search  current discussion  categories  people 

caa honors ferguson and voulkos

updated mon 31 mar 97

 

List Moderator on sun 16 feb 97

Clayarters:
What a treat it was to be sitting at CAA's convocation here in New York
last night, with all those Art Historians, Musem Educators, Critics, and
"High art" artist types, and witness Ken Ferguson receive the Distinguish
Teaching award and Peter Voulkos, the Life Time Achievment Award. It was
indeed a high water moment for CLAY IN ART, that's for sure!!!!!!! What was
also amazing was that two clay artists were being recognized ....at the
same time by the College Art Association. Could this be the start of
something BIG??? It felt really grand! Keep smiling! Judith.

Judith S. Schwartz
New York University
Department of Art and Art Professions
Craft Department
34 Stuyvesant Street
New York, NY 10003
Tel:(212) 998-5733
Fax: (212) 998-4320

Hluch - Kevin A. on sun 23 feb 97

ClayArtery (carrier of the "force")

While I don't want to rain on anyone's parade and not wanting to open a
stale thread.....I nonetheless must say it appears to me that Mr.
Voulkos's high water mark occurred quite a few decades ago. Unlike most, I
feel that his impact on the crafts has not been entirely positive.

The fine art culture is beginning to realize that there might be "art" in
"craft" afterall. Isn't that wonderful? This type of innovative thinking
is indeed refreshing to hear from a hidebound group that is, IMHO, more
interested in politics than art. Maybe there's hope for pottery in the
21st or 22nd century after all.

I might also suggest that if Picasso had extended his blue period to the
end of his life he might not be considered as great an artist as he was.
Perhaps CAA standards are not as strict as they used to be.

While it is true that all boats rise when the stream floods, some capsize
and submerge... never to be seen again. Voulkos rocked the boat and
succeeded. George Ohr rocked the boat and failed. Perhaps if Ohr had a
half way decent publicist we would not have to bear the incessant refrain
of the greatness of Voulkos.....E Gad, perish the thought.

I somehow knew this would happen. After watching the careers of a
relatively few group of people in the crafts world (as if there weren't
any more) for the past twenty five years I must now be reprised of
their accomplishments with life-long retrospective exhibitions and
related promotional materials (brought to you PhilipMorrisRJRNabisco
et.al).

Snip
>"When will all of this end", he screamed?

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


On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, List Moderator wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Clayarters:
> What a treat it was to be sitting at CAA's convocation here in New York
> last night, with all those Art Historians, Musem Educators, Critics, and
> "High art" artist types, and witness Ken Ferguson receive the Distinguish
> Teaching award and Peter Voulkos, the Life Time Achievment Award. It was
> indeed a high water moment for CLAY IN ART, that's for sure!!!!!!! What was
> also amazing was that two clay artists were being recognized ....at the
> same time by the College Art Association. Could this be the start of
> something BIG??? It felt really grand! Keep smiling! Judith.
>
> Judith S. Schwartz
> New York University
> Department of Art and Art Professions
> Craft Department
> 34 Stuyvesant Street
> New York, NY 10003
> Tel:(212) 998-5733
> Fax: (212) 998-4320
>

dan wilson on mon 24 feb 97




I must say exploring Voulkos' impact on the crafts is never a stale
subject. While his appearance in the world of crafts was significant, I
don't think it is based so much on the impact he had on the crafts as much
as it was on the Fine Arts. More specifically, the significant number of
young fine artists in colleges and universities who after seeing the works
of Voulkos were stimulated to explore a medium once reserved for crafts.
Clay, up until Voulkos was not considered a viable medium for artistic
expression. An unusual situation, in my view, since the constructivists
advocated the use of industrial materials and techniques for purely
aesthetic ends in the 20's-40's. In fact from a sculptors view clay was the
stuff used in the preliminary stages of the casting process and not much
thought was given to its aesthetic potential until Voulkos. This in itself
is not unusual since at the time many artists were beginning to explore new
materials and the idea that anything had the potential to be art was
gaining widespread acceptance beyond the realm of the avant guarde.
Traditional expressions in traditional mediums remained the rule. (even
after the celebration of the mundane as expressed in Duchamp's little coup)
The stage had been set by the time Voulkos had arrived. Voulkos did not
come to the crafts as a Godlike figure offering potters aesthetic
salvation, although some have given him this status, he was a product of an
age. An award of this nature does not confirm his Godlike stature. It does
however serve to note his lengthy and continuing contributions to our
field. A testimony to the power not of the man but of the medium.

Dan Wilson, Who's ignorance is bliss and sometimes described as a crime.

>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>ClayArtery (carrier of the "force")
>
>While I don't want to rain on anyone's parade and not wanting to open a
>stale thread.....I nonetheless must say it appears to me that Mr.
>Voulkos's high water mark occurred quite a few decades ago. Unlike most, I
>feel that his impact on the crafts has not been entirely positive.
>
>The fine art culture is beginning to realize that there might be "art" in
>"craft" afterall. Isn't that wonderful? This type of innovative thinking
>is indeed refreshing to hear from a hidebound group that is, IMHO, more
>interested in politics than art. Maybe there's hope for pottery in the
>21st or 22nd century after all.
>
>I might also suggest that if Picasso had extended his blue period to the
>end of his life he might not be considered as great an artist as he was.
>Perhaps CAA standards are not as strict as they used to be.
>
>While it is true that all boats rise when the stream floods, some capsize
>and submerge... never to be seen again. Voulkos rocked the boat and
>succeeded. George Ohr rocked the boat and failed. Perhaps if Ohr had a
>half way decent publicist we would not have to bear the incessant refrain
>of the greatness of Voulkos.....E Gad, perish the thought.
>
>I somehow knew this would happen. After watching the careers of a
>relatively few group of people in the crafts world (as if there weren't
>any more) for the past twenty five years I must now be reprised of
>their accomplishments with life-long retrospective exhibitions and
>related promotional materials (brought to you PhilipMorrisRJRNabisco
>et.al).
>
>Snip
>>"When will all of this end", he screamed?
>
>Kevin A. Hluch 102 E. 8th St.
>Frederick, MD 21701
>USA
>
>
>On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, List Moderator wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> Clayarters:
>> What a treat it was to be sitting at CAA's convocation here in New York
>> last night, with all those Art Historians, Musem Educators, Critics, and
>> "High art" artist types, and witness Ken Ferguson receive the Distinguish
>> Teaching award and Peter Voulkos, the Life Time Achievment Award. It was
>> indeed a high water moment for CLAY IN ART, that's for sure!!!!!!! What was
>> also amazing was that two clay artists were being recognized ....at the
>> same time by the College Art Association. Could this be the start of
>> something BIG??? It felt really grand! Keep smiling! Judith.
>>
>> Judith S. Schwartz
>> New York University
>> Department of Art and Art Professions
>> Craft Department
>> 34 Stuyvesant Street
>> New York, NY 10003
>> Tel:(212) 998-5733
>> Fax: (212) 998-4320
>>

Mark Leach on tue 25 feb 97

Dan Wilson...your insight, instinct and/or criminal acts as you describe
them, constructive offerings as I'd characterize them, are remarkably on
target! I think ceramics can be a victim of its own insularity!!! Your
inclination to understand Mr. Voulkos' contribution in light of the
dramatic and fluid field of sculptural discourse that includes clay is
refreshing indeed!

I've admired your insightful and thoughtful contributions from time to
time. Awaiting your next illegal act with great anticipation...

Mark Richard Leach
Curator of Twentieth Century Art
Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte

Hluch - Kevin A. on wed 26 feb 97

ClayArtery (not a bloodless vessel)

A more complete analysis of this idea can be found in Volume 3 (1991) of
"Ceramics: Art and Perception" in the article called 'Peter Voulkos: A
Re-examination'.



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


On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, dan wilson wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
>
> I must say exploring Voulkos' impact on the crafts is never a stale
> subject. While his appearance in the world of crafts was significant, I
> don't think it is based so much on the impact he had on the crafts as much
> as it was on the Fine Arts. More specifically, the significant number of
> young fine artists in colleges and universities who after seeing the works
> of Voulkos were stimulated to explore a medium once reserved for crafts.
> Clay, up until Voulkos was not considered a viable medium for artistic
> expression. An unusual situation, in my view, since the constructivists
> advocated the use of industrial materials and techniques for purely
> aesthetic ends in the 20's-40's. In fact from a sculptors view clay was the
> stuff used in the preliminary stages of the casting process and not much
> thought was given to its aesthetic potential until Voulkos. This in itself
> is not unusual since at the time many artists were beginning to explore new
> materials and the idea that anything had the potential to be art was
> gaining widespread acceptance beyond the realm of the avant guarde.
> Traditional expressions in traditional mediums remained the rule. (even
> after the celebration of the mundane as expressed in Duchamp's little coup)
> The stage had been set by the time Voulkos had arrived. Voulkos did not
> come to the crafts as a Godlike figure offering potters aesthetic
> salvation, although some have given him this status, he was a product of an
> age. An award of this nature does not confirm his Godlike stature. It does
> however serve to note his lengthy and continuing contributions to our
> field. A testimony to the power not of the man but of the medium.
>
> Dan Wilson, Who's ignorance is bliss and sometimes described as a crime.
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >ClayArtery (carrier of the "force")
> >
> >While I don't want to rain on anyone's parade and not wanting to open a
> >stale thread.....I nonetheless must say it appears to me that Mr.
> >Voulkos's high water mark occurred quite a few decades ago. Unlike most, I
> >feel that his impact on the crafts has not been entirely positive.
> >
> >The fine art culture is beginning to realize that there might be "art" in
> >"craft" afterall. Isn't that wonderful? This type of innovative thinking
> >is indeed refreshing to hear from a hidebound group that is, IMHO, more
> >interested in politics than art. Maybe there's hope for pottery in the
> >21st or 22nd century after all.
> >
> >I might also suggest that if Picasso had extended his blue period to the
> >end of his life he might not be considered as great an artist as he was.
> >Perhaps CAA standards are not as strict as they used to be.
> >
> >While it is true that all boats rise when the stream floods, some capsize
> >and submerge... never to be seen again. Voulkos rocked the boat and
> >succeeded. George Ohr rocked the boat and failed. Perhaps if Ohr had a
> >half way decent publicist we would not have to bear the incessant refrain
> >of the greatness of Voulkos.....E Gad, perish the thought.
> >
> >I somehow knew this would happen. After watching the careers of a
> >relatively few group of people in the crafts world (as if there weren't
> >any more) for the past twenty five years I must now be reprised of
> >their accomplishments with life-long retrospective exhibitions and
> >related promotional materials (brought to you PhilipMorrisRJRNabisco
> >et.al).
> >
> >Snip
> >>"When will all of this end", he screamed?
> >
> >Kevin A. Hluch 102 E. 8th St.
> >Frederick, MD 21701
> >USA
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, List Moderator wrote:
> >
> >> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >> Clayarters:
> >> What a treat it was to be sitting at CAA's convocation here in New York
> >> last night, with all those Art Historians, Musem Educators, Critics, and
> >> "High art" artist types, and witness Ken Ferguson receive the Distinguish
> >> Teaching award and Peter Voulkos, the Life Time Achievment Award. It was
> >> indeed a high water moment for CLAY IN ART, that's for sure!!!!!!! What was
> >> also amazing was that two clay artists were being recognized ....at the
> >> same time by the College Art Association. Could this be the start of
> >> something BIG??? It felt really grand! Keep smiling! Judith.
> >>
> >> Judith S. Schwartz
> >> New York University
> >> Department of Art and Art Professions
> >> Craft Department
> >> 34 Stuyvesant Street
> >> New York, NY 10003
> >> Tel:(212) 998-5733
> >> Fax: (212) 998-4320
> >>
>

dan wilson on wed 26 feb 97

A moment of unexpected lucidity I assure you. I've often been mystified by
this "insularity" as you describe it. This is the only field of which I'm
familiar that is truly struggling with its identity. Oh yes, painters have
begun to question theirs as well but this is a more recent development for
them, I believe. Ours (clay) is a history of two minds struggling since the
turn of the century. Locked in what seems, on the surface, a mortal
struggle - an ideological battle if you will. As major ceramic figures
migrated from commercial concerns to colleges and universities at the turn
of the century, ceramics was established as a legitimate field of study
within academia. This was the moment in history that inextricably linked
Pottery to the Fine arts. Potters to Fine Artists. This is the point in
history at which the potter, formerly a common laborer, is illuminated by
the lessons of history and philosophy and is transformed into a new breed
in the aesthetic/cultural medium of 20th century American art. Driven by
theory on the one hand and disdainful of intellectual effetism on the
other. Catering to the cultural elite while at the same time celebrating
the romantic idealism embodied in the daily struggle of the common man.
Professing a multicultural and multi- contextual vision while staunchly
defending and preserving the traditions of the past. Embracing the machine
and at the same time admiring the touch of the hand. This is a dynamic
relationship - a fruitful one. Enhanced by discourse and tempered by
technical demands. When I think of art I think of clay. When I think of
clay, I think of a number of things... in a number of ways.

Dan wilson note: edited and embellished for dramatic effect :)




>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Dan Wilson...your insight, instinct and/or criminal acts as you describe
>them, constructive offerings as I'd characterize them, are remarkably on
>target! I think ceramics can be a victim of its own insularity!!! Your
>inclination to understand Mr. Voulkos' contribution in light of the
>dramatic and fluid field of sculptural discourse that includes clay is
>refreshing indeed!
>
>I've admired your insightful and thoughtful contributions from time to
>time. Awaiting your next illegal act with great anticipation...
>
>Mark Richard Leach
>Curator of Twentieth Century Art
>Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte

Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 3 mar 97

Dan,

I beg to differ with you on the subject of "insularity". On the contrary,
it is the fine art culture that is a victim of its own isolation. By
encouraging "art" work that is antagonistic and/or irrelevant to a large
segement of its audience it removes itself from relevancy to a broad
range of people.

Can you imagine that in ancient Egypt the general population had "no
idea" of the nature of the sculptures that adorned the temples? That the
general population did not understand the meaning of the images carved in
relief and painted on temple walls? That they did not "understand" the
painting of the ceramic bowls, or the turquoise ceramic hippos with
papyrus grasses on their flanks?

Today, art is made NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD and much art work produced today
is so "challenging" aesthetically that it is not possible for most people
to appreciate it. This is precisely the orientation that the fine art
culture demands. The development of a coterie of "insiders" to explain,
justify, and validate these expressions is thus justified.

Unfortunately, instead of a belief system based in
transcendental and/or religious values of the past, the concepts that
swirl around much of the art work promoted today revolves around money and
not much else. A HA, what else could you expect from a CONSUMER CULTURE?

We still have art. We still have the high priests. We don't have the
values. That's why so many contemporary artists are in such a desparate
search for inspiration. That's why we see artworks that are simply a
pastiches of images literally stolen from dead cultures of the past and
dying contemporary cultures. Much like capitalism, there is a
never-ending search for new aesthetic resources to exploit. The
contemporay fine art cultures' fixation on the "revolutionary", on the
incessantly "new" is, in many ways, the same dismal impetus that powers
the continuous destruction of the environment.

This artistic behaviour is given the false imprimatur of "Cultural
Diversty".

A "struggle with identity" is useful when one finds that the choices
offered involve such stakes. What values does one "buy into"? In whose
world will you live? Who do you think you are? Identity, ideed.

Voulkos and Rose Slivka made their choices.

I, for one, prefer to isolate myself from the appalling orientation that
much of the fine art culture represents.

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


On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, dan wilson wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> A moment of unexpected lucidity I assure you. I've often been mystified by
> this "insularity" as you describe it. This is the only field of which I'm
> familiar that is truly struggling with its identity. Oh yes, painters have
> begun to question theirs as well but this is a more recent development
for
> them, I believe. Ours (clay) is a history of two minds struggling since the
> turn of the century. Locked in what seems, on the surface, a mortal
> struggle - an ideological battle if you will. As major ceramic figures
> migrated from commercial concerns to colleges and universities at the turn
> of the century, ceramics was established as a legitimate field of study
> within academia. This was the moment in history that inextricably linked
> Pottery to the Fine arts. Potters to Fine Artists. This is the point in
> history at which the potter, formerly a common laborer, is illuminated by
> the lessons of history and philosophy and is transformed into a new breed
> in the aesthetic/cultural medium of 20th century American art. Driven by
> theory on the one hand and disdainful of intellectual effetism on the
> other. Catering to the cultural elite while at the same time celebrating
> the romantic idealism embodied in the daily struggle of the common man.
> Professing a multicultural and multi- contextual vision while staunchly
> defending and preserving the traditions of the past. Embracing the machine
> and at the same time admiring the touch of the hand. This is a dynamic
> relationship - a fruitful one. Enhanced by discourse and tempered by
> technical demands. When I think of art I think of clay. When I think of
> clay, I think of a number of things... in a number of ways.
>
> Dan wilson note: edited and embellished for dramatic effect :)
>
>
>
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >Dan Wilson...your insight, instinct and/or criminal acts as you describe
> >them, constructive offerings as I'd characterize them, are remarkably on
> >target! I think ceramics can be a victim of its own insularity!!! Your
> >inclination to understand Mr. Voulkos' contribution in light of the
> >dramatic and fluid field of sculptural discourse that includes clay is
> >refreshing indeed!
> >
> >I've admired your insightful and thoughtful contributions from time to
> >time. Awaiting your next illegal act with great anticipation...
> >
> >Mark Richard Leach
> >Curator of Twentieth Century Art
> >Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte
>

dan wilson on wed 5 mar 97

Kevin,

This was a wonderful post. Too many issues to digest in one sitting.
Thankyou. Are your fingers ok?

While I would agree that much of the work of "Fine Art" culture may not be
relevant to a broad range of people I would at the same time defend it, by
way of explanation, as reasearch. Seriously! Aesthetic reasearch. A long
path of investigation/invention; the history of which we are all pretty
familiar. Why should the fine arts be immune from this? Especially since
much of the reasearch is being conducted in Acedemia (the very place where
research originates). The value of a work of " art" is established (or
should be) by its relevance and contribution to the current aesthetic
reasearch. How it is valued in monetary terms is determined by market
forces.

Pressing forward...
The art that adorned temples in ancient Egypt and in other cultures as
well, was created to reinforce the social order. By todays standards it is
popaganda art, meant to serve the state. Its value is questionable. (This
does not diminish its beauty.)

And...
I agree that much of the promotion of art today revolves around money, and
that much of the motivation for doing art is about money. I would also go
further and say that art is a comodoty and artists are as well. (Voulkos is
an example) But this is not something new is it?

This notion you've put forward ("We don't have the values.") is, I believe,
the mark of a mature culture in transition; seeking to redefine its values
in lite of the onslaught of the diverse cultural influences it is currently
facing. "Cultural Diversity" is a way of dealing with it and is preferable
to "Cultural Purity".


Dan Wilson; A whisper on the lips of creation. One thing, I've come to believe.



>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Dan,
>
>I beg to differ with you on the subject of "insularity". On the contrary,
>it is the fine art culture that is a victim of its own isolation. By
>encouraging "art" work that is antagonistic and/or irrelevant to a large
>segement of its audience it removes itself from relevancy to a broad
>range of people.
>
>Can you imagine that in ancient Egypt the general population had "no
>idea" of the nature of the sculptures that adorned the temples? That the
>general population did not understand the meaning of the images carved in
>relief and painted on temple walls? That they did not "understand" the
>painting of the ceramic bowls, or the turquoise ceramic hippos with
>papyrus grasses on their flanks?
>
>Today, art is made NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD and much art work produced today
>is so "challenging" aesthetically that it is not possible for most people
>to appreciate it. This is precisely the orientation that the fine art
>culture demands. The development of a coterie of "insiders" to explain,
>justify, and validate these expressions is thus justified.
>
>Unfortunately, instead of a belief system based in
>transcendental and/or religious values of the past, the concepts that
>swirl around much of the art work promoted today revolves around money and
>not much else. A HA, what else could you expect from a CONSUMER CULTURE?
>
>We still have art. We still have the high priests. We don't have the
>values. That's why so many contemporary artists are in such a desparate
>search for inspiration. That's why we see artworks that are simply a
>pastiches of images literally stolen from dead cultures of the past and
>dying contemporary cultures. Much like capitalism, there is a
>never-ending search for new aesthetic resources to exploit. The
>contemporay fine art cultures' fixation on the "revolutionary", on the
>incessantly "new" is, in many ways, the same dismal impetus that powers
>the continuous destruction of the environment.
>
>This artistic behaviour is given the false imprimatur of "Cultural
>Diversty".
>
>A "struggle with identity" is useful when one finds that the choices
>offered involve such stakes. What values does one "buy into"? In whose
>world will you live? Who do you think you are? Identity, ideed.
>
>Voulkos and Rose Slivka made their choices.
>
>I, for one, prefer to isolate myself from the appalling orientation that
>much of the fine art culture represents.
>
> Kevin A. Hluch
>102 E. 8th St.
>Frederick, MD 21701
>USA
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, dan wilson wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> A moment of unexpected lucidity I assure you. I've often been mystified by
>> this "insularity" as you describe it. This is the only field of which I'm
>> familiar that is truly struggling with its identity. Oh yes, painters have
>> begun to question theirs as well but this is a more recent development
>for
>> them, I believe. Ours (clay) is a history of two minds struggling since the
>> turn of the century. Locked in what seems, on the surface, a mortal
>> struggle - an ideological battle if you will. As major ceramic figures
>> migrated from commercial concerns to colleges and universities at the turn
>> of the century, ceramics was established as a legitimate field of study
>> within academia. This was the moment in history that inextricably linked
>> Pottery to the Fine arts. Potters to Fine Artists. This is the point in
>> history at which the potter, formerly a common laborer, is illuminated by
>> the lessons of history and philosophy and is transformed into a new breed
>> in the aesthetic/cultural medium of 20th century American art. Driven by
>> theory on the one hand and disdainful of intellectual effetism on the
>> other. Catering to the cultural elite while at the same time celebrating
>> the romantic idealism embodied in the daily struggle of the common man.
>> Professing a multicultural and multi- contextual vision while staunchly
>> defending and preserving the traditions of the past. Embracing the machine
>> and at the same time admiring the touch of the hand. This is a dynamic
>> relationship - a fruitful one. Enhanced by discourse and tempered by
>> technical demands. When I think of art I think of clay. When I think of
>> clay, I think of a number of things... in a number of ways.
>>
>> Dan wilson note: edited and embellished for dramatic effect :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> >Dan Wilson...your insight, instinct and/or criminal acts as you describe
>> >them, constructive offerings as I'd characterize them, are remarkably on
>> >target! I think ceramics can be a victim of its own insularity!!! Your
>> >inclination to understand Mr. Voulkos' contribution in light of the
>> >dramatic and fluid field of sculptural discourse that includes clay is
>> >refreshing indeed!
>> >
>> >I've admired your insightful and thoughtful contributions from time to
>> >time. Awaiting your next illegal act with great anticipation...
>> >
>> >Mark Richard Leach
>> >Curator of Twentieth Century Art
>> >Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte
>>

Mark Richard Leach on wed 5 mar 97

Dear Kevin:

I have the following response to offer to you regarding your commentary
on the current thread regarding my use of the "I" term.

Perhaps it is true that some art was made "not to be understood." By
the same token, I know a whole lot of ceramic artists who have made a
whole lot of vessels that can't be used! Does that mean that we must
castigate them as well...I THINK NOT!!! Respectfully, I'm trying to get
a handle on where you're coming from but I'm not there yet and I need
your help.

I appreciate your questioning approach to the motives of artists, the
commercial art world, and museums. Even so, you're meditation on high
priests and "contemporary artists [who] are in desperate search for
inspiration" strikes me funny. On the one hand, you accuse artists of
making and "high priests" (curators, art historians and museum
directors, I presume) of showing work that can't be understood! And on
the other hand, you assail them/us (I'm a museum person) for attempting
to break the constraints of time, geography, and heritage, among other
things, in an effort to make transparent to those who would be
interested related elements of human and cultural history.

In the best case, I believe that artists aren t stealing but attempting
to understand unknown and compelling information by engaging it
directly. I will admit that some efforts fail; but some efforts
succeed. In this light, you're questioning of the motives of artists
who, as you say, "exploit aesthetic resources" makes me a little
uneasy. Again, I'll give you that humans (artists among them) do fall
prey to convenience on occasion. And in pursuit of some grand
political, cultural or economic enterprise, humans can become
predatory. On the other hand, while we know these things to be true, I
think stereotypes can be unfair. You're characterization of much of
today's art as "...pastiches of images literally stolen from dead
cultures of the past and dying contemporary cultures," is based upon
what? Have you figured out a way to see into the hearts and souls of
these artists (humans) to learn of their immoral intentions and, if so,
do you take apprentices?

You also state that ...we don t have the values. First of all, who s
WE? Secondly, whose values? The collective? Yours? Someone elses
beliefs? Or a combination of them. But then, who is speaking for the
group? Is there consensus, disagreement, competition, ambivilance or
apathy in the group about whose values are being discussed? I would
suggest that all of the above conditions are in play in a discussion
about values. And in acknowledging this, I can truly say that mine are
no less but no more weighted than are yours or another individual s
beliefs.

Forgive my ignorance please. I would be grateful to know who you are?
For example, what is your occupation? Are you an artist, an art
historian, neither, both, or a professional of an altogether different
pursuit. Though the internet brings people together, I m afraid that
anonymity bugs me silly.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your willingness to discuss these
matters.

Mark Leach

Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 17 mar 97

Mark,
Sorry it has taken so long to reply but I feel I'mfinally getting out
fromn behind the 8 ball.

Dear Kevin:
>
> I have the following response to offer to you regarding your commentary
> on the current thread regarding my use of the "I" term.

Sorry, Mark I m completely at a loss on this reference.

> Perhaps it is true that some art was made "not to be understood." By
> the same token, I know a whole lot of ceramic artists who have made a
> whole lot of vessels that can't be used! Does that mean that we must
> castigate them as well...I THINK NOT!!! Respectfully, I'm trying to get
> a handle on where you're coming from but I'm not there yet and I need
> your help.

Certainly, vessels can be understood. I'm not castigating vessel makers in
the least. I am castigating those who, in the name of art, make works
that have a very superficial purpose...to get attention through shock
value. There has been, it seems to me a misunderstanding in regard to
aesthetic innovation....shocking is not necessarily the end in itself, is
it?. To acquire a new way of seeing things that gives people an insight
into the human condition is good. New, for the sake of new, is what sells
products in a consumer culture where nothing but the new is valued.
Artists make new things certainly but that is not the only basis for their
investigations. I give the example of black figure vs.. red figure
pottery. This innovation simply helped the artists to express the values
of their culture better. It was not just revolutionary.
>
> I appreciate your questioning approach to the motives of artists, the
commercial art world, and museums. Even so, you're meditation on high
> priests and "contemporary artists [who] are in desperate search for
> inspiration" strikes me funny. On the one hand, you accuse artists of
> making and "high priests" (curators, art historians and museum
> directors, I presume) of showing work that can't be understood! And on
> the other hand, you assail them/us (I'm a museum person) for attempting
> to break the constraints of time, geography, and heritage, among other
> things, in an effort to make transparent to those who would be
> interested related elements of human and cultural history.

Im glad your humored but even if I "do not understand" a Greek sculpture
like the Nike of Samothrace at the Louvre that doesn't mean that it has
little or less value. It's value is apparent to most in
that it is a beautiful and powerful object even it it's current context is
far removed from its original one. I'm sure that in its time there was no
need for detailed explanation as to why this work held its viewers so
steadfastly. Reading is a recent luxury.

You as a historian or curator can make transparent the secondary
information about the art but artists create the ojects that relflect and
magnify what it is to be a human being with human sensibilities -
"transparency". Today many artist are making work that is "designed" in
the first place to be opaque.

Many of these opacities have been lifted from historical artists
who originally were making clear that which was obscured to them by lack
of information and knowledge. It seems to me that these ancient artists
were making sense of their world intuitively. What other choices did
they have?

Today, IMHO artist, in a world of a glut or information,are in the
process creating mysteries. In a sense, many artists today are mimicking
the character of art that they see in museums because that is what they
think that is what art is. The ancient Greeks were delving in mysteries
and mythologies....Perhaps we are creating selfsame from the flotsam and
jetsam of the past.

Science has taken many mysteries from us. They are still there, only more
well disguised or camouflaged. This illusion of the "facts" of modern
society have had a perverse affect on art.

Today many artists are making work that is "designed" in the
first place to be opaque. Many of these opacities have been lifted from
other cultures due to the fact that today's culture is so superficial and
vacuous ..We already know everything..There is not a lot of mystery about
making a lot of money in the business world. What don't we know? We
don't know precisely why the pyramids were created (and I've been there)
but we have a copy in Las Vegas.......Symmmetry.

In a sense, the validation via facts, figures, theories, histories,
provenances, etc. in the form of long explanations using distorted and
hyper-venilated language acts in many of the same ways as the chants,
sermons, and rituals that are so effective in religious
ceremonies.....Thats your job, not mine.

>
> In the best case, I believe that artists aren' t stealing but attempting
> to understand unknown and compelling information by engaging it
> directly. I will admit that some efforts fail; but some efforts
> succeed. In this light, you're questioning of the motives of artists
> who, as you say, "exploit aesthetic resources" makes me a little
> uneasy. Again, I'll give you that humans (artists among them) do fall
> prey to convenience on occasion. And in pursuit of some grand
> political, cultural or economic enterprise, humans can become
> predatory.
>
What, precisely is the grand, political, cultural or economic enterprise
to which you're referring? Humans, if you haven't noticed already, are a
very sophisticated form of vulture. It seems everything is being
consumed.

This comment relates the derivative thread that has been ongoing. My
point is this...In our age we have difficulty digesting anything....
It is like the responses on this list (including my own). There is
almost no time for thought or reflection....just reaction. In ancient
times information about other cultures was consumed on an extremely slow
basis. Artists had time to rule things out and rule things out based upon
their own very personal and important values. (Right, there are exceptions
like the Aztecs and Mayans.) No longer. If you are not on the cusp of
WHATIS HAPPENINGNOW, then you are dead meat aesthetically.


>On the other hand, while we know these things to be true, I
> think stereotypes can be unfair. You're characterization of much of
> today's art as "...pastiches of images literally stolen from dead
> cultures of the past and dying contemporary cultures," is based upon
> what? Have you figured out a way to see into the hearts and souls of
> these artists (humans) to learn of their immoral intentions and, if so,
> do you take apprentices?

Look around you. Everybody is lifting everything from everywhere...And
why not? Its all at our disposal (literally), like the mega mall in
Minnesota or if you like the landfill. You don't have to have the ability
to see into the hearts and souls of people to notice whats going on. Of
course, this was done in the past but not and the hyper- accelerated rate
that is occurring now. As I have said , the voracious eye of art has
turned its gaze to craft. It's in the process of being consumed now.

>
> You also state that ...we don t have the values. First of all, who s
> WE? Secondly, whose values? The collective? Yours? Someone else's
> beliefs? Or a combination of them. But then, who is speaking for the
> group? Is there consensus, disagreement, competition, ambivalence or
> apathy in the group about whose values are being discussed? I would
group? Is there consensus, disagreement, competition, ambivalence or
> apathy in the group about whose values are being discussed? I would
> suggest that all of the above conditions are in play in a discussion
> about values. And in acknowledging this, I can truly say that mine are
> no less but no more weighted than are yours or another individual s
> beliefs.
>
By values I mean the values that knit so many cultures together in the
past. The cohesive system of beliefs, ideas, and mores did much to
produce unified styles of art and coherent artistic expressions in the
past. That's one of the reasons that we are able to have art history.
And even then, individual viewpoints and creative expressions like
Hieronymous Bosch were able to be expressed. But it was the core
principles of belief that welded that work into a recognizable whole.

Can you say that this kind of culture exists today? Our culture is one
that promotes the glory of the individual and if I want to be a Muslim
with four wives or Buddhist in saffron robes now that's up to me isn't it?


> Forgive my ignorance please. I would be grateful to know who you are?
> For example, what is your occupation? Are you an artist, an art
> historian, neither, both, or a professional of an altogether different
> pursuit. Though the internet brings people together, I m afraid that
> anonymity bugs me silly.

In all things, pedigree is everything...except on the net. Id prefer to
keep it that way. In this sense Soetsu Yanagi has a lot to offer and so
does the Lone Ranger.
>
> I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your willingness to discuss these
> matters.
>
> Mark Leach
>

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

e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu