The Shelfords on thu 27 feb 97
Re: posts by Michael, Dan, Joe, Janet et al -
Been thinking about all this too, remembering a show to which I had
submitted an agate vase, and the juror said that it was nice, but had i
considered cutting it up and putting it on the wall. While I was scraping
my jaw off the floor, he strung off a list of "big names" like Voulkos who
I should be striving to imitate, (oh, and shouldn't I be considering wood
firing - I was living in the CITY for heaven's sake) and that even if it
didn't make this show, really he'd like to see it in the Vancouver museum of
crafts. There was a whole lot more that I will spare you - I'm not sure if
he left out ANY of the cliches of art vs craft. Needless to say, there was
no pottery made it into this show. And also remembering a gallery to which
I took some pieces, and they said they liked them and would take them or
similar if I would knock a hole in them or something, so they wouldn't be
"utilitarian" - that it was their settled policy not to take anything
useful. Reads like a farce, doesn't it?
But surely there's a massive missing of the point here? Isn't beauty to be
lived with, loved, touched, assimilated? What artist would NOT want his
work to enter into the life and heart of it's keeper, to become spiritually
vital? If you make something that expresses your best sense of form,
colour, light, balance, whatever, highlighting some view of beauty that
might not otherwise be obvious, and if the person who buys it is going to
pick it up and stroke it and see it closely (mugs en route to the mouth!)
every day, isn't this a staggering advantage? WHY would one deliberately
throw that advantage away and put up a psychological barrier that the viewer
must work his/her way through before understanding the work?
I guess I needn't add that I have a strong preference for utility for my own
work, but that doesn't mean I don't love, or at least appreciate, various
"works of art" in the currently conventional sense as well. It's just the
need to SEPARATE the ideas that seems so pointless to me. Is there anyone
out there who does understand, maybe even agrees with the
if-its-useful-it-isn't-art argument? I would be VERY interested to hear a
thoughtful explanation of it. I enjoyed Dan's remarks today about the kind
of cultural dualism he feels that potters have had to deal with since
> the turn of the century, [when] ceramics was established as a legitimate
field of study
>within academia. This was the moment in history that inextricably linked
>Pottery to the Fine arts. Potters to Fine Artists. This is the point in
>history at which the potter, formerly a common laborer, is illuminated by
>the lessons of history and philosophy and is transformed into a new breed
>in the aesthetic/cultural medium of 20th century American art.
But if this is so for 20th century American art, it surely isn't so in the
world historical tradition - e.g. Chinese and Japanese potters could hardly
have been thought of as common labourers. And while north american art may
have spent a great deal of time in navel-gazing as it came-of-age, it is
surely not STILL blind to the validity of the arts of the whole world, or of
seeing our north american selves as in this tradition. Artistic vision and
narrowness of mind don't seem to be likely partners, somehow.
It would of course be nice to get rid of the "great divide" from a pricing
point of view, but I'm less worried about that than just plain bewildered
about why.
Don Jones on fri 28 feb 97
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Re: posts by Michael, Dan, Joe, Janet et al -
>I guess I needn't add that I have a strong preference for utility for my own
>work, but that doesn't mean I don't love, or at least appreciate, various
>"works of art" in the currently conventional sense as well. It's just the
>need to SEPARATE the ideas that seems so pointless to me. Is there anyone
>out there who does understand, maybe even agrees with the
>if-its-useful-it-isn't-art argument?
I agree with you and I do understand. I think the nonfunctional is
falling into the small sculpture catagory and therefor has nothing to do
with the vessel tradition. It is much more exotic and more fun to discuss
and show so it gets more attention in academia and gallery venues.
>It would of course be nice to get rid of the "great divide" from a pricing
>point of view, but I'm less worried about that than just plain bewildered
>about why.
It will never happen. I used to do very complex and large colored drawings
with pencil and pastel the price ceiling is always there but not for
paintings. Pots will never be sculptures so in Western culture the price
ceiling will always be there too. In Japan pots seem to be more venerated
and prices are high.
for what its worth
Don in Albuquerque
Suzanne Storer on sat 1 mar 97
What a lovely and informative dialogue this has been. I thank you all for
sharing your opinions and expertise.
Once I saw a young man from India who had allowed his fingernails to grow
out so long on one hand as to render his hand useless. I was told that he
aspired to belong to a "higher social status" whereby he was dependant on
others to do his work for him. At present in our country usefull work is
similarly devalued because it smacks of the same "lower social class" that
young man wished to escape. And in so doing he maimed his own ability to
function. Our culture does the same because it too is likewise young and
immature.
I sent a small piece of functional pottery as a gift to an acquaitance in
France a while ago and she thanked me by expressing her appreciation that
not only was it beautiful but that it was also functional which added to its
appeal. We've got a long way to go but we're on the right road.
Suzanne Storer
| |
|
