Roger I missed that discussion about altering Goshin for instance.
What we all seem to forget in the discussion on art yes or no is the fact
that bonsai is a living piece of nature put in a container by us.
As the late Hideo Kato use to say :"the moment you put a tree in a container
you are responsible for it". So this means that we first and for all should
respect it as a living beiing and it natuarally changes through the years.
Art or no art if the curator responsible for Goshin wants to maintain Goshin
the way it is intended by the creator (in my opinion the correct way ,also a
matter of respect however now for the creator ).
As history of some old Japanese masterpieces learns us this can only be done
for a couple of decades if correctly cared for the bonsai (as it stays
vigorous and grows on and on and pruning cannot maintain the original shape
after that period give or take a decade).Than inevitably restyling will be
neccesary ( isn't that also one of the interesting things in bonsai? that
it's never definately finished?).At that moment the respect for the original
creator is less important than respect for the tree and try to make it as
beautifully as possible without harming it's condition.
So if it's art or not is not that important because whether we like it or
not it is only temporarely; in the most positive situation a works of art
changes in a new works of art.
Greetz
Ab Demmendal
the Netherlands

"Roger Snipes" schreef in bericht
news:00de01c391fa$ebb8e380$fad3ffd8@46ndp01...
Chris,

Your post regarding the alteration of a work of art brings to mind a
discussion that took place on the list a few years ago.

Someone asked if once a bonsai, Goshin for example, became part of a
public
collection does the curator have an obligation to maintain the original
artist's design and direction, or is he free to change it at will?

Some felt that the curator should maintain the tree as designed, while
others felt it could be changed and redesigned as the curator saw fit.
Personally I feel that the curator of a collection has an obligation to
keep
to the original artist's design. After all, what would be the point of
having a composition like Goshin in a public collection, and then
redesigning it to suit someone else's artistic vision? (Obviously, a
living
work of art will need constant maintenance, but the original design intent
can be maintained.) One might compare that to doing a major repaint on
the
Mona Lisa to improve the painting. :-)

Regards,
Roger Snipes Spokane, WA Zone 5, or maybe Zone 6.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it,
and then misapplying the wrong remedies. Groucho Marx (1895-1977)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cochrane"

Yesterday's (Sunday) paper had an interesting article in its Everyday
Ethics
column by Randy Cohen entitled "Altered work of art can't be
misrepresented." He referenced federal law making the distinction between
art and ordinary property, "to prevent any destruction of a work of
recognized stature." He notes Section 106A of the Copyright Act (a.k.a.,
the Virtual Artists Rights Act) empowers an artist "to prevent the use of
his or her name as the author of a work of visual art in the event of a
distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work which would be
prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation." He summarizes: "some laws
guard the arts and some guard the reputation of the artist. Ethics also
demands the protection of truly worthy art and an honest account of what
the
artist actually did."

Good summary-- especially considering its legal source ...JUST KIDDING
re'
the source.... :-)

Mr. Cohen's concluding paragraph notes that if a specific work has no
particular aesthetic merit, owners can do whatever they want with it as
long
as they don't misrepresent who did what. What about the bonsai with
aesthetic merit that is not of recognized stature? That seems to cover a
wide band of enriching but untapped work.

My reading of this is that a bonsai would need to be a work of recognized
stature to be protected for-itself as a work-of-art legally. The artist,
however, is protected from being misrepresented at a much lower standard
if
his or her work (purported to be visual art) is misrepresented. Goshin &
the Yamaki Pine at the National Bonsai and Penjing Museum are works of art
by recognized stature-- the Yamaki Pine's stature rises greatly from its
history as well as its form in creating emotion. Standing alone without
recognition by others, they would be questionable candidates as art, IMO.

Establishing objects as art requires that they become part of a discursive
network-- a network which leads to appreciation of certain qualities over
others. I don't see the discursive network which is art as a conspiracy
to
force appreciation of certain works over others or to subjugate craft or
pastime endeavors. They are not mutually exclusive-- a work of recognized
stature may or may not be good craftwork and can be created by an
artfully-engaged professional or an amateur with little or no intention of
entering the network of art evaluation. Since the second quarter of the
20th century (and arguably much earlier) art often questions the discourse
(and especially meta-narratives of "what art is?") and questions the
confines of cultural exchange.

Bonsai 'artistry' is a moving target regarding what is valued. Japanese
bonsai exhibited immediately prior to World War II suggest the postwar
concept of "representative Japanese bonsai" changed radically with
decreased
availability of wild material. The discourse on bonsai continues to
change
as well as its forms.

Bonsai enthusiasts are not necessarily creating art. Those who
contribute
to aesthetic understanding through their bonsai production-- sometimes
based
on factors quite apart from their craft competence-- will own art.
Artists,
even those who have consummate skill but fail to enter discussion, will
not
own art until they are recognized.

The Internet Bonsai Club is an artifact, too, and changes over time yet
with
past traces. Today's subject (on any day) is its most revealing because
the topic is only open at those areas. If someone chooses to act by
initiation or responding publicly or privately they are engaging in
discussion that likely has extremely modest effects.

On creativity in bonsai as in other arts, I'm not very convinced that
visual
form matters so much as resonance of the object for the viewer. The poet
Soji (mid 14th century) had a favorite incense burner later owned by the
teamaster Rikyu (later 16th century). Rikyu's wife noted that the legs
were
too long. Rikyu agreed and he cut them down immediately. This was a
classical art object-- the Goshin (the presently revered bonsai) of its
day.
When Rikyu made the decision (not your average Joe), the burner's value
rose
for him & for his wife... and it rose for others as having a creative
alteration chosen by tastefulness.

Who among present bonsai enthusiasts would alter Naka's Goshin? Perhaps
John is THE Head Knocker. Lots of folks want to second-guess Walter
Pall's
Bear on the IBC Gallery while he is among the most recognized talents in
the
bonsai community and tells us his effort is sincere. Some think he is
teasing, I suppose, but I think most believe this is Walter's taste. It
could easily grow to be more appreciated than taste for "Japanese
classical
bonsai" and there are signs of much interest in bonsai revealing Walter's
taste.

Alteration of a bonsai is a legal issue, but perhaps not always so clearly
an aesthetic one of art ownership if creativity is the measure.


************************************************** **************************
****
++++Sponsored, in part, by Lisa Kanis++++

************************************************** **************************
****
-- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ --
+++++ Questions? Help? e-mail +++++