Dan Wilson on sat 22 jun 96
Patrick Hilfertys statement: " My question to you is, where do you want to
go and how do you want to get there?" Is interesting because it implies ,
if I understand it correctly, that some works of art may have a function.
In some cases, it is a vehicle. For getting somewhere". My question here
is: If my motivation in creating works of art stems from the need to
satisfy certain conditions established by consensus; am I not creating
functional art? Does it follow, that the idea of functionalism ( that a
thing is beautiful if it is well suited to the task it is meant to perform)
is relevant when art is produced in this context? Is this an historically
viable position?
Suzanne Wolfe on mon 24 jun 96
I think there is a basic problem here with definitions, especially that of
functionalism. Someone mentioned earlier that all art is, in one sense or
another, functional. It seems that Dan may be referring to utilitarian
objects rather than functional ones.
If that is the case, then my question is how do you relate the idea of
utility to that of beauty? The western system of aesthetics does not seem
to be able to make that leap. However, Japanese ideas of 'wabi", "sabi",
etc. are eminently suited since they take up "qualities" that things
possess, and not some sort of idea of efficiency (which is one direction
that you could take with the idea of the utilitarian). I would like to
know more clearly the motive behind the question.
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Dan Wilson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Patrick Hilfertys statement: " My question to you is, where do you want to
> go and how do you want to get there?" Is interesting because it implies ,
> if I understand it correctly, that some works of art may have a function.
> In some cases, it is a vehicle. For getting somewhere". My question here
> is: If my motivation in creating works of art stems from the need to
> satisfy certain conditions established by consensus; am I not creating
> functional art? Does it follow, that the idea of functionalism ( that a
> thing is beautiful if it is well suited to the task it is meant to perform)
> is relevant when art is produced in this context? Is this an historically
> viable position?
>
Michael Henderson on mon 24 jun 96
I am sitting here today (it's raining and too cold to use my outdoor wheel
at the moment)and I am surrounded by work that is often called "The Art that
is Life" My husband and I are collectors (or rather users, we sit on it,
eat off it etc.) of beautiful and untilitarian objects produced during what
is called "The Arts and Crafts Movement" about 1900-1920. Our dining room
table and chairs are thework of Gustav(e) Stickley. I'm sitting on a chair
made by Limpert. Our light fixture is hand-hammered brass beautifully
patinated and producing gentle light from slag glass. My coffee table is
keyed, mortised, and tennoned, and appears to be the work of student, a gift
for his mother in 1911. The quarter-sawn wood of this piece is the most
beautiful-rich (tiger-sawn) I have ever seen and it appears the artisan
selected it with great reverence for the piece he intended. In my research
into this period, I constantly end up in the ongoing debate about ornament.
Gustave Stickley has a wonderful article on the function of ornament in an
article he wrote in the period. His point... the artificial application of
ornament(like sticking some Victorian swirls and knobs on a piece just to
stick it one and because a machine is now capable of producing those swirls
etc., detracts from the honesty and integrity of the piece, took away from
the wood itself (and he LOVED wood), and betrayed the craftsman. He
believed everyone should have the $ power to own something beautiful (his
emphasis was on the home) and that that beauty can be experienced in its
utilitarian function. My table cost about $40.00 bucks when it was made
circa 1911. But $40.00 was the average weekly earnings of a farmer in 1912.
I'm wondering if the term "organic" would have been one he would have
enjoyed using. Not that ornament, per se was wrong, but ornament slapped on
and not "organic", inappropriate or betraying the medium was wrong. That
whole era tried desperately to define a new "language" to express their
thoughts on the subject. Words such as "naturalistic", "conventionalized",
"geometric", and "abstract" began to emerge as terms by which to
characterize and describe design. I think that a good chunk, if not 50% of
the debate, rests upon the fact that we just don't have the lanquage to get
across the idea of beauty. Art? Is it the motivation...the intent? I'm
beginning to think so. If I make a pot with the point of selling it... is
it art? If I make the same pot just because I enjoyed making it.. is it
art? Or is it art because I just have to make it because making it
expresses who I am? I'm rambling... a little low on O2 today... Emily, in
Astoria where I dug clay yesterday in the rain....
Hluch - Kevin A. on tue 25 jun 96
Suzanne,
As the premier toolmaking animals of this earth it turns out that the
tools we make are used to do work. We use tools for working clay and that
makes another tool- pottery. Simultaneously, we are the only creatures on this
earth who have a sense of "beauty". We can gaze upon an autumn leaf and
be moved by its aesthetic characteristics.
I think it is not unreasonable nor unproductive that these elements that
define our humanness can be intertwined and that the expressive by-product
ends up being both utilitarian and beautiful.
Efficiency is another matter. Perhaps the notion of efficiency is to be
found in our Puritan work ethic and its associated non-wasteful values.
(Ironic for a blatently consumerist society). This might explain gorgeous
Shaker chairs for instance. But by the same token, Kisi stools from Africa
that are carved out of a single tree trunk are, in their own way,
"efficient"and marvelous to look at.
I'm not sure that efficency has anything to do with it except to say that
tools should be "near to hand" and ease one's work thereby contributing
to human expression. Pattern and repetitive motifs are not efficient but
they certainly and to the beauty of Egyptian temples. It seems to me
that the love of work and the motivation of a strong belief system is
simply enough.
Why else would we have these capabilities?
Kevin
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Suzanne Wolfe wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> If that is the case, then my question is how do you relate the idea of
> utility to that of beauty? The western system of aesthetics does not seem
> to be able to make that leap. However, Japanese ideas of 'wabi", "sabi",
> etc. are eminently suited since they take up "qualities" that things
> possess, and not some sort of idea of efficiency (which is one direction
> that you could take with the idea of the utilitarian). I would like to
> know more clearly the motive behind the question.
>
> On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Dan Wilson wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > Patrick Hilfertys statement: " My question to you is, where do you want to
> > go and how do you want to get there?" Is interesting because it implies ,
> > if I understand it correctly, that some works of art may have a function.
> > In some cases, it is a vehicle. For getting somewhere". My question here
> > is: If my motivation in creating works of art stems from the need to
> > satisfy certain conditions established by consensus; am I not creating
> > functional art? Does it follow, that the idea of functionalism ( that a
> > thing is beautiful if it is well suited to the task it is meant to perform)
> > is relevant when art is produced in this context? Is this an historically
> > viable position?
> >
>
Tony Hermsen on wed 26 jun 96
Function, beauty, practicality and all that high brow stuff when applied to
clay was succinctly summed up by Lorie Paine:
"If you can piss in it it is craft,
If you can piss on it it is art."
Tony Hermsen
Roxton Clayworks
Box 776
Enderby, B.C.
Canada
V0E 1V0
E-mail: thermsen@jetstream.net
| |
|
