Historically correct?

[Marcus Hunt]

Kent, no disrepect to you was meant either. It just made an interesting observation as to what becomes "art" and "artists". I know this should probably now move to another thread but it is still an interesting topic. Some of the longrifles I've seen could in no way be described as crude, just 'simple' I suppose. The piercing around the patch box (is that the right term?) can be very intricate as well as some of the stock carving. No, I was just wondering if say some of today's scrollwork were applied a century and a half back would it have looked out of place? A lot of scrollwork I'm commissioned to do is traditional and falls within this time frame. So would fine rose and scroll look out of place on such a firearm? Personally I think not, but that is just my opinion.

Does mere decoration denote art? When does art become art, with the intent of the artist or the observer?

I think this deserves to move on to another thread.

 

[LRB]

It would seem that art is hard to define. Webster's defines art as "Employment of intelligent and skillful means to the accomplishment of some end; a system of rules directive of such employment. Practice of a system directed to the production of a work of art, esp. fine art; the result of such practice. A branch of learning, as one taught in higher educational institutions. Practical skill; cunning; studied behavior. Aptitude, dexterity, ingenuity,, skill." There is art, then there are the fine arts. At what point does art, become fine art? "Arts which minister to esthetic intellectual tastes, as painting, music, sculpture, architecture,, poetry; art employed in making things for beauty. As I see it, the gun builders of early, were artists. By definition, if nothing else, and some entered into the realm of the fine arts. It all depends on the location of the dividing line one sets to be crossed over, and that line will vary from ones opinion, to anothers. As you say Marcus, Cheers.

 

[Swede]

I too love the American flinters of the Golden Age. I believe we progress from craftsman/tradesman to artist in that era when the gunsmith evolved his design. A heavier Jaeger becomes the inspiration for a slimmer, lighter weapon. The essential form changes, both functionally and aesthetically. With the new piece, the gunsmith sees demand for that particular style soar, and others then imitate the style. Another decade passes, and yet again we see a different design come from a particular 'smith or "school" of longrifle construction. All of them are expert craftsmen worthy of respect, but I believe you can easily label those who pushed the boundaries and evolved specialized designs as artists.

 

[Ron Smith]

I think you have good point Swede, as this is the highest form of creativity "pushed the boundaries", not bound up or locked in by tradition or pre-concieved notions. Craftsmanship is a whole different catagory of skill, but ideas of change have to meet some definate criteria to remain or endure space and time. On the other hand, creativity can be approached from a spirit of apathy, or from a spirit of dedicated study and practice. After all we are talking about art, and that can be evaluated by opinion, where beauty is another matter. One approach is by slapping stuff on a "canvas" and the other by following some structure. One method takes no knowledge at all. The other takes unlimited dedication. After all, a chimpanzee can roduce what some consider art, while it takes criteria to create beauty and grace. If we go about life without structure, we create chaos. If we go about life with structure, we create order and peace. This is sort of a reflection of what is in the soul of the artist. I believe one is a low energy approach and the other is a very high energy approach, and you get a product relative to the energy you put into it, whether it be life or art because these are universal laws. Creativity on the other hand is unlimited and it is only the motives described that make the difference as to whether it will endure time and space. Art can be anything, according to anyones opinion, but beauty and enduring designs have to fit the criteria in order to live very far beyond their imediate creation. Whether you can say we are artists or not is a non-factor. We are. Whether we can say we are creating beauty or not, now that is the question, is it not?...............

 

[FL-Flinter]

Geeze, I didn't mean to stir pot let alone dump it out. I didn't expect all the replies and the wide-ranging diversity of the topics but all are very much appreciated.

Here’s where I’m coming from… I don’t build “exact copies” of anything, “similar” maybe but not exact copies. My carving & graving designs are my own, if I’m doing something from a particular place or of a particular style, I try to keep with the theme’s normally associated with XYZ but I refuse to do a carbon copy out of respect for the original builder. {Let me interject a side note here. I’ve had several of my equipment designs stolen over the years only to find them marketed by someone else. Now that my physical condition has deteriorated to the point where no one will hire me and I can’t do the regular work I used to, other people are still making plenty of money off things I created while I struggle to keep from loosing what little I have left. I flat out refuse to do to anyone else what has been done to me, thus, I do my own work and don’t make copies of someone else’s work.}

Anyway, when I build a traditional style gun, it’s important to me to maintain as much tradition in my work as is logical. By that I mean if it can be readily seen from the outside, it is important to maintain tradition, if it can’t be readily seen, tradition is not as important as function. Example would be a rifle built to look like it is 200 years old but hidden behind the traditional façade may be a very high quality modern match grade rifle bore of a quality that was simply unobtainable at the time the original rifle was built. The functional qualities of modern technology are very important to me so I build a gun that will perform its intended use to modern standards. On the flip side, when finishing the outside, it’s important to me to do so in the traditional manner using only traditional tools. I draw my carving designs on by hand and cut it all by hand using only chisels and scrapers just as it was done back in the day but I put my best effort into every piece I do and always strive for improvement.

I don’t consider myself an “artist”, just a schmuck trying to build good guns that look nice. I’m not a “purist” either because I don’t take issue with bedding the barrel and tang to ensure the highest level of accuracy and usable quality. Nor do I take issue with putting epoxy under an inlay to ensure durability but neither of these things can be seen from the outside so while they increase the quality they don’t detract from the tradition. I don’t use “tradition” as an excuse to pass off shoddy work but to me doing things in the traditional manner puts the “human” into the finished piece - it’s just my thing and I wondered if anyone else felt the same way.


Thank You,
Mark

 

[Swede]

Mark, I'm not a purist either. I have used epoxy once or twice beneath an inlay where I have made a mistake. It's either that, or I'd be using hide glue and wood scraps to correct the error. I have no problem using modern materials and methods. Unless you are hammer forging your own barrels, and seasoning your own wood, no one can claim to be a purist. The goal is a flintlock rifle or pistol that captures the flavor.

I personally do not believe in artificially aging a piece. The early gunsmiths did not age anything, they produced a rifle shiny and new. But many customers want a rifle that looks like a carefully stored and tended heirloom that is 200 years old, and if that is the case, then that's what they get!