Vince Pitelka on mon 1 jul 96
Easy Nils. There have been some pretty goofy theories put forth on this
thread, but some interesting thoughts as well. And as you know, through the
centuries art has often obsessed on beauty. Sadly, many people who consider
themselves artists today, rather than expressing what is in their heart and
soul, instead fabricate artificial attempts at beauty based on what society
believes to be beautiful. So while honesty in visual expression, from the guts,
has little to do with beauty, beauty has a lot to do with the perception of art
in society, past and present.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - wkp0067@tntech.edu
Appalachian Center for Crafts, Smithville, TN
Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 1 jul 96
On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Easy Nils. There have been some pretty goofy theories put forth on this
> thread, but some interesting thoughts as well.
I have seen that some of the goofiest theories end up being proven correct.
Columbus had the idea of traveling west to go east, for example.
> And as you know, through the centuries art has often obsessed on
>beauty. Sadly, many people who consider themselves artists today, rather
> than expressing what is in their heart and soul, instead fabricate
>artificial attempts at beauty based on what society
> believes to be beautiful.
Perhaps this is the source of the "Academy"?...It seems right now the
"Academy" sanctions a particular approach to artistic expression. Could
it be that those who are in the most exhibitions and are the most heavily
touted by magazines, galleries, museums, etc. are producing the work that
will not stand the "test of time"?
Also, please don't tell me we are going to have to start talking about the
existence of "soul". Heart, I can understand. As far as I am concerned,
soul is treacherous territory. Almost as treacherous as "beauty".
So while honesty in visual expression, from the guts,
> has little to do with beauty, beauty has a lot to do with the perception of
> art in society, past and present.
If art is "from the guts" then we're spending a lot of cerebral time on the
entrails. So this is why the Egyptians pulled the dead pharoah's
brain through the nose with a hook and discarded it while mummifying the
rest! ( :) ?)
Furthermore, is this what the good art teacher teaches, "Pull the art
from your guts and it will look all right, not to worry". (By the way,
just express yourself, the beauty part is no longer relevant.)
Kevin (last name unpronounceable by the uninitiated)
Vince Pitelka on thu 4 jul 96
Kevin -
Regarding your recent response to my post on Clayart, your words are in quotes:
"Also, please don't tell me we are going to have to start talking about the
existence of 'soul.' 'Heart' I can understand. As far as I am concerned, soul
is treacherous territory."
Kevin, I would think that the issue of "soul" is treacherous territory here
only if you are thinking specifically of the religious implications of soul.
My interpretation of "soul" has more to do with James Brown than with Jesus
Christ. "Art from the heart" is a neat concept, and often valid, but "art from
the soul" is an entirely different matter, and does not necessarily have to do
with any religious doctrine. To me, it refers to the deepest recesses of
personal being. One would hope that for each artist, the driving force behind
their work comes from this realm. Also, the degree to which the art comes
"from the soul" is related to the depth of personal honesty and integrity in
the work.
"If art is 'from the guts,' then we are spending a lot of cerebral time on the
entrails."
We aren't. You may be. It is possible to act "from the guts" without
thinking, but the term itself does not exclude rationality and reason. I
suppose one could say that art which comes "from the guts" possesses a distinct
boldness, directness and vitality which is a very forthright and honest
expression of the artist's experience. To say that a certain work of art has
"guts" is not to say that it is any less cerebral in terms of the artists
intent or the viewer's interpretation. It simply says that the work takes
bold chances, and that for some viewers there is a sudden and dramatic response.
"So this is why the Egyptians pulled the dead pharoah's brain through the nose
with a hook and discarded it while mumifying the rest."
"Furthermore, is this what the good art teacher teaches, 'Pull the art from
your guts and it will look alright, not to worry'?"
Whoa! You got to this from my post?? The thought of "pulling the art from
your guts," along with your little tale of Egyptian funerary ritual creates an
interesting scenario, but what does it have to do with my statements? I don't
know about "pulling art from the guts," but any good art teacher will try to
get his or her students to develop and express content which is deepseated and
honest - to draw individual style and content from personal history and
experience. If we do not do that, we are teaching our students to be
technicians or renderers, but not artists.
And how DO you pronounce your last name?
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - wkp0067@tntech.edu
Appalachian Center for Crafts, Smithville TN
Hluch - Kevin A. on fri 5 jul 96
Vince,
Last things first...When people ask how I pronounce my name I simply say:
"With difficulty".
Concerning the pharoah analogy: certainly if art is simply "heart and
soul" then we can dispense with the brain, just as the ancient
Egyptians did. As you stated in your Jul 1 post "So while honesty in
vusual expression, from the guts, has little to do with beauty...etc."
It's not such a reach to infer from your comment that the brain is not
particularly important in this work. (The general public might agree!)
Now you say that guts includes brains too. I thought you meant "guts"
like Peter Volkous's guts (not a pretty thought either). You know like...
courage or bravery or pluck or chutzpah!
Now I understand that you meant by saying "guts" you meant brain power, the
ablility to reason, to rationalize, to intellectualize. Kinda like what we're
doing here? You also say that by "guts" you meant that "the work takes
bold chances" If artists were continually taking "bold chances " in
their work how would we recognize it? Wouldn't it evolve so quickly as
to be unrecognizable? It seems some artists have taken a single semi-bold
"chance" and made a career of it. Sometimes the "chance" doesn't even
look like chance but logical evolution.
Concerning "soul", now I completely understand (just kidding). Your
interpretation of "soul" is more akin to James Brown vs. Jesus Christ?
Wow, now I'm really gettting confused. I'll wait to let you fill me in
further, thanks.
You say the work must spring from the "deepest recesses of personal being".
This is what I'm getting at. Are you talking about the recesses of the
brain, heart, soul, or are we back to guts again?
All of this has to be done with great honesty and integrity, however, as
you state. I have a question about this...How many artists do think are
intentionaly creating dishonest art work? And, furthermore, how can you
tell? What's the first tip-off? That blue that should have been green?
Kevin
On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Kevin -
>
> Regarding your recent response to my post on Clayart, your words are in quotes
>
> "Also, please don't tell me we are going to have to start talking about the
> existence of 'soul.' 'Heart' I can understand. As far as I am concerned, sou
> is treacherous territory."
>
> Kevin, I would think that the issue of "soul" is treacherous territory here
> only if you are thinking specifically of the religious implications of soul.
> My interpretation of "soul" has more to do with James Brown than with Jesus
> Christ. "Art from the heart" is a neat concept, and often valid, but "art fro
> the soul" is an entirely different matter, and does not necessarily have to do
> with any religious doctrine. To me, it refers to the deepest recesses of
> personal being. One would hope that for each artist, the driving force behind
> their work comes from this realm. Also, the degree to which the art comes
> "from the soul" is related to the depth of personal honesty and integrity in
> the work.
>
> "If art is 'from the guts,' then we are spending a lot of cerebral time on the
> entrails."
>
> We aren't. You may be. It is possible to act "from the guts" without
> thinking, but the term itself does not exclude rationality and reason. I
> suppose one could say that art which comes "from the guts" possesses a distinc
> boldness, directness and vitality which is a very forthright and honest
> expression of the artist's experience. To say that a certain work of art has
> "guts" is not to say that it is any less cerebral in terms of the artists
> intent or the viewer's interpretation. It simply says that the work takes
> bold chances, and that for some viewers there is a sudden and dramatic respons
>
> "So this is why the Egyptians pulled the dead pharoah's brain through the nose
> with a hook and discarded it while mumifying the rest."
> "Furthermore, is this what the good art teacher teaches, 'Pull the art from
> your guts and it will look alright, not to worry'?"
>
> Whoa! You got to this from my post?? The thought of "pulling the art from
> your guts," along with your little tale of Egyptian funerary ritual creates an
> interesting scenario, but what does it have to do with my statements? I don't
> know about "pulling art from the guts," but any good art teacher will try to
> get his or her students to develop and express content which is deepseated and
> honest - to draw individual style and content from personal history and
> experience. If we do not do that, we are teaching our students to be
> technicians or renderers, but not artists.
>
> And how DO you pronounce your last name?
> - Vince
> Vince Pitelka - wkp0067@tntech.edu
> Appalachian Center for Crafts, Smithville TN
>
| |
|
