JOE BENNION on wed 26 feb 97
Dan's post on Voulkos and Michael's post on living room pots have stayed
with me over the last 24 hours as I have made pots in my studio, used pots in
my home and looked through back issues of art/ fine craft periodicals. I
found both to be thoughtful and well written. It is comments like this that
keep me from unsubscribing to clayart. I don't mean that as a put down to the
askers and answerers of the endless technical questions. I'm simply expressing
my menu preferences. Thanks guys.
I've given the dilemma that Michael is facing a lot of thought. My own
response to this issue has been to pull out of the commercial arena having
found my work better suited to the venue of my own showroom where I can
display and price them as I like. Some of my pottery will, no doubt, make it
into people's living rooms. That is their choice. Both venues honor the
pottery. I enjoy the experience of meeting many of the people who purchase and
use my pottery. I price the work I sell at my showroom so that people can use
them with out fear of losing a pricey heirloom. When my work does go to
galleries it goes to the gallery owner at the same price. They then have to
build their cost and expected profit into the price they ask. That is not my
concern. They pay me the same as my other customers do. I do not consign.
I make no apologies for my work's deliberately domestic/ useful nature.
If they are " just utilitarian" I am happy to make them as such. The same mind
set that categorizes pottery as "just utilitarian" will likely categorize
housework, child bearing/ nurturing and farming in similar terms. They can
have their high minded art and industrial accomplishments. That is their
reward. Western Industrial culture, with its preoccupation with masculine
accomplishment and linear progress, has little regard for the activities that
give and support life, especially the life of the body. I think that pottery
that goes in the living room and gallery has a lot to recommend it. I delight
in Pete Voulkos pots both before and after his "liberation" from the
constraints of domesticity but I don't count the latter work as greater. I
find the whole concept of " fine art" to be a fallen construct of western
civilization that runs counter to the bulk of human history, counter to our
purpose here. BTW, I see our purpose here to bear, nurture and teach our
children to honor life and care for the Earth. The acquisition of power,
wealth, status and the pursuit of lust is the world's standard. Please don't
misunderstand what I say here. I value all of human expression that is from
the heart whether it is utilitarian or not. I simply don't care to buy into
the system that values art that serves the life of the mind over art that
serves the life of the body. Give me Pete's tea bowls with his stacked pots.
Is he a god? No, but an damn good potter. No better or worse than those who
have stayed on the farm. I gotta go. Joe the Potter
Mark Leach on thu 27 feb 97
Joe...your human response to the medium and your sensitivity to the role
of the body to objects in the world is absolutely essential to a holistic
experience. It disappoints me greatly to encounter those who will
forsake the body in favor of a purely abstract relationship with material
culture. This is anathema to the curatorial discipline where abstraction
reigns supreme. I struggle daily with the dilemma of how to bring the
visitor physically and intellectually closer to the collections I care
for and display. I remember when I was a kid that the living room (now
the museum gallery) was ironically off limits to the act of touching.
Hell, I couldn't even impress a footprint into the carpet without getting
a scolding. I was always puzzled by the uselessness of the room and now
I understand its symbolic import as a display site for family (human)
treasures. I guess where I'm going with this meditation is that at least
part of the answer lies not in the autonomy of the object but in the role
and relationship of the object to its surroundings both as a decorative
and utilitarian form. Boy do we have a lot of work to do! I salute you
and others on the list who continue to probe and to question these
matters; frankly I wish there was more of it. And like you, my comment
isn't meant to disparage those who originate or reply to questions of a
technical nature.
I respect your commitment to making your work accessible. On other
continents, Africa among them, the tradition of manufacture for
individual/community consumption/use still exists and the concept of
preciousness is held in check by such time-honored traditions.
Thank you for instilling in me simple, honest ideas of lasting value!
Mark Richard Leach
Curator of Twentieth Century Art
Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte
__________________
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mark Richard Leach / mark4art@earthlink.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hluch - Kevin A. on fri 28 feb 97
Clayartifice:
These well-honed remarks bring to mind the fact that the gallery space as
a separate entity for the display and selling of art is a recent invention
when viewed within the grand tradition of art-making. The gallery space is
a place where no "living" occurs.
I sometimes ask my students "where did the ancients view artworks in THEIR
day?" Of course the answer: not the gallery because it had not been
invented. And not the museum because it did not exist either.
And for that matter, there was no dichotomy between machine made and
handmade because there WAS no machine made. This goes to my suggestion
that in many cultures the "artist" WAS the "craftsperson". And they were
not educated in a College of Art.
If you look at handcrafted items that are called art in museums you find
work that has been wrenched out of its context, often-times the home.
Now artists make work for the museums. But first they make it for wealthy
collectors.
Our western culture has institutionalized the separation of art from
everyday life, and, I might add, from every day people. In ancient
Egypt, Greece,Rome,Micronesia. Africa, etc. the art work
(craft objects made by hand for particular purposes) was an inseparable
part of their every day lives and everyday activities.
In Jordan at Petra one can find beautiful egg-shell thin floral decorative
sherds littering the sandy landscape. If one of these pots were found
intact it would be bound for the museum. However, it was made to be used
when it was first created and it was directed into a "LIVING SPACE".
And, do you know what? That intent never harmed it's beauty.
The void or chasm, where art has been separated from life, is the place
where the money, prestige, power and publicity dwells in the fine art
culture today. The art is just the excuse for the rest.
Times have changed.
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Mark Leach wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Joe...your human response to the medium and your sensitivity to the role
> of the body to objects in the world is absolutely essential to a holistic
> experience. It disappoints me greatly to encounter those who will
> forsake the body in favor of a purely abstract relationship with material
> culture. This is anathema to the curatorial discipline where abstraction
> reigns supreme. I struggle daily with the dilemma of how to bring the
> visitor physically and intellectually closer to the collections I care
> for and display. I remember when I was a kid that the living room (now
> the museum gallery) was ironically off limits to the act of touching.
> Hell, I couldn't even impress a footprint into the carpet without getting
> a scolding. I was always puzzled by the uselessness of the room and now
> I understand its symbolic import as a display site for family (human)
> treasures. I guess where I'm going with this meditation is that at least
> part of the answer lies not in the autonomy of the object but in the role
> and relationship of the object to its surroundings both as a decorative
> and utilitarian form. Boy do we have a lot of work to do! I salute you
> and others on the list who continue to probe and to question these
> matters; frankly I wish there was more of it. And like you, my comment
> isn't meant to disparage those who originate or reply to questions of a
> technical nature.
>
> I respect your commitment to making your work accessible. On other
> continents, Africa among them, the tradition of manufacture for
> individual/community consumption/use still exists and the concept of
> preciousness is held in check by such time-honored traditions.
>
> Thank you for instilling in me simple, honest ideas of lasting value!
>
> Mark Richard Leach
> Curator of Twentieth Century Art
> Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte
>
>
>
> __________________
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Mark Richard Leach / mark4art@earthlink.net
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Evan Dresel on sat 1 mar 97
Livingroom pots? Functional pots? I've got a bunch of each,
but there's nothing quite like the pleasure of pulling a
platter or teapot off the display shelf and using it for
some special occasion.
-- Evan Dresel in eastern Washington State who is now a
card-carying graduate of Hazardous Waste
Refresher for Ironworkers. Anyone want
me to tear down their studio?-)
| |
|
