search  current discussion  categories  people 

ah-leon (impish and longish)

updated sat 31 may 97

 

Hluch - Kevin A. on sat 17 may 97

Dear John,

If Ah-Leon's sculpture had practical value then it would simply be a
bridge. Obviously, it is not.

The useless character to which I am referring speaks to the fact that it
has no" practical or utilitarian value". This object simply renders a
type illusionistic effect. Nothing more. (Excepting professional career
issues of course.) For those who believe that aesthetics is simply
disinterested contemplation of the beautiful and involves only the eye and
the mind then certainly this work fits the bill. However, that
orientation leaves out pottery and a the historical craft objects
(utilitarian art) that now currently overwhelm so many museum
collections.

Keep in mind that much of what you see in museums today was not created
solely for installation in museum spaces. Originally, art (craft work,
that is) was created for real people in real life situations. For today's
artists this practice appears to be inverted. In my own development as an
artist I also was hoodwinked into thinking that this was the goal of the
artist: museum acquisition and placement. The veil, for me at least, has
been lifted.

If the character (or beauty found naturally in nature) of the original
wooden bridge were the preeminent focus of the artist then it would have
been a lot easier to simply pull a time-worn wooden bridge apart
and reassemble it at the Sackler. That, certainly, would have been
difficult to justify by the Sackler but perhaps not by Duchamp.

That the artist labored for three years and took out a loan on his house
to create this object does not mean that he ascribes to values of
the fine art culture? Surely, you jest. Perhaps your are suggesting that
even artists like Ah-Leon do not truely subscribe to the values of the
fine art culture. Do you think for a moment that the vast majority of
people in America support the values of the fine art culture? Is that
what Trent Lott in Congress thinks when he says he's going to zero out the
NEA? By making the "Bridge" the central object in the exhibition what
values do you think are being promoted? Is this another show about
nothing?

Granted, the "Bridge" is a gargantuan example of frequently utilized
trompe l'oeil technique in clay. Apparently, the "Bridge" is large
because America is a very LARGE country whose artists are driven to
produce very LARGE art. Perhaps the reason for this lies in the tendency
of the male of the species to "pack space" at any cost, at any time, and
at least twice a day. In America we simply have much more space to fill
up than the Taiwanese have. There may simply be an "envy" thing going on
here. This "if there's an empty space I'm going to fill it" syndrome is a
prime motivator in a broad spectrum of other male behaviors as well. As
a male member of the species I suspect you are familiar with the tendency.
It is even possible that as a Texan this tendency has been exacerbated...

I don't need to remind you that the trompe l'oeil technique was why Plato
would banish artists from his ideal republic. For Plato, mimesis or
imitation or the artists's illusionism is twice removed from "truth".
Artists, in the form of actors would also be banned because of the
emotional histrionics displayed on the stage. These kinds of emotional
manifestations are antithetical to the sublime contemplation of the
beautiful that the rational mind is suspected to be capable.

As can be detected by previous remarks, emotions can interfere with
reasonable thought, hence the term hysterical. (Ladies, let me assure
you, no offense is intended or implied!)

Which brings me to the Oscar Meyer Weiner car. Like the Bridge, it may
be a grand work of trompe l' oeil technique but it cannot, unlike the
"Bridge", be considered a work of art since it has utilitarian
characteristics... It serves as a rolling advertisement for a very fine
American delicacy, provides transportation for the employee, and serves to
provide that over-scale "envy" quotient that so motivates certain
non-American and other more indigenous artists.

Besides, the Oscar Meyer Weiner Car was not commissioned by a curator at
the Sackler Museum and therefore, by a strict constructionist's
interpretation of contemporary aesthetics, cannot be considered art.

Concerning the values of the culture... There are a lot of plain
speaking, unconfused people out there who do not need an interpreter,
validator, or dictionary to understand what art is. Many of those
beings move amongst us now. I would, as result, suggest that you be
circumspect in your conversations about art. T H E Y may be listening!

Perhaps, when I am accused of "artistic arrogance" for supporting and
promoting utilitarian pottery as a distinct and valuable art form, then
the conversation has reached a level of reducto absurdum and requires no
further elaboration.

Additionally, I do not normally partake in discussions with individuals
who find it necessary to use the term "dude" even occasionally but I have
temporarily allowed an exception.

Please also note that by virtue of this correspondence I revoke that
particular exception.

Sincerely,

Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA

e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu

John Britt on sun 18 may 97

Kevin Hlurch,

What in god's name are talking about??? Oscar Meyer Weiner car???

You have digressed, my friend! And in the process not proven that
Ah-Leon's work is "useless". You have only pointed out the obvious,
that it has no utilitarian value. (i.e. you cannot eat off it.) So
what! It is not "useless". One use it has is to make you write pages
of rambling useless sentences. So that is one "use".

Kevin Hlurch writes:

"The useless character to which I am referring speaks to the fact that
it
has no" practical or utilitarian value". This object simply renders a
type illusionistic effect. Nothing more. (Excepting professional career
issues of course.) For those who believe that aesthetics is simply
disinterested contemplation of the beautiful and involves only the eye
and
the mind then certainly this work fits the bill. However, that
orientation leaves out pottery and a the historical craft objects
(utilitarian art) that now currently overwhelm so many museum
collections."

It hasn't left "out pottery", it is in another ball park. Apples aren't
oranges.

I don't even have the heart to go into any other points, there are so
many.

I think that the best that I can do for you is to say a prayer and
suggest you seek professional help.


Amazed and feeling sorry for your existential malaise,


John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude

JULIE ATWOOD on fri 23 may 97

OK, so I've finally opened my mouth on this one. (I can't help myself any
more)

For one thing, what exactly are you trying to do? Are you trying to
insult Kevin (what's with "Hlurch"?!), or are you trying to effectively
communicate your point of view? If you are trying to insult Kevin, then
you've been doing a good job. I still have to wonder why, however.

If you're trying to effectively communicate your point of view, you're
losing your effectiveness by making the main focus of your posts an
obvious Kevin Hlutch Bashing Session.

I'm not saying he's NOT doing any of his own bashing, but at least MOST
of his message is his own viewpoint, expressing what he thinks, and not
degrading your opinion itself. If I remember the thread correctly, you
started out insulting him personally. Now you insult not just him, but
his opinions. I've noticed that he has kept to expressing his point
while throwing in a few well-deserved remarks about you. You, on the
other hand, have sunk to the low level of expressing the opinion that
YOUR opinion is all that counts, and anyone who holds a differing opinon
needs to "seek professional help".

I guess I need to be seeking professional help then, because I happen to
agree on many points. I also have a feeling I'm not the only one.

So please, if you're going to insult, keep it away from his ideas and
opinions...I usually don't step in and holler about a personal insult-fest
(it's much too fascinating), but I find I'm offended when you start in on
the opinions on such a personal level.

You don't need to be so amazed and feel so sorry just because someone
else doesn't hold the same opinion you do.

Julie in Seattle
(Seeking professional help as you read this)



On Sun, 18 May 1997, John Britt wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Kevin Hlurch,
>
> What in god's name are talking about??? Oscar Meyer Weiner car???
>
> You have digressed, my friend! And in the process not proven that
> Ah-Leon's work is "useless". You have only pointed out the obvious,
> that it has no utilitarian value. (i.e. you cannot eat off it.) So
> what! It is not "useless". One use it has is to make you write pages
> of rambling useless sentences. So that is one "use".
>
> Kevin Hlurch writes:
>
> "The useless character to which I am referring speaks to the fact that
> it
> has no" practical or utilitarian value". This object simply renders a
> type illusionistic effect. Nothing more. (Excepting professional career
> issues of course.) For those who believe that aesthetics is simply
> disinterested contemplation of the beautiful and involves only the eye
> and
> the mind then certainly this work fits the bill. However, that
> orientation leaves out pottery and a the historical craft objects
> (utilitarian art) that now currently overwhelm so many museum
> collections."
>
> It hasn't left "out pottery", it is in another ball park. Apples aren't
> oranges.
>
> I don't even have the heart to go into any other points, there are so
> many.
>
> I think that the best that I can do for you is to say a prayer and
> suggest you seek professional help.
>
>
> Amazed and feeling sorry for your existential malaise,
>
>
> John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
> Dys-Functional Pottery
> Dallas, Texas
> http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
>