John Britt on tue 6 may 97
Generally, I try to avoid even reading K. Hluch posts, as they are most
often filled with venom and spite. But after having read the Smithonian
article on Ah-Leon, I thought maybe I'd give him another try.
Unfortunately, I was not disappointed.
What makes K. Hluch the judge and jury of Art or Craft??
To assert that "One obviously has to suffer through making huge, useless
expressions
that can only be housed in museums to be considered an artist." is a
statement that is both inaccurate and basically, innane.
Would Ah-Leon's "useless ecpressions" be useless to Ah-Leon or to the
viewers at the museum or the readers of the magazine or to his wife ,
children or family?? Or to K. Hluch??? Fortunately, the world does not
revolve around K.Hluch!
I find his work very useful! Both functionally (craft) and
artistically. Especially the "Bridge" It is an awesome work and
image. Ah-Leon has a right to free expression, reguardless of size or
placement. I'm sure that he made the "Bridge",with all its requisite
sacrifices, for some reason. Facing financial hardship was probably
only the least of his sacrifices. But we cannot sit outside and judge
their worth.
"Useless" is when, someone spews sarcastic venom and attacks another in
a hopeless attempt to make themselves feel better by denegrading the
other. It does no one any good. You know, when any potter/artist
succeedes, we all succeed. So there is no need to tear anyone down.
Have you elevated the issue of art and craft in any way??
Have you shed any light on Beauty?
--
Sadly,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
Hluch - Kevin A. on wed 7 may 97
John,
Your remarks are quite sobering to me...I think I'll not think or write
about art/craft again...it's just too damn controversial! Just kidding. :)
Whether you realize it or not, John of Dysfunctional Pottery, the article
was a tad slanted toward disparaging craft objects and elevating
non-utilitartian ceramics as sculpture, in other words as "fine art".
The impression that one could come away with as a result of the way that
article was written is that pottery is not art but ceramic sculpture is.
I, as you might guess, am not persuaded by that line of thinking.
Please keep in mind that I am not the craftsman who felt it necessary to
trample the "stepping stone" of craft to reach fine art status. You will
also find, if you look, any number of other examples of craftsmpeople who
have elevated their craft to "fine art" status and in by so doing have
stripped it of utilitarian intent.
I fully expect that you will not understand what I am talking about but
that is ok....As Harvey said, "You don't have to believe everything you
read". I think that this is particularly true with a lot of what is
published by the fine art culture those who aspire to those heavenly
heights.
Concerning beauty, I know it when I see and and having perused your web
page I'll keep looking.
By the way, I think you've got me beat by the barrel venom-wise.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
On Tue, 6 May 1997, John Britt wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Generally, I try to avoid even reading K. Hluch posts, as they are most
> often filled with venom and spite. But after having read the Smithonian
> article on Ah-Leon, I thought maybe I'd give him another try.
>
> Unfortunately, I was not disappointed.
>
> What makes K. Hluch the judge and jury of Art or Craft??
>
> To assert that "One obviously has to suffer through making huge, useless
> expressions
> that can only be housed in museums to be considered an artist." is a
> statement that is both inaccurate and basically, innane.
>
> Would Ah-Leon's "useless ecpressions" be useless to Ah-Leon or to the
> viewers at the museum or the readers of the magazine or to his wife ,
> children or family?? Or to K. Hluch??? Fortunately, the world does not
> revolve around K.Hluch!
>
> I find his work very useful! Both functionally (craft) and
> artistically. Especially the "Bridge" It is an awesome work and
> image. Ah-Leon has a right to free expression, reguardless of size or
> placement. I'm sure that he made the "Bridge",with all its requisite
> sacrifices, for some reason. Facing financial hardship was probably
> only the least of his sacrifices. But we cannot sit outside and judge
> their worth.
>
>
> "Useless" is when, someone spews sarcastic venom and attacks another in
> a hopeless attempt to make themselves feel better by denegrading the
> other. It does no one any good. You know, when any potter/artist
> succeedes, we all succeed. So there is no need to tear anyone down.
>
> Have you elevated the issue of art and craft in any way??
>
> Have you shed any light on Beauty?
>
>
> --
> Sadly,
>
> John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
> Dys-Functional Pottery
> Dallas, Texas
> http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
>
John Britt on wed 7 may 97
Kevin,
Congratulations, you almost made it though the entire response without a
personal attack, but alas, you couldn't help criticizing my web site.
(Could you send me your web site address so I could see what it looks
like?)
Which brings me back to the original question that you so skillfully
eluded, "Who made you the judge and jury of art or craft?"
And secondly, "Would Ah-Leon's "useless ecpressions" be useless to
Ah-Leon or to the viewers at the museum or the readers of the magazine
or to his wife , children or family?? Or to K. Hluch??? "
I understand that you are upset that the art world doesn't accept craft
and utilitarianism. Fine, just say it. There is no need to denegrate
the artists that are breaking down the barriers for you, me and
generations to come. I think people like Ah-Leon , Peter Voulkos,
Michael Lucerno, etc. (all the most recent victims of your venom) are
precisely the people that you should be thanking! They are the ones who
are blurring the lines between art and craft. You can't fault them for
playing by the Museums rules. Would you fault Jackie Robinson for
selling out to an all white league?? Maybe he should have quit because
there were no other Africian Americans on the team. Of course not! He
made the current age of enlightment possible. So too, with the current
ceramic artists who are trying to have their medium recognized by the
art establishmemt. They are doing the hard part.
Do you really think that to "preach to the saved" here on Clayart is
doing any good? I suggest that you go to all the galleries that
represent you and talk to them.
Looking forward to you web site address.
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
Hluch - Kevin A. on fri 9 may 97
OK, John of Dysfunctional Pottery, lets tango....
On Wed, 7 May 1997, John Britt wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Kevin,
>
> Congratulations, you almost made it though the entire response without a
> personal attack, but alas, you couldn't help criticizing my web site.
> (Could you send me your web site address so I could see what it looks
> like?)
It seems to me that if you are going to put your work out there for all to
see you should develop a little thicker skin about how others respond to
it. If you have faith and believe in your work, isn't that all that
matters? You certainly don't need my affirmation.
> Which brings me back to the original question that you so skillfully
> eluded, "Who made you the judge and jury of art or craft?"
Knowone made me judge and jury of art and craft. Just as you have
sensibilities, so do I. Last I heard, it's still a free country.
> And secondly, "Would Ah-Leon's "useless ecpressions" be useless to
> Ah-Leon or to the viewers at the museum or the readers of the magazine
> or to his wife , children or family?? Or to K. Hluch??? "
Concerning useless expressions, the simple point here is what I have
stated in my previous post... For an object to be considered art in the
fine art culture it has to have the attributes that Ah-Leon recognized in his
education whilst in America. Youre right, he is a quick study and
accomplished his goals...that was very useful to him and his career. However,
it doesnt mean that the values promoted by the fine art culture have any
meaning outside of that very small, closed, self-referencing tribe.
> I understand that you are upset that the art world doesn't accept craft
> and utilitarianism. Fine, just say it. There is no need to denegrate
> the artists that are breaking down the barriers for you, me and
> generations to come. I think people like Ah-Leon , Peter Voulkos,
> Michael Lucerno, etc. (all the most recent victims of your venom) are
> precisely the people that you should be thanking! They are the ones who
> are blurring the lines between art and craft.
While you may find that craftspersons who proscribe references or
characteristics of utility from their art to make it
acceptable to the fine art culture is a step forward I, on the other hand,
feel that this is a form of "selling out". Many craftspersons have
"transcended" pottery to become real artists by make many big, ugly,
non-utilitarian forms like.....Ken Fergusons recent work. (No. 4)
The only blurring of lines of art and craft that is being accomplished
by these particular artists is the further erosion of the values of
craft. And those values are what Joe Bennion has so eloquently expressed
recently and I have stated in previous articles.
>You can't fault them for
> playing by the Museums rules. Would you fault Jackie Robinson for
> selling out to an all white league?? Maybe he should have quit because
> there were no other Africian Americans on the team. Of course not! He
> made the current age of enlightment possible. So too, with the current
> ceramic artists who are trying to have their medium recognized by the
> art establishmemt. They are doing the hard part.
I do not care for mundane sports analogies and find that a war analogies
are more appropriate....Are these artists Jackie Robinsons? No, in my view,
there are more akin to Benedict Arnolds. It appears they have turned their
backs on that which inspired them originally. In my view these are
not revolutionary expressions, they are expressions of the status quo.
So-called "revolutionary" art is now the easy path.
The fine art culture requires art that walks, quacks, flies like a
duck...and they get it every time because so many people have swallowed, without
thinking, the ideas, values, and requirements that have been established for
success in that contrived marketplace.
> Do you really think that to "preach to the saved" here on Clayart is
> doing any good? I suggest that you go to all the galleries that
> represent you and talk to them.
My arguments may bounce off steel case-hardened minds but others may find
some merit in what I think. If there is anyone who does not want to read this
material they are free to delete. You can feel free to change the world in
any way you like, I'll do the same, thank you.
> Looking forward to you web site address.
>
This statement is immaterial...
Thanks for the dance.
Kevin A. HLuch
John Britt on mon 12 may 97
Kevin,
Tango Bango, let's head to the mosh pit, dude.
I will try to keep this short and sweet. As to the questions regarding
"useless expressions", Hluch - Kevin A. wrote:
> Concerning useless expressions,... However,
> it doesnt mean that the values promoted by the fine art culture have any
> meaning outside of that very small, closed, self-referencing tribe.
First of all, you have not in anyway proven that the expresions are
useless. I can only infer form your statement that Ah-Leons' work may,
in some way be useful, in the "small, closed, self-referencing tribe".
But if you'll notice you have moved from talking about the "useless
expressions" to "values promoted ..." , as if they are interchangable.
You seek to equate the artist, the artists' expression and the values
promoted by the fine art culture. There is a distinction between an
artist, his/her expression (Ah-Leon) and the "values promoted by a fine
art culture". By exhibiting in a museum Ah-Leon has not agreed with/
become one with/ or endorced, some or all of, the "values of the fine
art culture". [For example, I'm sure that you would not argue that
anyone walking in America is accepting of American values. (whatever
those are) Otherwise you are complicitous with all you dispise.]
Secondly, it is self-evident that the meanings outside the paradigm
model would change. That offers no proof that Ah-Leons expressions as
"useless".
Then Hluch - Kevin A. stated:
"While...craftspersons who proscribe references...to utility from their
art to make it
acceptable to the fine art culture is a step forward I, on the other
hand,
feel that this is a form of "selling out"." And later, "It appears they
have turned their backs on that which inspired them originally. "
I am not saying "that persons who proscribe references to utility ..."
are moving a step forward. Does everything a person makes, have to have
a function in the kitchen??? Everything from here to eternity?? Cannot
one thing have any other "function"? Because I am "inspired originally"
does that mean I can never make anything else. If that were the case we
would all be making crayon and chalk drawings on our parents walls!?
You may call it "selling out", I prefer to call it "participating in",
either way it is
blurring the lines of art and craft. Because ceramics/clay work has
always been associated with use and function(Craft), but now to be
accepted as a valid medium of expression in the "fine art world", that
is a big the first step. Thanks to artists like, Voloukos, Lucerno,
Ah-Leon, Ferguson, etc. That is a blur of the previous distinction.
Hluch: > The fine art culture requires art that walks, quacks, flies
like a
> duck...and they get it every time because so many people have swallowed, witho
> thinking, the ideas, values, and requirements that have been established for
> success in that contrived marketplace.
>
Well, some of us participate in, after much thought, the marketplace,
whether contrived or not, while retaining our own values and ideas.
What is most odd is that you reject the values of the culture, yet you
want inclusion into the cultures highest "cathedral", the art museum?
What is most odd is that you reject the values of the culture, yet you
want inclusion into the cultures highest "cathedral", the art museum?
What is most odd is that you reject the values of the culture, yet you
want inclusion into the cultures highest "cathedral", the art museum?
Indeed odd!
And as for my web site, I do have a hard skin. I merely am curious to
see your work which must be of monumental importance in order to support
your artistic arrogance.
Please grace us with a peek at your "art" ,which your children are
graced with everyday!
Or are you afraid to show yourself, fearing charges of child abuse??
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
| |
|
