Dan Wilson on tue 18 jun 96
"The Functionalist theory of aesthetics is the theory that if a thing is
made to function well, if its construction is well suited to the job it has
to do then that thing will be beautiful. It is a theory with a very long
history and one which was very popular, particularly in connection with
architecture and the useful arts, during the early decades of the present
century.... The doctrine of Functionalism, stands at the opposite pole from
the theory of "applied art" which prevailed around the middle of the
nineteenth century.... The idea of adding or applying decoration to
manufactured goods in order to make them more "artistic" and more
attractive was opposed by the "functionalist" idea, which repudiated
everything that could distract the eye from functionally efficient design.
Aesthetics and Art Theory an Historical Introduction. Harold Osborne; E.P.
Dutton & Co., Inc. New York .1970.
When we as potters/ceramists deny function in favor of abstraction, is not
the result of this abstraction merely decoration? Can decoration, as an end
in itself, be considered "Fine Art"? Or is it an Applied art? Are these
dated concepts with no relevance to the contemporary potter/ceramist?
Recent authors and publications would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Dan
Cynthia Hull on wed 19 jun 96
At 10:19 PM 6/18/96 EDT, you wrote:
>When we as potters/ceramists deny function in favor of abstraction, is not
>the result of this abstraction merely decoration? Can decoration, as an end
>in itself, be considered "Fine Art"? Or is it an Applied art? Are these
>dated concepts with no relevance to the contemporary potter/ceramist?
>Recent authors and publications would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks.
>Dan
>
When we as potters/ceramists deny decoration in favor of function, is not
the result of this function merely mundane usage? Can function, as an end
in itself, be considered "Fine Art"? Or is it an Applied art? Are these
dated concepts with relevance to the living artist? Original thoughts and
feelings would be appreciated.
There are just soooooo many ways to say things....
Cynthia
Bill Aycock on wed 19 jun 96
At 10:19 PM 6/18/96 EDT, Dan Wilson wrote: *** in part ***
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>-----snip
>
Can decoration, as an end
>in itself, be considered "Fine Art"? Or is it an Applied art?
>
Consider------the Mona Lisa is merely decoration applied to a flat surface.
R-i-g-h-t !!
-Bill --- contemplating his navel-- on Persimmon Hill
Veronika Jenke on wed 19 jun 96
______Assistant Curator of Education
______National Museum of African Art, S.I.
Concerning resources on "decoration" and "art" an interesting perspective from
Ernst Gombrich, "The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Ar
t", 1979, Cornell University Press. Not so recent, nevertheless still applicab
le.
Send responses to E-Mail afaem013
FAX 202 357-4879
Internet: afaem013@sivm.si.edu
Bitnet: afaem013@sivm
dannon@ns1.koyote.com on thu 20 jun 96
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>When we as potters/ceramists deny function in favor of abstraction, is not
>the result of this abstraction merely decoration? Can decoration, as an end
>in itself, be considered "Fine Art"? Or is it an Applied art? Are these
>dated concepts with no relevance to the contemporary potter/ceramist?
>Recent authors and publications would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks.
>Dan
>
>Dan,
"Fine art" as used generally by art historians and critics is in fact
mis-used as a term. It has been given an arbitrary meaning, much delimited
and narrowed by the predjudices and training (perhaps) of the users. Look
it up in Webster's New World Dictionary. Eytomological editor Harold
Whitehall has no doubt his own limitations, but I'll accept the depth and
breadth of his knowledge.
....generally including drawing, painting,
sculpture, ceramics, and occasionally, architecture...
I realize that that is not precisely responding to your question(s), but it
is annoying to try to discuss anything when meanings are arbitrary and/or
personal and unknowable. Like an argument from Alice in Wonderland: " It
means whatever I want it to mean".
Now, off my soapbox, I think that said concepts are dated, of no great
relevance, and quite possibly a hindrance to work.
Recent works? Several by Annie Dillard come to mind. Try "The Writing Life".
It is a delight on many levels.
And the function of something may be solely visual, may it not?
AND - all pots are abstract.
Dannon Rhudy
Hluch - Kevin A. on sat 22 jun 96
Dan,
I have written a few articles about this issue...CM has published "Art
and the Global Tribe", "Art and Purpose", The Death of Beauty",
"Leach: Toward a Universal Cuture", and "Transcending Tradition".
'Ceramics: Art and Perception' has published "Volkous: Re-examination"
and recently I delivered a paper at the CAA conference entitled "Crafts:
a Deconstructivists View".
While I do not strictly adhere to the notion that "form follows function"
I do think that all art originally had utilitarian roots and that its
"usefullness" never interfered with the aesthetic quality of the object
or process.
In my opinion the evolution of aesthetic theory is quite Darwinian...and
it has mutated in a direction that may promote its own extinction. I use
the example of a tree with each fork of the tree a "decision" about the
nature and character of the expressions created. We now find that
aesthetic theory (if there is such a thing) is a small twig at the end
of branch...very far removed from the trunk and easily snapped off.
Kevin
On Tue, 18 Jun
1996, Dan Wilson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
> "The Functionalist theory of aesthetics is the theory that if a thing is
> made to function well, if its construction is well suited to the job it has
> to do then that thing will be beautiful. It is a theory with a very long
> history and one which was very popular, particularly in connection with
> architecture and the useful arts, during the early decades of the present
> century.... The doctrine of Functionalism, stands at the opposite pole from
> the theory of "applied art" which prevailed around the middle of the
> nineteenth century.... The idea of adding or applying decoration to
> manufactured goods in order to make them more "artistic" and more
> attractive was opposed by the "functionalist" idea, which repudiated
> everything that could distract the eye from functionally efficient design.
> Aesthetics and Art Theory an Historical Introduction. Harold Osborne; E.P.
> Dutton & Co., Inc. New York .1970.
>
> When we as potters/ceramists deny function in favor of abstraction, is not
> the result of this abstraction merely decoration? Can decoration, as an end
> in itself, be considered "Fine Art"? Or is it an Applied art? Are these
> dated concepts with no relevance to the contemporary potter/ceramist?
> Recent authors and publications would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
> Dan
>
| |
|
