Harvey Sadow on fri 11 apr 97
Hello clayart,
Artspeak is a byproduct of academic education and is a second language
requirement in most MFA programs. It does, however, give us a way of
speaking in depth and with precision about art specific issues. Medical
journals, computer manuals and the Bible are nearly unintelligible and
often deathly boring until a well conceived course of study and good
teaching makes them more comprehensible. In order to pursue such a
course of study one must be interested in the subject and willing to
learn. Let us not denegrate or even minimize the efforts of those who
have chosen this path and exhibit the symptoms. :-)>
regards,
Harvey Sadow
Jan Cannon on sun 13 apr 97
Maybe all of the talk about art hasn't really advanced the experience of
it. One of the more disturbing aspects of "artspeak" is that it is used to
validate sub-standard and mediocre work. Work that is successful doesn't
need much commentary, if any. Unlike medicine, computers and the Bible,
art speaks to all without the need of any intermediary. Intuition, not the
mind, is the faculty of art. Art happens at a more subtle level, and there
aren't a lot of words there.
Jan Cannon
>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:04:45 EDT
>From: Harvey Sadow
>Subject: Artspeak
>
>Hello clayart,
>
> Artspeak is a byproduct of academic education and is a second
language
>requirement in most MFA programs. It does, however, give us a way of
>speaking in depth and with precision about art specific issues. Medical
>journals, computer manuals and the Bible are nearly unintelligible and
>often deathly boring until a well conceived course of study and good
>teaching makes them more comprehensible. In order to pursue such a
>course of study one must be interested in the subject and willing to
>learn. Let us not denegrate or even minimize the efforts of those who
>have chosen this path and exhibit the symptoms. :-)>
>
>regards,
> Harvey Sadow
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Jan Cannon Tel: 802-425-6320
19 Garen Road jcannon@together.net
Charlotte, VT 05445 http://www.together.net/~jcannon/
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on mon 14 apr 97
I'm not sure if the porported inability of language to facilitate the art
experience is actually a problem, or even cause for concern. Perhaps visual
arts really aren't supposed to be accessable verbally: Why should that deny
the audience the opportunity to try? Language is an essential part of human
experience: Why deny it? Is art really that fragile? This is just another
Clement Greenberg-esque trap to purify and reduce art in the course of
preserving what is supposidly unique about that art.
The notion that talking about art actually debases that art is flawed.
Patrick
At 8:24 AM -0700 4/13/97, Jan Cannon wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Maybe all of the talk about art hasn't really advanced the experience of
>it. One of the more disturbing aspects of "artspeak" is that it is used to
>validate sub-standard and mediocre work. Work that is successful doesn't
>need much commentary, if any. Unlike medicine, computers and the Bible,
>art speaks to all without the need of any intermediary. Intuition, not the
>mind, is the faculty of art. Art happens at a more subtle level, and there
>aren't a lot of words there.
**************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail: philferty@earthlink.net
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
**************************************************
Darrol F. Shillingburg on tue 15 apr 97
Hi Patrick and Jan and others interested in this Artspeak Thread,
Seems to me that art is a language in and of itself, a very complex and yet
intuitive language that we use to communicate all kinds of important 'things'
not easily reduced into a sequential strings of written or spoken characters. I
think it may be a holographic piece of the holographic world in which we live, a
piece that we create, isolate and make special in some way that awakens us to
the holograph in which we live.
And yet I write about my own art. Sometimes it takes weeks for the awareness of
what I have created to become accessable to my vocabulary level, but I have
found it helpful to others as well as myself to have a written perceptual window
into the piece. My challange in writing is to form a word string in the common
dialect of our times that is interesting, provocative and informative. These
'narratives', usually 75 to 150 words go out to galleries, art consultants,
shows where they are sometimes included and sometimes not in the presentation of
the work. There is much more communicated by a piece of my art than I can speak
about, but I think the words help.
I have found that some 'art presenters/sellers' don't want to have the artist
say anything about their art (they have reasons) and that some are eager to have
the artist speak in some way. So goes the 'art world'. I keep offering.
Any thoughts, reflections or uses of artist's narratives and statements
welcomed.
Darrol in Elephant Butte, NM
74353,2316@compuserve.com
Frances Evans on wed 16 apr 97
Darrol:
I was a writer before I became interested in ceramic art. Now I find that
one feeds the other in a reciprocal relationship that means sometimes the
writing comes out of contact with the clay and other times the clay takes
form out of contact with my writing.
If this seems too esoteric to you, let me put it another way. Both creative
acts are simply that. Perhaps your intuition of giving the words some time
to gestate and emerge is the right one. Just as in ceramic arts one would
pay particular attention to a rim or foot, the same attention to technique
applies to writing. So since this is writing, you may need the skills of a
good editor to clarify and sharpen your tone, style and syntax. This way
both the aesthetic (artistic) and untilitarian (sellers) aims of creating and
selling ceramics can be accomodated.
Did you know that pottery and poetry share the same root word - poesis which
in Greek means "to make."
Frances Evans
Toronto, Canada
Frances_Evans@goodmedia.com
BTW this is my third day on Clayart and I am thoroughly enjoying myself.
You're a great group of people.
My challange in writing is to form a word string in the common
dialect of our times that is interesting, provocative and informative. These
'narratives', usually 75 to 150 words go out to galleries, art consultants,
shows where they are sometimes included and sometimes not in the presentation
of
the work. There is much more communicated by a piece of my art than I can
speak
about, but I think the words help.
I have found that some 'art presenters/sellers' don't want to have the artist
say anything about their art (they have reasons) and that some are eager to
have
the artist speak in some way. So goes the 'art world'. I keep offering.
Any thoughts, reflections or uses of artist's narratives and statements
welcomed.
Darrol in Elephant Butte, NM
74353,2316@compuserve.com
Indianapolis Art Center on wed 16 apr 97
As a curator, I always find artists' statements useful for the following
reasons:
1) They let me know if the artist knows why s/he is creating something
2) They give me (fluent in artspeak but not necessarily in English!) a
basis for writing information suitable for a press release
3) They generally indicate the artist's "state of mind" as a person--i.e.,
if I get a statement that is all gobbledygook then I know s/he is trying to
impress me rather than being completely honest about him/herself and his/her
work
I never reject an artist's work solely on the basis of an artist's
statement, but by taking the statement and the work together and seeing if
the work follows from the statement (and vice versa) it's another way to
verify the professionalism of the artist.
Julia Moore
Director of Exhibitions and Artist Services
Indianapolis Art Center
Robert S. Bruch on thu 17 apr 97
My comments on Julia Moore's post on a curator
reviewing artists statements.
1) Although it is a different art form, I have
heard PBS interviews of musicians who cannot
read music and have a less than complete grasp
of grammar principles, whose music I ( and many
others)i really admire and value. I have heard
other interviews with more literate musicians
whose music I do not so readily admire.
2) Interviews and essays by writers are another
matter; however one might expect a writer to
be able to write and perhaps even speak well.
3) I would guess that Van Gogh wouldn't have
passed the test at the Indianapolis Art Center
if he were trying to gain admiosssion today.
While that would have been too bad for Vincent,
it would have been a greater travesty for the
people viewing the work that Ms. Moore curates.
--
Bob Bruch rsb8@po.cwru.edu
Mark Richard Leach on fri 18 apr 97
Robert...I have a different view of the use of language generated by
artists and by curators to access and/or interpret art! Julia Moore
sounds to me like a committed professional who respects artists insights
and believes that they play a role in the interpretation of the work.
You could and may well have had a curator/s operate unilaterally, simply
refusing to admit an ounce of an artist's views into the analysis. I
know many curators who operate just so!!! On the other hand, there are
those of us who look to and value the conceptual significance contained
in and expressed through yours/the artists' thinking. I don't believe
Ms. Moore was insisting on literary excellence, though such talents are
doubly impressive and are likely to inspire our admiration, particularly
when they become the icing on the "cake" (stunning work). Though I don't
want to put words into Ms. Moore's mouth, I think she was inferring that
there is the possibility to discern in and/or through the written word
latent information critical to a complete appreciation of the material
under consideration.
As a curator/administrator, I pray for the day when artists and curators
view each other not as adversaries but rather as necessary and
constructive agents/partners in the production of cultural history and
programs. Curators aren't always the best informed when it comes to
interpretive analysis but neither are artists always the best judges of
their own work. Somewhere in the middle is a useful and productive
balance between the two of us.
Regards...
Mark Richard Leach
Director, Craft and Design
Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte
Larry Phillips on fri 18 apr 97
In article ,
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty writes:
>
> The notion that talking about art actually debases that art is flawed.
>
Probably, but there is something of truth in saying that language
is not necessary in order to appreciate anything essentially visual,
or audible, etc.
I think Frankk Zappa had it right when he said (paraphrasing),
that talking about music was like dancing about architecture.
--
All unsolicited email addressed to me _may_ be posted to public view,
without further discussion. If that is unacceptable to you, don't email.
Robert S. Bruch on sat 19 apr 97
Mark, what if there is no "conceptual experience"
that can be EXPRESSED? Doesn't mean its not there,
but maybe someone is working intuitively? I realize
that the argument falls in your favor MOST OF THE TIME.
However, there MAY be instances where it doesn't. I was/
am taking issue with Ms. Moore as she seemed to be tooooo
convinced of her 'side'.
As an aside, my wife is an art therapist, which while is
very different from what a curator/critic looks for, is
a process which involves inner discussions of external
processes. Its a hard one for me because I just don't
have the training to do it.
PS, I have been thinking of moving from Ohio to Ashville,
NC, which while I realize is not C, but is close(?). NC
SEEMS like a most pleasant state, give or take a few of
the rural locals and their Senator.
--
Bob Bruch rsb8@po.cwru.edu
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on sun 20 apr 97
Larry,
Language isn't superfluous, it's essential, and it's visual. Otherwise, the
Frank Zappa quote wouldn't work as well as it does.
Patrick
At 7:21 AM -0800 4/18/97, Larry Phillips wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>I think Frankk Zappa had it right when he said (paraphrasing),
>that talking about music was like dancing about architecture.
**************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail: philferty@earthlink.net
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
**************************************************
Harvey Sadow on sun 20 apr 97
Larry Phillips wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Probably, but there is something of truth in saying that language
> is not necessary in order to appreciate anything essentially visual,
> or audible, etc.
>I think Frankk Zappa had it right when he said (paraphrasing),
>that talking about music was like dancing about architecture.
> All unsolicited email addressed to me _may_ be posted to public view,
> without further discussion. If that is unacceptable to you, don't email.
Right here in public view...
What about teachers trying to communicate complex ideas to their
students, art historians, critics, collectors sitting over dinner
discussing their favorite artists and why they find their work
interesting, parents sharing ideas and their appreciation with their
children? All communication about art is not, nor should it be related
to one person's personal appreciation. On one level, you could not be
more correct, but broaden you view, if that is possible, because their
is far more than one level to consider in MOST issues, and certainly in
this one. Additionally, many people who have powerful left brain
facilities use descriptive words to find their way into otherwise
inaccessible visual work. Then, THEN they find their right brain. Some
people need to check a road map when they are lost. It does not speak
badly of them or of the road map.
Next time my sister calls me on the phone to tell me excitedly about an
exhibition she has just been to, shall I tell her to stop talking and
send me a photograph? I don't think Frank Zappa had that in mind.
Submitted for your consideration, Larry, by
Harvey Sadow
Larry Phillips on wed 23 apr 97
In article <3357B621.20C4@earthlink.net>,
Harvey Sadow writes:
>
> What about teachers trying to communicate complex ideas to their
> students, art historians, critics, collectors sitting over dinner
> discussing their favorite artists and why they find their work
> interesting, parents sharing ideas and their appreciation with their
> children? All communication about art is not, nor should it be related
> to one person's personal appreciation.
Oh, I fully agree, but I was addressing, specifically, the idea that
talking about art actually debases that art. I don't think it does,
and conversely, talking about it does not elevate it, either. The
reason for this, in my opinion, is that art DOES speak for itself,
and that what the art is, is whatever it says it is. Speaking about it
does not change it, for better or worse.
Another small quote for you... in the film 'Mahler', Gustav, in answer
to a question from a woman, who asked what a particular passage meant,
said "Madam, if I could have said it in words, I would not have taken
the trouble to write it in music."
What I get from this is that it would not have mattered if he HAD
answered with a statement of meaning; the woman would have only
received a pale translation, devoid of the beauty of the original
statement. But still, the passage stands alone in saying whatever
it says, and it is neither diminished nor elevated by anyone's
words about it.
> On one level, you could not be
> more correct, but broaden you view, if that is possible, because their
> is far more than one level to consider in MOST issues, and certainly in
> this one.
Agreed, and one may certainly utilize language to point out aspects of
art, discussing technique or purpose, or whatever else might be
considered important by those discussing it, but in the end, it is
still the art that speaks.
> Additionally, many people who have powerful left brain
> facilities use descriptive words to find their way into otherwise
> inaccessible visual work. Then, THEN they find their right brain. Some
> people need to check a road map when they are lost. It does not speak
> badly of them or of the road map.
If I may oiffer a concrete example... I was, at one time, not much
impressed by Van Gogh's work. I was told by more knowledgeable people,
how powerful it was, how expressive, and so on, but I just couldn't
see much in it. Then one day I saw 'Crows in a Cornfield' in a gallery
in San Francisco, and I was completely stunned by its power. I stood
in front of it, speechless, for a good 10 minutes, finally understanding
what I had only been told in a language that has no words to speak to
me as that painting did.
Again, though, the painting was not diminished or elevated by all
the words I had heard about it.
> Next time my sister calls me on the phone to tell me excitedly about an
> exhibition she has just been to, shall I tell her to stop talking and
> send me a photograph? I don't think Frank Zappa had that in mind.
No, but if she dis send a photo it would speak more eloquently than
her language. Going to it in person will speak more eloquently still.
> Submitted for your consideration, Larry, by
Thanks for the thoughts.
--
All unsolicited email addressed to me _may_ be posted to public view,
without further discussion. If that is unacceptable to you, don't email.
The Shelfords on fri 25 apr 97
Re the quote from Hilferty's that:
>> The notion that talking about art actually debases that art is flawed.
>>
Flawed it may be - what isn't? - but it makes a few good points IMO.
It seems to me that:
- talking, writing, etc - using language to try to understand what you are
seeing and experiencing can be useful in a practical sense, just as
Newtonian physics is useful in a practical sense. We need to communicate
with others and others with us to increase our practical understanding of
things, AND to point out aesthetic characteristics that we or they might
have missed, and, if we catch their view, our experience is enriched.
- BUT Newtonian physics is, I understand, limited and in many areas wrong.
So too the practice of conceptualizing and turning experience into words
creates a new experience which rapidly overlays and often obliterates the
original. You now have the experience of the concept of what you were
looking at. And words are seductive and breed wantonly. Words are only a
"virtual reality" - the most addictive form - and can separate you from
reality appallingly quickly, all the while giving you the warm feeling that
your intellect is really onto something and that you are really
understanding something. And indeed you may be, but I wouldn't like to
count on it. I rarely come away from a serious artistic discussion without
feeling like I've lost something. (Not that that's ever stopped me...)
- down here in the real world, as they say, we can't get away from language
and wouldn't want to. We need it to survive and learn. I love it, get
drunk on it, soak in it for hours. But I am also very aware of how far it
can lead me away from reality if I don't watch it. Language may not debase
the art under discussion, but it can quickly debase my experience of it.
Vince said:
> It is up to all of us to encourage our
>students and customers to appreciate the many layers of significance and
>meaning which can be found in the simplest pot.
I understand what he's saying, I think, but I find I need to remember that
what I am enjoying in all these layers of significance is only peripheral.
Oh hell, do you suppose I've taken all this time to say a pot is a pot is a
pot????????????????
But no - Gavin's said it much better, and said a lot more besides.
- Veronica
____________________________________________________________________________
Veronica Shelford
e-mail: shelford@island.net
s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
Tel: (250) 246-1509
____________________________________________________________________________
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on sat 26 apr 97
At 5:23 -0800 4/25/97, The Shelfords wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Re the quote from Hilferty's that:
>>> The notion that talking about art actually debases that art is flawed.
>>>
>Flawed it may be - what isn't? - but it makes a few good points IMO.
>It seems to me that:
------------------------Snip!----------------------
>...... words are seductive and breed wantonly. Words are only a
>"virtual reality" - the most addictive form - and can separate you from
>reality appallingly quickly, all the while giving you the warm feeling that
>your intellect is really onto something and that you are really
>understanding something. And indeed you may be, but I wouldn't like to
>count on it. I rarely come away from a serious artistic discussion without
>feeling like I've lost something. (Not that that's ever stopped me...)
>- down here in the real world, as they say, we can't get away from language
>and wouldn't want to. We need it to survive and learn. I love it, get
>drunk on it, soak in it for hours. But I am also very aware of how far it
>can lead me away from reality if I don't watch it. Language may not debase
>the art under discussion, but it can quickly debase my experience of it.
>
>- Veronica
I really like that image of words propagating like rabbits. I don't think,
though, that words, or the part they play in people's arguments, separate
you from your reality or debases your experience of art: Rather, their
usage or the arguments and ideas they generate are things you disagree
with. That's fine with me (like my affirmation matters). The reaction
against articulating one's thoughts, however, as a blanket response bugs me
because I've watched it lead to a reverse-elitism.
I'm not sure if this relates, but:
There was a grad at SJSU recently who refused to discribe her art as
expression because she regarded expression as involuntary. She felt that
the market devalued expression as a surplus comodity and refused to let her
work be exploited as such. The above can be read as an argument for or
against grad school,or perhaps, for or against grad students.
Until next time, keep those words where I can see them.
Patrick
**************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail: philferty@earthlink.net
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
**************************************************
Darrol F. Shillingburg on sun 27 apr 97
Hi all,
I've been following this thread without saying much, but have found some clarity
in the following:
"There is the known and the speakable."
"There is the known, but unspeakable."
"There is the unknown."
From the oral teachings of Americo Yabar, Q'ero Shaman, Peru
Darrol in Elephant Butte, NM
| |
|
