dan wilson on thu 27 feb 97
When considering the work of Gorge Ohr care must be given to the historical
context in which he worked. The American art pottery era 1870 to 1920.
"Art pottery" is a term used to describe pottery produced primarily for
aesthetic and or decorative purposes. Ohr's work clearly fits in this
category. Biloxi Art pottery was established in 1878. George Ohr, "The Mad
Potter of Biloxi" died in 1918. The following list of references will
provide an overview of the period for those unfamiliar with this history:
"American Art Pottery". Lucile Renzke, Thomas Nelson Inc.. Camden New York. 1970
"Art Pottery of the United States-An Encyclopedia of Producers and their
Marks". Paul Evans, Charles Scribners and Sons. New York.1974
"Pottery in the United States", Hellen Stiles, E.P. Dutton & Company Inc.
New York.1941
"American Art Pottery", Thomas Nelson. NC Camden New york.1970
The industrialization of America was in full swing and the demand for
objects of art which reflected the tastes of the upper classes were being
demanded(albeit in an affordable form) by the rising middle class as well.
These tastes were well established in Europe and were based on Classical
and Oriental/Eastern themes. Alot of effort was put into re -creating the
simple, elegant shapes of classical pottery and the subtle, monochrome
glazes of China. Paul Evans, states: " The characteristic Ohr technique
was his "torture" of the clay... Extreme thiness of the walls...ranges in
size from miniature to vases the size of a man... twisted, crushed,folded,
dented and crinkled into odd grotesque and gracefull shapes while in a
plastic state." So in this respect George Ohr was indeed "Mad" but it seems
it was a fine madness,wasn't it. This approach did not fit nicely into the
general mindset of the times which required the more refined massproduced
works of such firms as Dedham Pottery of Chelsea Mass. whose ware was
decorated with a "Chinese like craquelle(?) glaze" over painted motifs
which included flowers and animals of wich the rabbit was most popular. I
guess Ohr encountered a good deal of resistance to his work(or rather lack
of interest) and eventually gave up for that reason (some may dispute
this). Fortunately, he placed much of it in storage, hoping one day that
the Smithsonian would discover it and recognize its value. Well that took
some time since it wasn't "discovered" until 1969. By this time works of
the type produced by Ohr, although well ahead of their time, had become
passe. Pretty well worked through by then. Although we can appreciate his
work in its historical context we cannot say his "genious" had a
significant impact on the field. Nor can we say Ohrs work is relevant to us
today. Much of todays pottery is being produced in the same manner and with
the same underlying motivation that gave the American Art Pottery movement
its impetus. Namely, the reproduction of classical forms based on Eastern
themes. In addition we can add to this the reproductions of pottery forms
from various cultures around the world. African, South American, the list
is long. This may be based on demand or it may be based on our inability to
envision a pottery form that is unique to the American scene. What ever the
causes the appropriation of foriegn cultural art forms will continue, I
suspect, until a true synthesis can be achieved. I personaly am looking
forward to the day when the "Pepsi Bowl" supplants the "Tea Bowl" as the
subject of aesthetic discussion among American potters. Whether this is
possible remains to be seen.
Dan Wilson
The Shelfords on fri 28 feb 97
Dan - I always appreciate your historical comments.
But re: > I personaly am looking
>forward to the day when the "Pepsi Bowl" supplants the "Tea Bowl" as the
>subject of aesthetic discussion among American potters.
It's an interesting thought. One of the primary characteristics of north
american (including but not limited to American) is our profoundly
multi-cultural society. I for one hardly every have Pepsi, but fairly drown
in tea. Will the Pepsi bowl occur when demographic and cultural dynamics
have swung in other directions, and north america is a cultural backwater,
searching for its identity and elevating to icon level certain (by then
historical) mass pop items? What possibilities! Scary?
Veronica
Douglas Myatt on fri 28 feb 97
As an aside to Dan's remarks, which I enjoyed, by the way....if you ever
find yourself in Mississippi, specifically the Biloxi area, the George Ohr
Museum is a wonderful place to visit. It's not a huge museum, but it's
very well done and has quite a collection of pieces, everything from his
"puzzle mugs" and tiny (unbelievably thin) pitchers to larger pieces, to
the bowl that he used for slip, which he used as he threw. The gift shop
has a selection of pieces from local potters. The city of Biloxi also
hosts the George Ohr festival every year, which is a nice show.
Across the bay in Ocean Springs is the Walter Anderson museum. Walter and
his brothers Mac and Peter came along a little later than George Ohr, but
they produced very lovely pottery (and other media as well). Mac's still
alive and can often be found at Shearwater pottery, which is very near the
Walter Anderson Museum.
Hope some of you find the time to visit!!
Douglas
msharpe@datasync.com
Shaggy Dog Pottery
dan wilson on sat 1 mar 97
Veronica,
Of course; you're absolutely right here. I really should stop watching T.V.
where the words "Coca- Cola" are repeated to me in five diferent languages,
reading the newspaper and certain magazines - surfing the web. And those
eye catching electronic billboards... Pop art icons revealed to us the face
of a monster and we all laughed. The art is dated but the monster still
lives and embraces us all regardless of our cultural heritage. It nurtures
us. Teaches our children. Now any reasonable potter with foresight and
market savy should give serious consideration to the "Pepsi Bowl"... "The
next generation" Wow, this is scary.
Dan Wilson
PS: I wouldn't take anything I have to say about history too seriously if
I were you. :)
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Dan - I always appreciate your historical comments.
>But re: > I personaly am looking
>>forward to the day when the "Pepsi Bowl" supplants the "Tea Bowl" as the
>>subject of aesthetic discussion among American potters.
>It's an interesting thought. One of the primary characteristics of north
>american (including but not limited to American) is our profoundly
>multi-cultural society. I for one hardly every have Pepsi, but fairly drown
>in tea. Will the Pepsi bowl occur when demographic and cultural dynamics
>have swung in other directions, and north america is a cultural backwater,
>searching for its identity and elevating to icon level certain (by then
>historical) mass pop items? What possibilities! Scary?
>
>Veronica
Bill Seeley on mon 3 mar 97
The Shelfords wrote:
> One of the primary characteristics of north
> american (including but not limited to American) is our profoundly
> multi-cultural society. I for one hardly every have Pepsi, but fairly drown
> in tea. Will the Pepsi bowl occur when demographic and cultural dynamics
> have swung in other directions, and north america is a cultural backwater,
> searching for its identity and elevating to icon level certain (by then
> historical) mass pop items? What possibilities! Scary?
>
> Veronica
Perhaps our tea bowl is the coffee mug. See the recent vehement
CLAYART discussions on whether to include a foot ring when
making mugs (For the record, I don't). Coffee is widely consumed
in the US, especially in businesses, where its usage is often
subsidized by management to keep the workforce stimulated.
Bill
p.s. to Dan - nice message! I had the opportunity to see a
large exhibit of Ohr's work at the Renwick some years back.
The man *was* a genius!
--
Theresa and William Seeley 410 486-3171 (voice)
Villa Nova Pottery 410 484-6273 (fax)
4015 Buckingham Rd. Baltimore, MD 21207
"186,000 miles/second is not just a good idea - its the law!"
Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 3 mar 97
Dan,
George Ohr and his work embodied the currently fashionable ficticious
stereo type of "artist". Unfortunately for Ohr, in his day the "art" was
what the women were doing on the clay, that is painting unrevolutionary
pictures on clay.
George Ohr's work was not accepted because the fine art culture of that
time considered his art to be beyond the pale aesthetically. In the battle
between the beautiful and the grotesque he found himself on the losing
side. It would take another fifty years and seventy more years of
obscurity for Ohr before the tide of art had turned in the West.
In my view neither Voulkos's work, nor Ohr's work can be considered
"revolutionary" in view of Iga or Bizen ware. Weren't Shigaraki valley
potters the first to "torture " the clay as Ohr is described as
doing and as Voulkos still, apparently, does? And weren't there
connoisseurs at that time in Japan who enjoyed and promoted the qualities
that the potters exploited?
What defeated Ohr was the lack of support for his work and his own sense
of clarity in the "rightness" of his expressions that would not brook
criticism by others. (Artists frequently possess this defect.)
Ohr was an outsider artist because his art work did not reflect the
standard of beauty prescribed by his peers and the art establishment at
the time. His "tortured "work was simply not pleasant to look at often
times. Curious, weird, bizarre and strange are words that were not part
of the lexicon of art at the time...
It is only in recent years that the ugly and the beautiful have become
if not synonymous, then indistinguishable. THAT is the historical context
of our time.
In this regard, the reputation of Voulkos is much like a statue of
Lenin....Very majestic, powerful, and awe-inspiring when standing but I
prefer to see it as rubble on the ground. Perhaps we will live to see that
day.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, dan wilson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
> When considering the work of Gorge Ohr care must be given to the historical
> context in which he worked. The American art pottery era 1870 to 1920.
> "Art pottery" is a term used to describe pottery produced primarily for
> aesthetic and or decorative purposes. Ohr's work clearly fits in this
> category. Biloxi Art pottery was established in 1878. George Ohr, "The Mad
> Potter of Biloxi" died in 1918. The following list of references will
> provide an overview of the period for those unfamiliar with this history:
> "American Art Pottery". Lucile Renzke, Thomas Nelson Inc.. Camden New York. 19
> "Art Pottery of the United States-An Encyclopedia of Producers and their
> Marks". Paul Evans, Charles Scribners and Sons. New York.1974
> "Pottery in the United States", Hellen Stiles, E.P. Dutton & Company Inc.
> New York.1941
> "American Art Pottery", Thomas Nelson. NC Camden New york.1970
>
> The industrialization of America was in full swing and the demand for
> objects of art which reflected the tastes of the upper classes were being
> demanded(albeit in an affordable form) by the rising middle class as well.
> These tastes were well established in Europe and were based on Classical
> and Oriental/Eastern themes. Alot of effort was put into re -creating the
> simple, elegant shapes of classical pottery and the subtle, monochrome
> glazes of China. Paul Evans, states: " The characteristic Ohr technique
> was his "torture" of the clay... Extreme thiness of the walls...ranges in
> size from miniature to vases the size of a man... twisted, crushed,folded,
> dented and crinkled into odd grotesque and gracefull shapes while in a
> plastic state." So in this respect George Ohr was indeed "Mad" but it seems
> it was a fine madness,wasn't it. This approach did not fit nicely into the
> general mindset of the times which required the more refined massproduced
> works of such firms as Dedham Pottery of Chelsea Mass. whose ware was
> decorated with a "Chinese like craquelle(?) glaze" over painted motifs
> which included flowers and animals of wich the rabbit was most popular. I
> guess Ohr encountered a good deal of resistance to his work(or rather lack
> of interest) and eventually gave up for that reason (some may dispute
> this). Fortunately, he placed much of it in storage, hoping one day that
> the Smithsonian would discover it and recognize its value. Well that took
> some time since it wasn't "discovered" until 1969. By this time works of
> the type produced by Ohr, although well ahead of their time, had become
> passe. Pretty well worked through by then. Although we can appreciate his
> work in its historical context we cannot say his "genious" had a
> significant impact on the field. Nor can we say Ohrs work is relevant to us
> today. Much of todays pottery is being produced in the same manner and with
> the same underlying motivation that gave the American Art Pottery movement
> its impetus. Namely, the reproduction of classical forms based on Eastern
> themes. In addition we can add to this the reproductions of pottery forms
> from various cultures around the world. African, South American, the list
> is long. This may be based on demand or it may be based on our inability to
> envision a pottery form that is unique to the American scene. What ever the
> causes the appropriation of foriegn cultural art forms will continue, I
> suspect, until a true synthesis can be achieved. I personaly am looking
> forward to the day when the "Pepsi Bowl" supplants the "Tea Bowl" as the
> subject of aesthetic discussion among American potters. Whether this is
> possible remains to be seen.
>
> Dan Wilson
>
The Shelfords on mon 3 mar 97
Dan -
Should any "history" be taken too seriously? I remember (but not verbatim
and all my books are still packed) something Barbara Tuchmann said in her
introduction to "A Distant Mirror": that history, like "the news", is taken
from the extremes. The vast majority of people, past and present, just go
on living ordinary decent lives unnoticed. So I've taken to regarding all
history as "old newspapers" - interesting, usually misleading in some
respects, often downright wrong, and occasionally spot-on right (only you'll
never know which item it is...)
Veronica
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Veronica,
>
>Of course; you're absolutely right here. I really should stop watching T.V.
>where the words "Coca- Cola" are repeated to me in five diferent languages,
>reading the newspaper and certain magazines - surfing the web. And those
>eye catching electronic billboards... Pop art icons revealed to us the face
>of a monster and we all laughed. The art is dated but the monster still
>lives and embraces us all regardless of our cultural heritage. It nurtures
>us. Teaches our children. Now any reasonable potter with foresight and
>market savy should give serious consideration to the "Pepsi Bowl"... "The
>next generation" Wow, this is scary.
>
> Dan Wilson
>
> PS: I wouldn't take anything I have to say about history too seriously if
>I were you. :)
>
>
>
>
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Dan - I always appreciate your historical comments.
>>But re: > I personaly am looking
>>>forward to the day when the "Pepsi Bowl" supplants the "Tea Bowl" as the
>>>subject of aesthetic discussion among American potters.
>>It's an interesting thought. One of the primary characteristics of north
>>american (including but not limited to American) is our profoundly
>>multi-cultural society. I for one hardly every have Pepsi, but fairly drown
>>in tea. Will the Pepsi bowl occur when demographic and cultural dynamics
>>have swung in other directions, and north america is a cultural backwater,
>>searching for its identity and elevating to icon level certain (by then
>>historical) mass pop items? What possibilities! Scary?
>>
>>Veronica
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__________
Veronica Shelford
e-mail: shelford@island.net
s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
Tel: (250) 246-1509
"Gullibility is the key to all adventures. The greenhorn is the ultimate
victor in all things; it is he who gets the most out of life." Chesterton
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
Vince Pitelka on tue 4 mar 97
Gee Kevin, you certainly are persistent in your attempts to convince us that
Voulkos is not worthy of our veneration. It is apparent that you do not see
in his work what so many of us see. What a shame for you.
>In my view neither Voulkos's work, nor Ohr's work can be considered
>"revolutionary" in view of Iga or Bizen ware. Weren't Shigaraki valley
>potters the first to "torture " the clay as Ohr is described as
>doing and as Voulkos still, apparently, does?
Whether or not the potters of Iga or Shigaraki or Echizen were the first to
"torture" the clay (what a strange way to describe it - is the clay really
tortured??) is irrelevant here, unless Ohr and/or Voulkos got the idea from
them. There is no evidence of that, as far as I know. To cite the
precedent of Medieval Japanese pots in implying that Ohr was not a
revolutionary is absurd in the extreme
>What defeated Ohr was the lack of support for his work and his own sense
>of clarity in the "rightness" of his expressions that would not brook
>criticism by others. (Artists frequently possess this defect.)
Defect???? Wow. Is it a defect for artists to be so sure of their vision
that they reject criticism from others? Thank God so many artists have had
this "defect!"
>It is only in recent years that the ugly and the beautiful have become
>if not synonymous, then indistinguishable. THAT is the historical context
>of our time.
Historical context?? I would prefer to think that because of the
extraordinary growth and complexity of the world, the parameters of art have
expanded to encompass a range of expression which was inconceivable in Ohr's
time. From my own point of view I do not have much trouble distinguishing
between the ugly and the beautiful. I see lots of art out there which is
beautiful but otherwise vacuous and derivative. And there is lots of art
out there which is ugly and offensive and timely and powerful.
>In this regard, the reputation of Voulkos is much like a statue of
>Lenin....Very majestic, powerful, and awe-inspiring when standing but I
>prefer to see it as rubble on the ground. Perhaps we will live to see that
>day.
Not a chance.
- 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
dan wilson on tue 4 mar 97
Yes! Thats it exactly. This is why it is, in my view, so important to share
what we know. Sharing our personal perspectives (a recounting of myths) is
what enriches us, broadens our vision, illuminates us. Enhances our work...
Dan Wilson
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Dan -
>Should any "history" be taken too seriously? I remember (but not verbatim
>and all my books are still packed) something Barbara Tuchmann said in her
>introduction to "A Distant Mirror": that history, like "the news", is taken
>from the extremes. The vast majority of people, past and present, just go
>on living ordinary decent lives unnoticed. So I've taken to regarding all
>history as "old newspapers" - interesting, usually misleading in some
>respects, often downright wrong, and occasionally spot-on right (only you'll
>never know which item it is...)
>
>Veronica
>
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>Veronica,
>>
>>Of course; you're absolutely right here. I really should stop watching T.V.
>>where the words "Coca- Cola" are repeated to me in five diferent languages,
>>reading the newspaper and certain magazines - surfing the web. And those
>>eye catching electronic billboards... Pop art icons revealed to us the face
>>of a monster and we all laughed. The art is dated but the monster still
>>lives and embraces us all regardless of our cultural heritage. It nurtures
>>us. Teaches our children. Now any reasonable potter with foresight and
>>market savy should give serious consideration to the "Pepsi Bowl"... "The
>>next generation" Wow, this is scary.
>>
>> Dan Wilson
>>
>> PS: I wouldn't take anything I have to say about history too seriously if
>>I were you. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>>Dan - I always appreciate your historical comments.
>>>But re: > I personaly am looking
>>>>forward to the day when the "Pepsi Bowl" supplants the "Tea Bowl" as the
>>>>subject of aesthetic discussion among American potters.
>>>It's an interesting thought. One of the primary characteristics of north
>>>american (including but not limited to American) is our profoundly
>>>multi-cultural society. I for one hardly every have Pepsi, but fairly drown
>>>in tea. Will the Pepsi bowl occur when demographic and cultural dynamics
>>>have swung in other directions, and north america is a cultural backwater,
>>>searching for its identity and elevating to icon level certain (by then
>>>historical) mass pop items? What possibilities! Scary?
>>>
>>>Veronica
>>
>>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>__________
>Veronica Shelford
>e-mail: shelford@island.net
>s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
> Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
>Tel: (250) 246-1509
>
>"Gullibility is the key to all adventures. The greenhorn is the ultimate
>victor in all things; it is he who gets the most out of life." Chesterton
>____________________________________________________________________________
>____________
dan wilson on wed 5 mar 97
Kevin,
This "battle between the beautiful and the grotesque"; can it be thought of
as the struggle between the rational and the irrational? The ordered and
the disorderly? The ebb and flow of formalism and expressionism? The the
two faced mask of life and death? Is it possible to bind our hands, the
right and the left, and silence our applause as the struggle unfolds -
actors bigger than life upon the stage?
Dan Wilson
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Dan,
>
>George Ohr and his work embodied the currently fashionable ficticious
>stereo type of "artist". Unfortunately for Ohr, in his day the "art" was
>what the women were doing on the clay, that is painting unrevolutionary
>pictures on clay.
>
>George Ohr's work was not accepted because the fine art culture of that
>time considered his art to be beyond the pale aesthetically. In the battle
>between the beautiful and the grotesque he found himself on the losing
>side. It would take another fifty years and seventy more years of
>obscurity for Ohr before the tide of art had turned in the West.
>
>In my view neither Voulkos's work, nor Ohr's work can be considered
>"revolutionary" in view of Iga or Bizen ware. Weren't Shigaraki valley
>potters the first to "torture " the clay as Ohr is described as
>doing and as Voulkos still, apparently, does? And weren't there
>connoisseurs at that time in Japan who enjoyed and promoted the qualities
>that the potters exploited?
>
>What defeated Ohr was the lack of support for his work and his own sense
>of clarity in the "rightness" of his expressions that would not brook
>criticism by others. (Artists frequently possess this defect.)
>Ohr was an outsider artist because his art work did not reflect the
>standard of beauty prescribed by his peers and the art establishment at
>the time. His "tortured "work was simply not pleasant to look at often
>times. Curious, weird, bizarre and strange are words that were not part
>of the lexicon of art at the time...
>
>It is only in recent years that the ugly and the beautiful have become
>if not synonymous, then indistinguishable. THAT is the historical context
>of our time.
>
>In this regard, the reputation of Voulkos is much like a statue of
>Lenin....Very majestic, powerful, and awe-inspiring when standing but I
>prefer to see it as rubble on the ground. Perhaps we will live to see that
>day.
>
>Kevin A. Hluch
>102 E. 8th St.
>Frederick, MD 21701
>USA
>
>
>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, dan wilson wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>>
>> When considering the work of Gorge Ohr care must be given to the historical
>> context in which he worked. The American art pottery era 1870 to 1920.
>> "Art pottery" is a term used to describe pottery produced primarily for
>> aesthetic and or decorative purposes. Ohr's work clearly fits in this
>> category. Biloxi Art pottery was established in 1878. George Ohr, "The Mad
>> Potter of Biloxi" died in 1918. The following list of references will
>> provide an overview of the period for those unfamiliar with this history:
>> "American Art Pottery". Lucile Renzke, Thomas Nelson Inc.. Camden New
>>York. 19
>> "Art Pottery of the United States-An Encyclopedia of Producers and their
>> Marks". Paul Evans, Charles Scribners and Sons. New York.1974
>> "Pottery in the United States", Hellen Stiles, E.P. Dutton & Company Inc.
>> New York.1941
>> "American Art Pottery", Thomas Nelson. NC Camden New york.1970
>>
>> The industrialization of America was in full swing and the demand for
>> objects of art which reflected the tastes of the upper classes were being
>> demanded(albeit in an affordable form) by the rising middle class as well.
>> These tastes were well established in Europe and were based on Classical
>> and Oriental/Eastern themes. Alot of effort was put into re -creating the
>> simple, elegant shapes of classical pottery and the subtle, monochrome
>> glazes of China. Paul Evans, states: " The characteristic Ohr technique
>> was his "torture" of the clay... Extreme thiness of the walls...ranges in
>> size from miniature to vases the size of a man... twisted, crushed,folded,
>> dented and crinkled into odd grotesque and gracefull shapes while in a
>> plastic state." So in this respect George Ohr was indeed "Mad" but it seems
>> it was a fine madness,wasn't it. This approach did not fit nicely into the
>> general mindset of the times which required the more refined massproduced
>> works of such firms as Dedham Pottery of Chelsea Mass. whose ware was
>> decorated with a "Chinese like craquelle(?) glaze" over painted motifs
>> which included flowers and animals of wich the rabbit was most popular. I
>> guess Ohr encountered a good deal of resistance to his work(or rather lack
>> of interest) and eventually gave up for that reason (some may dispute
>> this). Fortunately, he placed much of it in storage, hoping one day that
>> the Smithsonian would discover it and recognize its value. Well that took
>> some time since it wasn't "discovered" until 1969. By this time works of
>> the type produced by Ohr, although well ahead of their time, had become
>> passe. Pretty well worked through by then. Although we can appreciate his
>> work in its historical context we cannot say his "genious" had a
>> significant impact on the field. Nor can we say Ohrs work is relevant to us
>> today. Much of todays pottery is being produced in the same manner and with
>> the same underlying motivation that gave the American Art Pottery movement
>> its impetus. Namely, the reproduction of classical forms based on Eastern
>> themes. In addition we can add to this the reproductions of pottery forms
>> from various cultures around the world. African, South American, the list
>> is long. This may be based on demand or it may be based on our inability to
>> envision a pottery form that is unique to the American scene. What ever the
>> causes the appropriation of foriegn cultural art forms will continue, I
>> suspect, until a true synthesis can be achieved. I personaly am looking
>> forward to the day when the "Pepsi Bowl" supplants the "Tea Bowl" as the
>> subject of aesthetic discussion among American potters. Whether this is
>> possible remains to be seen.
>>
>> Dan Wilson
>>
Marc Brackley on wed 5 mar 97
When Kevin Hluch writes:
"We still have art. We still have the high priests. We don't have the
values."
his use of the word "We" means that he includes himself as not having
values.
Why is it that people who don't have values keep wanting to include me and
everyone else in their broad, sweeping, generalizations? I have values. I
visualize every day that Jessie Helms will retire.
Marc Brackley, (who's trying to figure out how to work the word "family"
into my art so that people will stop thinking I don't have values)
Hluch - Kevin A. on wed 5 mar 97
Vince,
True, I do not venerate Voulkos as you would prefer. This is, in
itself, not shameful. However, it is a shame for those who would have
us believe everything that has been written about him. I rather like some
of his work and find that his recent firings in Anagama type kilns
indicate a remarkable stylistic convergence with Shigaraki valley pottery.
Perhaps the Voulkos aesthetic is coming home to roost. Its the
revolutionary question with which I am interested.
Simply, Voulkos did not invent ceramic sculpture, he did not create art
from craft, he did not produce the first non-functional pottery, nor did
he originate Abstract Expressionism. He was not the first to produce
large-scale pots (ask Ohr at least), and he was not the first to produce
abstract gestural sculpture (ask Leopold Foulem who presented a paper at
New Orleans NCECA on this subject). And he certainly was not the first
to employ a complex range of glaze effects.
Precisely, what WAS Peter Voulkoss lifetime achievement award about? It
seems to me his achievement was about politics and money and the promotion
of cult status for artists than anything else.
Ohr was in a revolutionary war he could not win. He got caught in the
wrong cycle. Likewise, I'm afraid to think of the outcome if Voulkos had
he been an outsider like Ohr instead of an insider. Rose Slivka and her
promotion of Voulkos were instrumental to his success. Voulkos's
expressions were not revolutionary. However his support from the craft
power structure was.
Voulkos jumped on the abstract expressionist bandwagon and has been riding
it ever since. He rode it straight to an eastern aesthetic that has been
around for quite a while. Thats not a particularly significant achievement
in my view. Perhaps we should evaluate the art of the Renaissance and
pretend the Greeks didn't exist.
Concerning criticism. If all the rejectees of current juried competitive
exhibitions were to take the judgments of those in the know to heart ,
then they would most likely quit entering these competitions and these
artists would, Ohr-like, quickly disappear. (I think many already have.)
Or maybe, as the perennial juror Bill Daley says, they should just get
"mad" and make revolutionary expressions. Perhaps this will make his job a
little easier next time.
Can an artist be both revolutionary and establishment simultaneously?
(It would be best to ask Voulkos on this one.) I suppose this speaks to
the meaning of revolution.... to come around again. This is my
implication about Ohr. Had he been validated, Voulkos would be just
another .... unknown.
Apparently, Ohr's work was" ugly , offensive, timely, and powerful" and at
the time even those in the know just didnt "get it". Did the fine art
culture make a mistake? Can that be possible? Is it still possible?
There is, in my mind, a lot of contemporary art work out there that is, as
you say, simply vacuous, derivative, ugly, and offensive. And its found
in many establishment institutions. There are a lot of craft
expressions out there that are beautiful, timely and powerful... and those
are are the kinds of things one just doesnt see in many galleries.
Is the American Craft Museum and Renwick Gallery on the right track?
When was the last time you saw a utilitarian pottery exhibit showcased at
the Renwick? Or is today's revolutionary artist the same as the
establishment artist? I keep seeing artists billed as revolutionary
exhibiting in major galleries and museums. Is all of this work truly
revolutionary or has the fine art culture just co-opted the concept?
Maybe revolutionary is not the best description for what is being
exhibited. Maybe the word is hackneyed.
I personally think that the range of artistic expression at the
turn of century was most certainly greater than it is now. Today, local
cultures and indigenous art traditions are having a pretty difficult go of
it with the onslaught of western capitalism. The whole world is the Pepsi
generation eager to make the next synthetic Pepsi tea bowl. The breadth
of art expression today is wide but the depth of these expressions is
about deep as newsprint.
These days, I'm glad pottery isn't considered fine art....There is a
better chance that it really is art,understand what you are saying.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Gee Kevin, you certainly are persistent in your attempts to convince us that
> Voulkos is not worthy of our veneration. It is apparent that you do not see
> in his work what so many of us see. What a shame for you.
>
> >In my view neither Voulkos's work, nor Ohr's work can be considered
> >"revolutionary" in view of Iga or Bizen ware. Weren't Shigaraki valley
> >potters the first to "torture " the clay as Ohr is described as
> >doing and as Voulkos still, apparently, does?
>
> Whether or not the potters of Iga or Shigaraki or Echizen were the first to
> "torture" the clay (what a strange way to describe it - is the clay really
> tortured??) is irrelevant here, unless Ohr and/or Voulkos got the idea from
> them. There is no evidence of that, as far as I know. To cite the
> precedent of Medieval Japanese pots in implying that Ohr was not a
> revolutionary is absurd in the extreme
>
> >What defeated Ohr was the lack of support for his work and his own sense
> >of clarity in the "rightness" of his expressions that would not brook
> >criticism by others. (Artists frequently possess this defect.)
>
> Defect???? Wow. Is it a defect for artists to be so sure of their vision
> that they reject criticism from others? Thank God so many artists have had
> this "defect!"
>
> >It is only in recent years that the ugly and the beautiful have become
> >if not synonymous, then indistinguishable. THAT is the historical context
> >of our time.
>
> Historical context?? I would prefer to think that because of the
> extraordinary growth and complexity of the world, the parameters of art have
> expanded to encompass a range of expression which was inconceivable in Ohr's
> time. From my own point of view I do not have much trouble distinguishing
> between the ugly and the beautiful. I see lots of art out there which is
> beautiful but otherwise vacuous and derivative. And there is lots of art
> out there which is ugly and offensive and timely and powerful.
>
> >In this regard, the reputation of Voulkos is much like a statue of
> >Lenin....Very majestic, powerful, and awe-inspiring when standing but I
> >prefer to see it as rubble on the ground. Perhaps we will live to see that
> >day.
>
> Not a chance.
> - 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
>
Hluch - Kevin A. on fri 7 mar 97
Marc,
Excuse me. To clarify, I should have said "shared" values.
Even though I would like to respond to some of the comments from Dan
and Mark on my earlier posts about Ohr and Voulkos I am under some time
constraints and will reply after April Fool's Day.
During this interegnum, information about "Where I'm Coming From" can be
found, if anyone is interested, in the following periodicals:
1996 "Ceramics and Sculpture", Ceramics: Art and Perception, Vol. 23
"Trandscending Tradition", Ceramics Monthly, Mar.
1995 "Leach: Toward a Universal Culture", Ceramics Monthly, Jan.
1994 "Death of Beauty", Ceramics Monthly, Apr.
1993 "Art and the Global Tribe", Ceramics Monthly, Sep.
1992 "Art and Purpose", Ceramics Monthly, Jan.
1991 " Bending to the Market Place", Ceramics Monthly, Oct.
"Peter Voulkos: a Re-examination," Ceramics, Art and
Perception, Vol. 3.
1990 "NEA Fellowships: An Overview of the Selection Process",
Craft Report, Dec.
"NEA Fellowships", New Art Examiner, Sep.
"Promoting the Craft Illusion", Studio Potter, Jun., Vol. 18.
1989 "Perestroika for NEA Fellowships", Ceramics Monthly, Feb.
In addition, an article called "A Revolutionary Concept" that touches on
the subjects being discussed will be published in a forthcoming issue of
Ceramics Monthly. It will be in in the usual space, the blathering column
.....to quote John Perrault.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Marc Brackley wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> When Kevin Hluch writes:
>
> "We still have art. We still have the high priests. We don't have the
> values."
>
> his use of the word "We" means that he includes himself as not having
> values.
>
> Why is it that people who don't have values keep wanting to include me and
> everyone else in their broad, sweeping, generalizations? I have values. I
> visualize every day that Jessie Helms will retire.
>
> Marc Brackley, (who's trying to figure out how to work the word "family"
> into my art so that people will stop thinking I don't have values)
>
| |
|
