The Shelfords on thu 1 may 97
Hi all -
If I can go back to the last line of my last post on this subject (i bet you
wish it were!) -
>Of course, being dismissed by one's society as puerile is not only
irritating, it's wrong.
>So I guess we have to try to talk the language of the people we are talking
to.
>But should we be believing it???????
So Sherry, I appreciate what you are saying about clay and play and
particularly the intimidation factor. But I can also appreciate the
frustration of Mel and others who feel we are not being given "air time" by
a world whose education in the arts has been informed almost totally by
either a high-fog-index academia, or a kind of quick-thrill approach. Re
the latter: as Don Jones said re his "Taboo subject":
>The weird part is that I
>went back to my own booth and put a sign up saying that there was no paint
>in the work. The reaction from people was: well if it isn't paint what is
>it? When I said it was glaze, the reaction was: GOSH!
The fact is that a hell of a lot of people haven't a clue about the
complexity, technical mastery or mental discipline underlying the best craft
and art, and for the artists and craftspeople themselves even to appear to
undervalue it doesn't help. At one level, I guess everyone understands that
doing what you love is a form of play. And it's a fact that needs
reiterating only when individual artists and crafts-people ("emerged" or
"underground" or half-way-up-and-grubby) are in danger of losing the freedom
and creativity that the word play implies. And I've already put in my plug
for the philosophical arguments.
But I don't think Mel is disputing that side of things at all - remember his
playful posts about that workshop earlier this year?
So I guess it comes back to language. If we are talking to people who think
in the "arts" language, in the interests of being understood should we talk
in that language? (Unfortunately I have the devil of a time doing it with a
straight face, but ok, maybe I should try. ) But when I start BELIEVING
that I made that pot with all those academic things in mind, I'm kidding
myself big time. Should I then be kidding other people? You people who
went to art school and graduate school, do you have this kind of thing in
mind when you're working (whoops, sorry, the word just slipped out) on
bringing out the image that's in your head? I just don't have any words
about it when I doing it (does anyone else?) and adding them afterwards
seems at best artificial. At worst it gets into that "Language debasing
art" debate.
But this is where Mel said:
>Artists must speak for themselves. We cannot allow journalists, gallery
>owners, museum curators or censors to tell us what we are doing or what we
>should not be doing. That job is in the hands and minds of the producers
>of art and craft. As it should be.
But I'm not sure I'm so constituted, Mel et al. I'm not about to let the
journalists etc. tell me what I should or should not be doing, but if they
want to tell me what I've done, I'm not sure I mind. It can be interesting.
Strange sometimes, off-putting, depressing, hilarious, and even occasionally
telling me something I hadn't seen before. And I'm not so elevated that I
don't like a bit of attention to my work (er, play.... oh hell - the stuff I
do.) Am I really off-base here? I've suffered from grossly ignorant
arts-babble (from an artist/juror.) But I've benefitted from insight and
sensitivity (from a museum curator/juror.)
If I sit on this fence much longer my bum's gonna be numb....
- Veronica
____________________________________________________________________________
Veronica Shelford
e-mail: shelford@island.net
s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
Tel: (250) 246-1509
____________________________________________________________________________
Dannon Rhudy on fri 2 may 97
Veronica,
I really enjoy taking things out of context and responding only
to those parts that interest me, and here is a great opportunity:
.....a hell of a lot of people haven't a clue about the
complexity, technical mastery or mental discipline....
Certainly it struck me when reading Don's post that it can't
be assumed that most people have a clue about how ceramics are
done, what glazes are, how they're applied. Many, many, many
think that glazes are merely paints, baked on in the same way
a car finish is "baked". Sometimes I explain. Sometimes I don't
bother. Mostly, they don't seem to care much - they just want
that blue to match the curtains. I can't force information on
the general public (or anyone else). Life's too short to worry
about it.
... when I start BELIEVING .. made that pot with all those academic
things in mind, I'm kidding myself ... people who
went ... graduate school, do you have this kind of thing in mind
when you're working ....
Well, certainly. One could hardly be expected to make an object
of any kind without first carefully considering primary and
secondary influences, and imagery, and gender issues, and what
the limiting parameters of initial idea may be, and whether our
mothers love(d) us, and so on. Indeed, I keep a long and detailed
list of things-to-think-about-before-my-hands-move, so
that I don't accidentally make some thoughtless item that cannot
be explained within the context of current critical theory. I
hope that resolves that question for you. If not, please post
me privately for a lengthier explication.
.....work (whoops, sorry, the word just slipped out)......
Yes. Work. I work. My work interests me, and I enjoy it,
have great passion for it, spend time-beyond-reason at it. Work.
I like to work. Sometimes, I have a playful attitude when I
work.
......But this is where Mel said:
>Artists must speak for themselves.......
It is not even a matter of "must speak". We DO speak.
Everything we make, speaks for us, whether we like it or not.
Time's up. Have to go to work.
Dannon Rhudy
potter@koyote.com
| |
|
