dan wilson on tue 11 mar 97
Veronica,
>Isn't all art derivative to some extent?
Why, yes! I would say all art is derivitive. The absurdity of some current
thinking ie. the post modern attempt to "wipe the slate clean." fails to
recognize or give creedence to the notion that advances in art have come as
a result of understanding the history and reacting to it. I believe it has
become fashionable to reject history as irrelevent and without authority.
This is dangerous. A common complaint today is that the post modern world
in which everything has been done and, after deconstruction, is in pieces
fails to account for the infinite possibilities for new expressions
embodied in each of those pieces.
> To carry the argument to its "reductio ad absurdum", something totally
>new and >underived could well be invisible - blocked out by the brain as
>just so much skewed >data or visual static.
This is the problem of Reductivism. when carried to its logical conclusion
it tends to make the work (object) disappear.
> If it is self-expression, judgment is valueless and misleading. If it
>communication, >then it has to be judged on whether what was intended has
>been communicated. Which >involves some derivation. So if some degree of
>derivation is not only permissible but >necessary to communicate, are we
>trying to set up standards as to how much >derivation is ok, who it is ok
>to derive from, etc? This doesn't sound like a healthy >basis for
>criteria.
On the surface I would immediately agree with you here. Then I would ask:
If art is created to communicate; and in order to communicate it must be
derived from some known precedent. How can we evaluate it positively if the
expression does not communicate something further or beyond what the
precedent has already communicated? I think this is a positive standard or
criteria for evaluating works of art that communicate. On the other hand,
if expression for its own sake is the goal. Don't we have to apply another
standard for evaluation, an even more subjective standard? Here again we
have to rely on precedent in order to evaluate it. We have to ask of the
work: Does it surpass all other expressions of similar kind of which we
are familliar? In the matter of Voulkos for example. Have any of the
expressions in clay (of that kind) that followed surpassed the original?
Again I think this is a healthy criteria for evaluation. The question
revolves around progress. "Derivative" is a questionable word when applied
to this problem, I admit.
Dan Wilson Hoping this made sense.
Dave and Pat Eitel on wed 12 mar 97
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Veronica,
>
>>Isn't all art derivative to some extent?
>
>Why, yes! I would say all art is derivitive.
When I think of derivative as applied to pottery, it's not in terms of
historical references or suggestions in the work, but of outright copying,
such as the raeproductions of early American saltglazed ware that has
become so popular in home decorating. I'm not passing judgement on the
work as good, bad, etc., just tossing out another definition of derivative.
References to past ideas are, I agree, unavoidable and often desirable
elements of art and or craft.
Later...Dave
Dave Eitel
Cedar Creek Pottery
Cedarburg, WI
pots@cedarcreekpottery.com
http://www.cedarcreekpottery.com
The Shelfords on wed 12 mar 97
dan wilson wrote:
>If art is created to communicate; and in order to communicate it must be
>derived from some known precedent. How can we evaluate it positively if the
>expression does not communicate something further or beyond what the
>precedent has already communicated?
That would certainly have to be the case, or you have what Vince was calling
>>beautiful but otherwise vacuous. Most of us deal at least occasionally
with the fear that what is a new vision to oneself will be perceived as
naive and vacuous to someone else. Yet often a vision has validity simply
for being totally personal and genuine and cleanly expressed. But it takes
courage, or at least a kind of practiced foolhardiness, to go ahead and keep
expressing that vision as it develops.
> I believe it has become fashionable to reject history as irrelevent and
without authority.
>This is dangerous. A common complaint today is that the post modern world
>in which everything has been done and, after deconstruction, is in pieces
>fails to account for the infinite possibilities for new expressions
>embodied in each of those pieces.
This may be dangerous, but I believe it is also understandable, at least at
a certain stage in an artist's development. I hope I will be forgiven for
reproducing below a poem I wrote more than 30 years ago, when I was in my
teens and working my way through something of what you are referring to.
Don't misunderstand - I find history an on-going fascination and solace -
but I'm not at all sure about it as an authority. One of my favourite
quotes from Basho (don't know whose translation, sorry) is -
"I do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old:
I seek the things they sought."
To me that is the essence of genuine continuity in art as in life.
And moving from the sublime to the (I hope not quite) ridiculous, the poem I
mentioned -
______________________________________
LIBRARIAN
I was walking in a library
and saw my mind in pigeon-holes,
with other names attached.
My thoughts, assembled, a mummified memory.
Others have gone before, in the librarian's eyes.
"But master, wait," I say,
not willing to be given so much history.
"Is there some shame in being trite?"
"No, but only weariness," he said.
"Is your wisdom only this?
Is it weariness?" I ask
"The histories, the blood both saved and spent,
is filed, defined, and annotated here.
There is nothing left for us to do,
that would not be messy in comparison,
and naive," he said.
"There is nothing left to do which was not done."
Others have gone before, but I must be one,
not one of them.
I tell him,
"Then I must leave my memory-mind with you -
file it as you like.
I only ask you master,
that I be left to grow.
Let me come to this weariness unaware,
not wearing it like a method actor.
Give me time to grow."
In the librarian's eyes, others have gone before.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Veronica Shelford
e-mail: shelford@island.net
s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
Tel: (250) 246-1509
____________________________________________________________________________
Sandra Dwiggins on thu 13 mar 97
I couldn't hold back anymore. What is derivative art and what is
"influenced" art? Is there a difference? Did all of us artists have ideas
springing full blown in our minds before we saw things---any "things"?
Those of us---especially those who have gone through academic
training to be an artist--who have not looked upon someone else's
work--pots or not---and NOT said---isn't that interesting? I think I might try
that--are SAINTS, then. Is that derivation or influence?
I know I keep bringing up my daughter here, but I learn a tremendous
amount from watching her go through her struggles to be an artist. Last
night I looked at her new photos, and critiqued them with her....and then I
showed her examples of how other artists had handled the same
subject matter in their photographs. Don't we ALL do that with our
students? I encouraged her to try some of these approaches in her
own work. So, if she manages to produce a nice photograph in the style
of Minor White or Weston---is she influenced or derivative?
Frankly, when I see some of Tom Coleman's finely thrown porcelain tea
bowls, I immediately think of George Ohr. Does that mean that Tom
Coleman copied or derived his style from George Ohr? I think Tom was
throwing those bowls long before this rage for George Ohr came along.
If any of you know Charles Rennie Macintosh, the architect from
Glasgow who predated Frank Lloyd Wright by about 10-15 years, you
would certainly ask the question--did Frank borrow from Charles? I'm
sure some architectural historians are hot on that question right
now---since Macintosh just had his first big exposure in the U.S. Does
it really matter---they are both masters--even though their conceptual
approach may have some similarity.
When we become dead or dry in our own creative work--do we look at
other work to stimulate us? We go to workshops given by other potters
to get their techniques and ideas....are we derivative or influenced?
The whole U.S. and English ceramic tradition is derivative----we have
this hang-up about Japan. We in the U.S. are still making TEA BOWLS!
Not part of this culture, by any stretch---the PEPSI bowl IS more like it!
When I was an academic(not in Art)--it was part of the game to declare
that so-and-so was derivative. This effectively said the person was
incapable of doing original thinking.
Is a person "influenced" when, in spite of the 'echo' of other works, you
still spot the originality--and "derivative" when the 'echo' is actually a
'shout'?
Sandy
Vince Pitelka on thu 13 mar 97
>When I think of derivative as applied to pottery, it's not in terms of
>historical references or suggestions in the work, but of outright copying,
>such as the raeproductions of early American saltglazed ware that has
>become so popular in home decorating. I'm not passing judgement on the
>work as good, bad, etc., just tossing out another definition of derivative.
>References to past ideas are, I agree, unavoidable and often desirable
>elements of art and or craft.
Dave -
You make a good point. The evolution of art relies on reinterpreting
previous art. The key is in the reinterpretation. If art takes its primary
content and/or appearance from previous work, without inventing anything
new, then it is derivative. I believe it was jazzman Clark Terry who said
"Immitate, assimilate, innovate." In other words, when you are a student
there is nothing wrong with immitating the work of the past in order to
assimilate the methods and imagery, as long as ones work matures and becomes
original. This is all assuming that one intends to be an artist.
Immitation may involve great skill, but it is not artistry.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Phone - home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801
Appalachian Center for Crafts
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Jeff Lawrence on sat 15 mar 97
About derivativity ... John Reeve says,
"The original artist is he who cribs from the most obscure source."
$.02 from N. NM
Jeff Lawrence
jml@sundagger.com
Sun Dagger Design
Rt. 1 Box 394L
Espanola, NM 87532
vox/fax 505-753-5913
Hluch - Kevin A. on sun 16 mar 97
Since when is the interpretation of art accurate? Did this concept start
with some art historian telling us why the pyramids exist? I was recently
on a panel where the art historian told the audience that her job was to
explain the "intention of the artist". I simply asked her what was the
intention of the pyramids? She fulminated an obfuscated response...
So much for interpretation. Maybe artists are best at a misunderstanding
other artists work. Take the Arabs' interpretation of decorated Chinese
porcelain....voila, majolica.
Hey. Just trying to keep up! Keep those surveys coming!
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>
> Dave -
> You make a good point. The evolution of art relies on reinterpreting
> previous art. The key is in the reinterpretation. If art takes its primary
> content and/or appearance from previous work, without inventing anything
> new, then it is derivative. I believe it was jazzman Clark Terry who said
> "Immitate, assimilate, innovate." In other words, when you are a student
> there is nothing wrong with immitating the work of the past in order to
> assimilate the methods and imagery, as long as ones work matures and becomes
> original. This is all assuming that one intends to be an artist.
> Immitation may involve great skill, but it is not artistry.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
> Phone - home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801
> Appalachian Center for Crafts
> 1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
>
Ellen Baker on sun 16 mar 97
This is a story about Picasso I re-tell from time to time because I think
it's important for folks to reflect upon:
Picasso laughed generously when an interviewer asked how he must feel about
so many folks trying to copy his work. Picasso explained to the puzzled
writer that when he was a young artist he tried very hard to copy the work
of the "masters" -- to learn from them. He said that the harder he tried
to copy others, the more he learned about how himself -- he had to fight
his own tendencies, the way his own hands worked, what his own eyes saw --
and as a process, he learned more about his own art than he ever learned
from those he tried to copy. So he said, they were welcome to TRY to copy
him -- they'd never succeed, anyway, so why feel so threatened? Picasso
was one confident dude.
I've always been touched by the story -- there's quite a bit of truth in it.
Yet, I have known folks who were long-on-skill and short-on-creativity who
really don't seem to be able to generate anything that seems "original" on
their own. Sort of like Solieri in the movie "Amadeus" -- there are
craftspersons who sincerely crave the ability to create beautiful, ORIGINAL
work, who suffer tremendously "when they find the well is dry."
If a person copies others' work well, I say give credit where credit is due
-- congratulate their flawless powers of observation and technical skill.
As a rose is a rose, a counterfeit is a counterfeit -- so what?
A concern a lot of us share when we've had a lot of art history, and
particularly when we've received copious amounts of training in design and
technique, is a gnawing suspicion that our own talents are somehow
un-original. We've carefully observed and absorbed the work of masters we
admire. Sometimes when we work closely with other intensely creative
people, the synergy that can be so electric can also be frightening -- we
may start wondering "which ideas are mine?," "what's my own art?"
One can worry too much about the whole derivative "thing." If you want to
test your originality, maybe you should try Picasso's test and try real
hard to copy someone else's work exactly. If you fail, you're NOT the fake
you thought you were!
Best regards, Ellen Baker - Glacier, WA
orion@telcomplus.com
| |
|
