dan wilson on mon 24 mar 97
Hi folks,
Recent posts (I can't remember wich) mentioned that their might be/is a
difference between Canadian and American approaches to art. The idea has
been nagging me since. Is there a difference in approach? Is Canadian art
influenced more by European traditions or indigenous culture? How do we
compare the ceramic art of the two countries? And since one question always
leads to another; are their distinct regional variations in each country
that can be thought of as unique to each? I'd appreciate some input on this
subject and appologize in advance for the vagueness of my questions.
Dan Wilson
kinoko@junction.net on tue 25 mar 97
Dan, It seems ot me,as a Canadian/American,that ones view of Art/art is
colored by ones view of "National Aspirations". It seems a peculiarity of
Canadians,(and probably of Americans) that they wish a distinctive art,
forgetting that Art is very much influenced by the prevailing imperialism.
Whatever Canadian Art is,it must be a meld of both British and United
States,9!) art attitudes. Both imperialisms, rode/ride, roughshod over any
purely indiginous art-forms. In previous art develpment one need only look
at the tremendous influence Japanese Art had on the work of Piccaso as well
as Toulous-Lautrec,to mention only two giants. In the period prior to WW 2
see the influence on Japanese art from European painters. Art is an
incestuous excercise at best and rarely is of much concern to the majority
of the citizens....as it must be in any democratic society. Canadians have
their "Group of Seven" to the virtual exclusion of literally undreds of
young Artists clamouring to be heard. USONA artists for ost AMericans begin
and end with Grant Wood and Norman Rockwell. do
m>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi folks,
>
>Recent posts (I can't remember wich) mentioned that their might be/is a
>difference between Canadian and American approaches to art. The idea has
>been nagging me since. Is there a difference in approach? Is Canadian art
>influenced more by European traditions or indigenous culture? How do we
>compare the ceramic art of the two countries? And since one question always
>leads to another; are their distinct regional variations in each country
>that can be thought of as unique to each? I'd appreciate some input on this
>subject and appologize in advance for the vagueness of my questions.
>
>Dan Wilson
>
>
Evan Dresel on tue 25 mar 97
At 08:46 AM 3-24-97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi folks,
>
>Recent posts (I can't remember wich) mentioned that their might be/is a
>difference between Canadian and American approaches to art. The idea has
>been nagging me since. Is there a difference in approach? Is Canadian art
>influenced more by European traditions or indigenous culture? How do we
>compare the ceramic art of the two countries? And since one question always
>leads to another; are their distinct regional variations in each country
>that can be thought of as unique to each? I'd appreciate some input on this
>subject and appologize in advance for the vagueness of my questions.
>
>Dan Wilson
>
>
How can I resist this one. So much licence to ramble and speculate. I'm
not sure I can say much about ceramics but maybe other art is relevant.
Basically I think you will find that the approach to art more or less tracks
the demographics. I think there is less "big city art" in Canada because
there are fewer and smaller cities. Maybe it's just what my parents
collected or maybe it's the influence of the group of seven, Emily Carr,
etc. but nature is very important in Canadian art. And even there, much of
the best Canadian art IMO does not concentrate on the grandiose scenes but
smaller more personal scenes. My favorite Nova Scotia water-colour painter
would paint her back yard or a bit of a lake shore, for instance. Even
Emily painted what it was like to be enveloped in rainforest rather than the
mountain vistas. I suspect there is generally a smaller chance of achieving
fame as a Canadian artist than as an American so you don't get the same
ego-trips. How many outside Canada can name even one Canadian artist? As a
gross generalization, I think Canadian art tends to be humbler.
Nature. Canadians I think still have a different relationship to nature
from Americans. I can say, "The North" to most Canadians and conjure up a
series of images that I have never been able to explain to an American --
even (or especially) those who have worked in Alaska. In the documentary
"32 Short Films About Glen Gould" They talked about his facination with
this, including part of his radio broadcast "The Idea of North". Brought
tears to my eyes.
I don't see a lot of exploitation or encorporation of "indiginous culture"
in non-indiginous Canadian art. I think by and large the Inuit carving and
printing has developed with out a lot of knock-offs. I think the
cooperatives have done well in developing the techniques, markets, and value
of authenticicity. I see more of a tendency in the USA to grab trendy ideas
from Indian cultures and market them. I understand Australia is having
quite the controversy about this right now.
So how's that for unsubstantiated generalizations?
-- Evan Dresel who got a good look at the comet tonight
kinoko@junction.net on wed 26 mar 97
Dan Wilson, We always seem to jump from one foot to another,as the times and
mood fulfills us. I find the attitude of nationalistic art repugnant. If we
have any beleif in ART at all,how can we even think about "Art in one
country" any more than "Socialism in one Country," a La Stalin ? If Art is
not a universality then it must grow in upon itself and nobody wins.
Aboriginal Art,developing as it often,(but not always) has, arises out of
real needs for a people usually isolated from other peoples In that
sense,the isolation becomes the entire world.>-In Canadian ssociety as in
United States society,ART is not MASS- Art but is incestuous."The Art World"
knows itself and,for the most part rejects outsiders. In a micro-cosm,the
old business of "Art/Crafts" has always been a matter of attempting to
achieve some sort of respectability on the part of the Crafts-person and
their rejection by the "TRUE" Artist. Paerhaps Canadian Art is "umble"
because of the colonialist background of Canadians and thier fear of
authority,(which is masked as "respect for authority") Despite these
attitudes there ARE many young and not so young, Artists in Canada producing
stimulating work. As in most countries,their work is rarely seen,even by a
wider ART public...which is narrow enough as it is!
kinoko---------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 08:46 AM 3-24-97 EST, you wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>Recent posts (I can't remember wich) mentioned that their might be/is a
>>difference between Canadian and American approaches to art. The idea has
>>been nagging me since. Is there a difference in approach? Is Canadian art
>>influenced more by European traditions or indigenous culture? How do we
>>compare the ceramic art of the two countries? And since one question always
>>leads to another; are their distinct regional variations in each country
>>that can be thought of as unique to each? I'd appreciate some input on this
>>subject and appologize in advance for the vagueness of my questions.
>>
>>Dan Wilson
>>
>>
>
>How can I resist this one. So much licence to ramble and speculate. I'm
>not sure I can say much about ceramics but maybe other art is relevant.
>
>Basically I think you will find that the approach to art more or less tracks
>the demographics. I think there is less "big city art" in Canada because
>there are fewer and smaller cities. Maybe it's just what my parents
>collected or maybe it's the influence of the group of seven, Emily Carr,
>etc. but nature is very important in Canadian art. And even there, much of
>the best Canadian art IMO does not concentrate on the grandiose scenes but
>smaller more personal scenes. My favorite Nova Scotia water-colour painter
>would paint her back yard or a bit of a lake shore, for instance. Even
>Emily painted what it was like to be enveloped in rainforest rather than the
>mountain vistas. I suspect there is generally a smaller chance of achieving
>fame as a Canadian artist than as an American so you don't get the same
>ego-trips. How many outside Canada can name even one Canadian artist? As a
>gross generalization, I think Canadian art tends to be humbler.
>
>Nature. Canadians I think still have a different relationship to nature
>from Americans. I can say, "The North" to most Canadians and conjure up a
>series of images that I have never been able to explain to an American --
>even (or especially) those who have worked in Alaska. In the documentary
>"32 Short Films About Glen Gould" They talked about his facination with
>this, including part of his radio broadcast "The Idea of North". Brought
>tears to my eyes.
>
>I don't see a lot of exploitation or encorporation of "indiginous culture"
>in non-indiginous Canadian art. I think by and large the Inuit carving and
>printing has developed with out a lot of knock-offs. I think the
>cooperatives have done well in developing the techniques, markets, and value
>of authenticicity. I see more of a tendency in the USA to grab trendy ideas
>from Indian cultures and market them. I understand Australia is having
>quite the controversy about this right now.
>
>So how's that for unsubstantiated generalizations?
>
>-- Evan Dresel who got a good look at the comet tonight
>
>
dan wilson on thu 27 mar 97
Kinoko,
Would you explain this more fully please?
>If Art isnot a universality then it must grow in upon itself and nobody wins.
>In Canadian ssociety as in United States society,ART is not MASS- Art but
>is >incestuous."The Art World" knows >itself and,for the most part rejects
>outsiders.
Are you and I not part of the "Art World"?
Thankyou,
Dan Wilson
kinoko@junction.net on fri 28 mar 97
Dan W., Histiry is filled with ART,died aborning...Arte Brut,par example.
What we percieve of as Art is the invention of collectors and as such is
mere property. Ref: John Berger, "Art as Property". The museum,as the
gallery,are both recent inventions. Perhpas late 17th to early 18th century.
Ref: Andre Malraux. When mass art is collected,(as match covers and cola
caps) it is rarely dignified as capital investment. Kinoko is ARTISAN not
critic...Critics feast upon each other and grad students. Don't quit the
thread on acount of my personal rambleings,old
man.>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Kinoko,
>
>Would you explain this more fully please?
>
>>If Art isnot a universality then it must grow in upon itself and nobody wins.
>
>>In Canadian ssociety as in United States society,ART is not MASS- Art but
>>is >incestuous."The Art World" knows >itself and,for the most part rejects
>>outsiders.
>
>Are you and I not part of the "Art World"?
>
>Thankyou,
>
>Dan Wilson
>
>
dan wilson on sat 29 mar 97
Kinoko,
Thankyou. You are right, Art is property. It's value rises and falls
according to the whims of Critics/Collectors et.al. It does appear that
the industry of art is self serving. I guess thats how it survives, by
reinventing itself through its young. I'm just guessing and am probably
foolish for believing this but I think we've all got a chance to contribute
to the process of re-invention. I value your comments and appreciate your
willingness to share them. I liked your observation that some Canadian
artists hop from one foot to the other. Not unlike some American artists, I
suspect.
Dan Wilson
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Dan W., Histiry is filled with ART,died aborning...Arte Brut,par example.
>What we percieve of as Art is the invention of collectors and as such is
>mere property. Ref: John Berger, "Art as Property". The museum,as the
>gallery,are both recent inventions. Perhpas late 17th to early 18th century.
>Ref: Andre Malraux. When mass art is collected,(as match covers and cola
>caps) it is rarely dignified as capital investment. Kinoko is ARTISAN not
>critic...Critics feast upon each other and grad students. Don't quit the
>thread on acount of my personal rambleings,old
>man.>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
dan wilson on thu 10 apr 97
It seems to me that if there is a difference between Canadian and American
art it can be found in how the same subject is treated in both cultures.
Evan's reference to the difference in how the landscape is treated is an
example. But would we see a difference in how say, the teabowl is treated,
from North to South? Any treatment of the tea bowl (characteristics) that
could be said to be typically Canadian? Or American? And on another tack:
How much influence does Western European ceramic tradition have on Canadian
ceramics? Does it have the same influence on American ceramics?
Thanks to all for your input.
Dan Wilson
| |
|
