Hiro Matsusaki on tue 11 mar 97
Veronica wrote (09/03/97 shelford@mail.island.net):
>I've been following the threads under the heading of >Re: What's wrong
w/Voulkos? formerly Re: George Orr and more.
>I have renamed it for this post anyway, because I have to confess ... for
those of us who have not have any formal fine arts training. ... ...
..... ... ...
Well, I have no formal training in english, philosophy, history like
Veronica. So I was tempted to rename the thread and keep it up for those of
us who are not devotees of academic jargon or fine arts parlance. I am a
pragmatic type. I want to improve my skills as a potter, and do not wish to
make a living being an art critic. Although I guess that's an easier way to
make a living for those who know how to get good grades at art
schools....judging from recent posts....a lot of interests in them... no, I
am not sarcastic....I simply point out what I have observed....I know that
food critics are not fine cooks and a movie critic just watches the film to
make comments (no time for directing).
And there are good food critics and bad ones. So are the movie critics.
In passing I mention a truism. I wish I could be a good potter and at the
same time a good pottery critic. These two attributes do not always coexist.
We may be led to believe that a good potter can always be a good critic. I
no longer believe in this myth. And I must admit I am neither. I am often
tempted to be the critic, rather than the potter, however, since it looks
like an easier way out for me. I don't mind being a critic of potters, for
that I do not need any formal training, and can always find potters who must
be going through the same path I have treaded years ago and their skill
levels are less than mine, for that reason. But no will do. I am an old new
potter.
Nevertheless, I second Veronica. Why? The derivatives are there for talks.
Derivatives are formed by the act of derivation which is the formation of a
word from an earlier word or base (as by the addition of an affix), according
to the Collegiate Edition of Webster. To me they are not the main focus or
thrusts of us clayart potters. Imagine how the derivatives, whatever and
wherever you are, could increase the level of understanding, sophistication
and appreciation of good pots? By the potential customers? Or even by the
public at large? We do not need this type of DOs. We do not have to go to
the thread on Re:> Living Room Pots - DO vs BOO-HOO (07/03/97) to see how
properly DOs are done.
People who have exclusive access to the public purse (or who have recently
acquired the riches to scatter foolishly) could purchase very expensive art
object which can be made in a matter of few hours. Easy come, easy go. A
recent example is the National Museum in Ottawa or some such institution.
Hundreds of million or some exorbitant amount was spent on a painting of
just plain horizontal strips of straight colours on a huge canvas. By a well
publicized abstract painter. From New York or Manhattan it was, I think. No
wonder. Awesome. Invites fear, for sure. Similar bugaboo went on for some
pottery or clay items in Japan, when the times were good. Not any more. I
am glad I was not misled by the imaginary fear of the loss in pecuniary
incentives or earning potentials from such examples, and still kept up with
the traditional pottery pursuit. To be fair, I never went to art schools.
So, I have no vested interests in the arguments. Nor responsible for
others.
Such things do not last. The public get wiser, due to proper DOs some
potters would attempt for the good of the community of which they are a part,
willy-nilly. Hopefully it works. No try, no pain, no gain. Any ideas? On
DOs.
HM
| |
|
