dan wilson on fri 11 apr 97
I know you may be wondering just what I was talking about in my last post
on this subject since it didn't make much sense at first reading. Well let
me assure you that I've put almost fifteen years into the functionless
object and have yet to formulate a cohesive and comprehensive theory
regarding it. I always end up in the fetal position sucking my thumb. I
only admit this because I know the issue is of primary importance to some
ceramists who believe that ceramic art can only be so-called if it pretends
to non functionality. This is a myth and the path one follows toward this
false invention, while fascinating, is circular. Maybe Heidigger or Marx
would be a good read though. I've heard they discuss these issues in depth.
Dan Wilson I started out as an artist... I was soon reduced to tears.
enscoe on sat 12 apr 97
wilson wrote in article
...
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
I know the issue is of primary importance to some
> ceramists who believe that ceramic art can only be so-called if it
pretends
> to non functionality. This is a myth and the path one follows toward this
> false invention, while fascinating, is circular. Maybe Heidigger or Marx
> would be a good read though. I've heard they discuss these issues in
depth.
>
> Dan Wilson I started out as an artist... I was soon reduced to tears.
Whats wrong with form follows function? We can all use a little beauty in
our lives, ESPECIALLY in the everyday things!
--
Nancy Enscoe
Enscoe's Ceramics
"Let's play with clay!"
>
| |
|
