awareness of its reason for being.

Strictly speaking armour would qualify as a tool. A tool is anything humans create to achieve a physical or eventful purpose; to change their physical condition or to convey a 'non emotional' message. A hammer is a tool, a teleportation device is a tool, a painting is a tool to show status. All of these things can be decorated after the fact, meaning they can be adorned and beautified, but they still have a original key purpose that goes deeper than the bells and whistles.

Art is that which is designed to elicit an emotion by virtue of the fact that art cant technically reposition, undo, fix etc things on a physical level. By strict definition few things actually qualify as art, even though we tend to assign that status to them.

The problem obviously comes in when we find something that does the trick and makes us feel great in the process. (I might be tempted to assign this definition to my tax consultant. ) I remember a course I took on college on art history. My professor made a great point which had us musing: ' If there is an confusion as to what qualifies as art, think twice before calling a beautiful woman a piece of art....she might get the job done, look great in the process and leave you feeling warm and fuzzy, but she's more complicated than that art....art is much more simple...'

Mac wrote:But, what if someone faithfully copies what Kolman did, without letting anything of himself enter into the work?
Mac

Not possible. I can show you how to make my pots, give you my studio, kilns, glazes, etc. And even walk you though it, but you will never make my pots. You don't have my timing, experience, or even physical dimensions. Now you could end up making better work than I do, but never my work. You always leave fingerprints in your work whether you intend to or not.

Bjorn

Andeerz wrote:Also, Konstantin: frikkin' spot the heck on definition there! >:) The part about "compromise" is what gets me!!!

Wasn't all sprung like Venus full-formed from my personal sweaty brow -- Harlan Ellison wrote something about uncompromised expression that was the germ of it. I've met him since then -- really should've taken him aside and thanked him.

My opinion on the matter is that whether we mean to or not, we put a little bit of our own personality in virtually anything we do (and to me that means a bit of art goes into everything). The more we design something for that purpose, the more expressly artistic it is. However, I've noticed there are those in the art world that view any creation whose effectiveness requires a minimum constraint of expression due to interaction (such as tools or bodywear) to acheive desired function as non-artistic.

I've even heard of one of the Picasso family, a jeweler, insist jewelry was not art because of people's ability to interact with and wear it. From my understanding, they felt that by doing so the wearer could in some ways potentially alter the emotional or artistic intent of the creator, making it not true art. While I understand the view, I disagree.

My opinion is that armor is a tool and art at once. I feel tools can be both tool and art simultaneously, just not intended to serve explicitly as one or the other. (So perhaps less "purely" artistic.) To me it would be somewhat like comparing the martial arts to dance. They're both arts, but one is constrained by the desire for effective combat, whereas the other is more purely meant for expression of emotion.

For example, I just recently made a spangenhelm where the ocular was of my own pattern. I'm more proud of the ocular than the rest of the helm, and I think part of that is that the rest is just any old spangenhelm, while I made the ocular with the specific intent to portray and evoke certain emotions. It carries more of a piece of me than the rest of the helm. I view that part of the helm as more artistic than the rest.

My personal (skewed) definition of art is this:
If (put here the subject) was made using better skills of that of common people then it is art. Message to me is not relevant, because if I see a painting I care of the painting itself not what the painter smoked the night before, or what maybe was thinking at the time.
So about armours, the work of an experienced craftsman that put all their skills in a piece is art to me, the very novice can't produce art under this definition (otherwise everybody would sell their paintings for millions ).
This is not art to me:
http://www.liguriaccessibile.it/wp/wp-c ... /03/17.jpg
http://www.ninosalemme.it/visionaria200 ... bianco.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/i/calarmir001.jpg/
http://www.fondazionemarconi.org/image/ ... DiLuna.jpg
this is art:
http://imagetime.info/wp-content/plugin ... canova.jpg
http://artistagoloso.files.wordpress.co ... ernini.jpg
http://www.grandipassioni.com/wp-conten ... angelo.jpg
http://www.simplyartonline.net/The%20Fa ... haeton.jpg
http://www.antoniogramsci.com/angelamol ... cher04.jpg

About armour
Art:
http://storage.canalblog.com/57/43/119589/50614038.jpg
not art:
http://www.grace-collection.com/images/ ... _Armor.JPG


(if you ask me, Picasso is barely an artist from my viewpoint for example).

Its sculpture in steel. Its art. Some of it is very good art, some of its very bad art. But...its all art!

There's no such thing as good and bad art. There is art you like and art you don't. BTW this is not an argument. Everyone is correct even if everyone is posting different opinions. Having a discussion like this allows us the possibility to see things from someone elses perspective if we consider the views that are different then ours and possibly learn to see armour in a new way.

Mac I'm not going to use armour to answer your question but art in general. Emulating someones style is art. Reproducing someones art is not. But as I said above everyone has a different opinion.

I think this discussion has been really good. I've learned that art is not only in the eye of the creator but also in the eye of the beholder. What is considered art is very personal. Whether the creator set out to make art or not or whether people consider something you've created to be a work of art. The answer is correct. Understanding why people feel the way they do about it allows us the chance to alter our perception if it feels right.

Mac wrote:Is it art if you work in someone else's style? When Kolman Helmschmied built an armor, it was art. But, what if someone faithfully copies what Kolman did, without letting anything of himself enter into the work? Would the resulting armor be art?

Mac

This is a question I have often asked myself. I do think that armor is art, but without creating something that is unique to me, am I making art when I make armor? I am not sure. I know that making armor fulfills the same creative urge that I other times fill with writing, yet the writing is purely of myself.

Does a writer create art, if they consciously write in the style of Hemingway? That one is a common exercise for writers.

There is one additional thought to throw into the discussion, one that I have often discussed with others, about what we do as armorers, and it applies to other re-creative arts, and that is the question of copying a period piece, versus working in the period style.

There are many examples of certain pieces of armor, take the bascinet for example. I can attempt to make a perfect copy of a specific bascinet, or I can attempt to make a bascinet that would not look out of place when seen next to a selection of surviving bascinets, but which copies none exactly. I feel like there is a little more creative fulfillment in trying to create something which is both my style and yet is also in the period style, but that is just my opinion.

On the other hand, since we cannot learn directly from those who made the originals that we copy, there is always a certain amount of interpretation in how we create copies, so there is always some of us in a piece, even when we attempt an accurate reproduction.

Mad Matt wrote:Thought this might be an interesting discussion. A lot of people tell me what a great artist I am when they see my armour. I don't consider it art and tell them that. More craftsmanship or arts and crafts type thing. For me art should be something that is used to express or invoke emotion or something to make a statement about something other than hey this looks pretty.

Wondering what other peoples thoughts are on this.

I think it depends on the armour.

I've seen some ass ugly armor in my day. No way would I call it art.. or even functional.

On the other hand..

Look at that Landsknecht suit for Henry VIII.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/809566094/

no WAY is that not art.

Suzerain wrote:

Samuel wrote: the subtle line of a bascinet.. like full hips.....

You like big bascinets and you cannot lie?

you other brothers cant deny.. when a girl walks in with an itty bitty Mace and a round shield in your face you get sprung!!

Samuel wrote:

Suzerain wrote:

Samuel wrote: the subtle line of a bascinet.. like full hips.....

You like big bascinets and you cannot lie?

you other brothers cant deny.. when a girl walks in with an itty bitty Mace and a round shield in your face you get sprung!!

Wanna snap that tough
Cuz you notice that coif was stuffed
Deep in the metal she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop swearing
Oh Lady! I wanna hit'cha
And your spearman wit'cha
My squire tried to warn me
But that wrap you got
Make Me so horney

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:

Samuel wrote:

Suzerain wrote:You like big bascinets and you cannot lie?

you other brothers cant deny.. when a girl walks in with an itty bitty Mace and a round shield in your face you get sprung!!

Wanna snap that tough
Cuz you notice that coif was stuffed
Deep in the metal she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop swearing
Oh Lady! I wanna hit'cha
And your spearman wit'cha

Wibble.

Wibble. Wibble!!

This has got to be the stone nerdiest filk-song I've ever heard.

Konstantin the Red wrote:This has got to be the stone nerdiest filk-song I've ever heard.

It is also art! XD

Armor is not art. Certainly my instructors and the curators at the Art Institute of Chicago did not think so. If not for the contracts they had in place for certain pieces of art in their collection that required that they take and display the armor, they would not have it in the museum.

Armor is decorated utilitarian stuff. Like a car painted with cool decorations, or a nicely upholstered chair.

Armor on display is art- for that matter anything displayed and called art is "art". Unfortunately, even though my professors taught me that definition, they seemed to overlook it in the face of their own armor collection.

So, Armor on Display= Art. Armor in my bag=not art.

George Sartiano, Masters in Art History, Theory and Criticism from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and (seemingly while I was there) the only defender of their armor collection being in the museum even though it had to be.

PS- Oh,and the Duke Sir Log version of the Ren and Stimpy Log song is pretty bad too.

My gothic harness made by Mark VICKERS at St George Armoury is a work of art, and as such is on display on a stand in my living room looking at me as I type this.
All re-created armour to my mind is art,we wear it and buy it for the looks when other more modern materials would still work just as well, if not better.
Anything that looks nice, is desireable and not needed is to me art.

Craig

Kirby and I always contended the Armourer's Craft is "Functional Art". Could it be considered "High Art"? Of course! There are plenty of surviving examples to prove this.

But do others believe this possible? Nowadays, yes. But at one time....no. Or not sure.

Back in the early/mid 70s, Don Rand got an invitation for Kirby to attend an high end Arizona Arts and Crafts Jurying. Don regarded Kirby's work as art and wanted to help in his own way. If Kirby became a member of this particular organization it could open his work to a different kind of clientile than just the SCA and/or other similar groups. So he paid for both his and our entrance fees as well as his and Kirby's jurying fees. Don brought some of his medieval silver work to be juried (Medieval collars and our silver goblets he made us. Kirby brought his 16th Century Grotesque "Horatio" helmet, a brass hilted Type XI (Oakshot) Medieval sword and a couple of other things.

Thing was, the times being as they were (60s/70s) what Don and Kirby made was very alien to the people and artists attending...including the judges. Most never seen Medieval work at all and especially armour.

One of the judges was well known for his huge fanciful hanging and backlit "light mosaics" made of different size juxiposed plastic panes. Very late 60s/early 70s "Modern Art" stuff that was popular in high end galleries and buildings during this period. Apparently to be juried and become a member of this organization would have been a coup for any struggling artist. But it also may mean a bit of "sucking up" too.

Anyway, They didn't know what to make of Kirby's work. Not quite sure of Don's either (High Middle Ages goblets and collars) They did not have a "Functional Art" category to go by. Two of the judges were on the snooty side. Kirby's work did not "pass". One judge had the temerity to tell Kirby if the sword blade was corkscrewed somehow or forged into a loop.....only then it would be considered "Artistic"! With Don, it was petty nitpicking over itty bitty bits of fire scale...when we knew there wasn't any. Maybe Kirby's work didn't sit well because its function was intended for "warlike" purposes. Who knows.

Many other artists there were intrigued about the armour. A few commented they thought it could be a legitimate Art form especially after describing the likes of the Negarolis after we explain the historical basis for coming. But I think they were kinda bullied by the snootier types to make an issue of it.

Anyway, Kirby's opinion about how the judges acted and what they considered "Art" was given. Personally, He didn't feel a need to prove anything to anyone. He came as friend of Don's and support him more than anything else. He thought their assessment of Don's work was very petty indeed. Then we left.

Found out later, Kirby's standing up to the judges was the catalyst needed to cause a near revolt amongst the members there. They had enough of the current establishment but didn't have the gumption to do it themselves. Later we received a letter asking Kirby to come back and was invited to become a member. But by that time, he would have none of it.

Like I said. Could Armour be a form of Art?

Yes and times have finally changed where it is recognized as such.

I don't have time to read all of the above but I have this discussion frequently with my wife. We have generally decided that a lot of "is it art" questions are either "How do we define Art" or "Do I like this Art". When one person asks the first question and the next person answers the second question it leads to all sorts of fun arguments.

If you can quantifiy it an measure it, it's a science. We can scientificly explore the thickness and the shape and the protective value against assumed weapons statistics but that is not ARMOR. That is a scientific analysis of armor. We can do carbon dating or x-rays of the Mona Lisa to see if there are pencis sketches below it and that does not detract from the fact that the Mona Lisa is art.

Of the things that are considered art there are 3 ceneral classifications: Functional things that have their own intrinsic artistic beauty (Eifel Tower, Mission furniture); Functional things that have applied artistic merrit (Painted greek amphoras, Blinged out cars) and things that serve no function beyond art. (paintings, statues, anything with the title 'modern' or 'performance' in it). Of these 3 general categories there s some blending: Wroght iron fences that keep out salesmen but not determined criminals might be applied art to a house or they might stand alone as either pure art or functional (within limits) art.

Armor tends to be 'functional art'. It can not really be scientificly described except in very vague terms of size and weight or highly non-useful terms like point clouds in X,Y&Z from a 3D scan. Some armor is merely functional, that is a lot of SCA protective gear that at best can be described as 'functional but artisticly ugly'. Some armor has intrinsic beauty in proportion, shape and form. Simple italian breastplates and anything that might be described as white armor. Some armor has applied art like tooled leather or brass embelishment and the brass can stand on it's own as non functional art or as applied decoration. Some applied art can liven up an otherwise industrial functional piece and other times it looks like shine on shit... but they are both art. On rare occasinal a negroli piece will push the limits of applied and intrinsic art until the piece is SO artistic that it is barely functional and only for the uber-rich or uber-stupid. And finally we have armored high-heal, armored cat statues or even cheap tim suits meant to stand outside of a ren-faire that have zero function.

That means armor can be art. So can a lot of other things. Now is it art you LIKE?!? that is in the eye of the beholder.

Sean

Is someone, anyone, willing to pay you for it simply to display it? If so, it's art.

So, cars are not art either?

Armor may not be art for art's sake, pure art or whatever you want to call it, but then again, one can make the case that representational art does not fit that same definition, and yet portraits are considered art, despite having a function outside of art.

There is a great deal of craftsmanship in armor, and one question that might be raised, is....

Is an armor an artist, or an artisan?

Still a good discussion guys.

I've spoken on this topic many times over the last decade here on the AA. For me there are three 'personalities' or facets of being an armourer.

There is the 'Businessman' who is concerned with the bottom line of running an armoury and selling armour.

There is the 'Craftsman' who is concerned with the safety and functionality of the armour.

And there is the 'Artist' who is concerned with the aesthetics of the finished armour.

The Craftsman may like for the armour to look nice and have a pretty finish but not at the cost of fit, form and funtion. If given the choice between armour that works and moves properly and armour that makes people go 'wow!', he'll choose the former every time.

The Artist is highly concerned with the final look of the armour and given the choice between armour that makes people say 'wow!' and armour that actually fits comfortably, he'll choose the first every time. To the Artist, the difference between gold depletion gilding and gold electroplating is everything. The Craftsman would happily substitute brass and never look back.

What this all comes down to, the difference between 'craft' and 'art', is intention. If the creator intends it to be art, then it is Art.

These are not mutually exclusive personalities, you understand. Every armourer naturally comes to a balance of what suits them.

Frederich may not have had the last word, but he has had one of the best.

DukeAlaric (George S.) wrote:Armor is not art. Certainly my instructors and the curators at the Art Institute of Chicago did not think so. If not for the contracts they had in place for certain pieces of art in their collection that required that they take and display the armor, they would not have it in the museum.

That is odd as hell and inconsistent with the attitude of the curators at the Met, like Don LaRocca. When I interviewed him last year for some graduate coursework at Columbia, he was, if anything, disappointed by the finite amount of armor that makes it a hard art to appreciate - not hard to appreciate as art.

Art is subjective , no one can choose for another what is or is not art.

I think the Art Institute of Chicago says a definite "Yes!" to the question of "is armour art?"