"Rafael Molina-Rodriguez (Rafael Molina-Rodriguez)" on mon 2 dec 96
Vince :
DISCLAIMER :
THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPINION. IT IS ONLY AN OPINION. IF THIS WERE
AN ACTUAL ...
I guess I touched a nerve here. Why is it that every time someone pulls
back the curtain on the wizard (Voulkos), people take it so personally.
>While Voulkos may have done some interesting work early in his
career,
>his recent work is aesthetically bankrupt.
Bullshit.
#This reminds me of an aphorism. Profanity : A feeble mind trying to
#express itself forcefully. I'm surprised you couldn't think of a more
#cogent response.
> All image and hyperbole very
>little substance. The work is conceptually (intent or purpose) boring,
>formally (use of the elements of art and principles of design) banal, and
>technically (use of the materials and processes) lacking.
The fact that YOU do not see the power in the work certainly does not
mean it is not there.
#This defense annoys me. To say I don't "see", 'understand', or 'get it' is
#a cop out. I've researched his work. I've read periodicals and books
#(one of the more interesting is Burke's essay "The Sublime and the
#Beautiful"). After hearing Autio refer to the Fauves and "Art Brut" I
#investigated that (speaking of Autio, he along with Voulkos and Leedy
#are, IMHO, a trifecta of overrated artists). I've seen reproductions of
#his work and I've seen the work in person. I'm not convinced of the
#merit of his mid to later work.
Obviously a large percentage of the viewing public is still strongly
affected by his work.
#But, is that "viewing public" an informed one or are they following a
#critics lead. Speaking of critics who made them the arbiters of taste.
#See Jack Troy's essay in June/July/August 1985 CM "Armchair
#Access."
>He, like many
>others later in their careers, has thrived on momentum.
He, like many others later in their careers, has allowed his earlier work to
evolve with subtle changes which are perhaps harder to spot for those
who
are insensitive to the nuances of change and evolution.
#De-evolution is a better word. His early work; as Louis Katz pointed out
#to me in a private e-mail, "his excellent throwing skill" to which I agree;
#displays a mastery of materials and processes.
#Let me give you an example of a contemporary of Voulkos whose work
#is still on an upward trajectory, Don Rietz. From his early salt-fired
#work to the exploration of vitreous engobes after his accident to his
#wood-firing collaborations with Yamamoto Yukio to a recent return to
#salt-firing is an illustration of "change and evolution." And, there are
#many others like Shaner, Ferguson, et.al.
>To further buttress my argument let's compare and contrast Voulkos'
>work with other sculptors. Does anyone really believe Voulkos' work
compares >to Moore, Smith, Calder, Rodin, Giacometti, Michelangelo?
Yes, many do. Of course, in the case of Rodin and Giacometti, people
said exactly the same thing about them in comparing them to earlier, more
conservative sculptors. What does that tell you?
#Not many. Certainly not authors of books used in university art history
#courses like Janson's "History of Art" and Gardner's "Art Through the
#Ages." You won't find a mention of Pete, but, you will find sculptors
#such as Della Robbia, Bernini, Brancusi, Gabo, Rodin, Hanson, Christo
#and Oldenburg.
#Even the newer art appreciation texts like "Living With Art", "Artforms",
#and "Varieties of Visual Experience" fail to include Voulkos in the
#chapters on sculpture. "Varieties.." does put him under a heading
#called Sculpture and the Crafts.
#Here's a little exercise. Compare and contrast a Voulkos' "Platter" with
# Henry Moore's "Reclining Figures." How about a "Stack" next to
#Rodin's "Gates of Hell", "Burghers of Calais", or "Balzac." Then there's
#an "Ice Bucket" and Michelangelo's "David." What are you going to tell
#me next that Norman Rockwell is on par with Van Gogh or that Andrew
#Wyeth is Picasso's equal.
#Let me quote some similar sentiments by some very credible people :
#William Hunt, Phillip Gearheart, and Christopher Staley. Mr. Hunt writes
#"...ceramic sculpture, I can't help thinking how poorly most such work
#compares to the best of contemporary or historical pure sculpture -
#David Smith, Brancusi, Rodin, name your favorite." Mr. Gearheart
#states "Yet the measures of sculpture are Donatello, Rodin, Henry
#Moore, David Smith. Unfortunately, the unique aspect of much ceramic
#sculpture is simply that it is ceramic - not that it can compete in the
#historical arena with the greats." Chris Staley writes "Too frequently,
#ceramic sculpture is marginalized within the narrow context of its own
#microcosm and excluded from the sculture world at large. The question
#should be asked, "How does ceramic sculpture relate to contemporary
#sculpture in general and to the work of such artists as Louise Burgeois,
#Andy Goldsworthy, and Bruce Nauman."
#In my first post I compared Voulkos to sculptors working in other
#materials. Now lets compare him to other ceramic sculptors. IMHO,
#Voulkos is an artistic pygmy when compared to the real giants among
#sculptors who work in clay like Robert Arneson, Stephen DeStaebler,
#and my favorite John Mason.
>The American clay community needs to be more objective in their
evaluation
of >Voulkos' work and career.
Why? Individual appreciation of art is largely subjective. Should we be
more objective in order to convince ourselves that the strong subjective
response we feel to his work is somehow invalid? Gee, that really
makes sense.
#You win on this point. I'll have to rethink the point I was trying to make.
#I would like to point out that, IMHO, aesthetic responses come in two
#varieties, intellectual and visceral. I think it's important to make a
#distinction. I just don't have either response to Voulkos' work.
>Finally, my opinions of Voulkos' work are concerned with aesthetics.
Your own personal aesthetics, right? Why should we be the least bit
concerned with your own personal aesthetics, other than to be
interested in
your opinion. You are of course entitled to your opinions, and we love to
hear them, but your post was not stated as opinion. It was stated as if
you
were INFORMING us.
#Can you elaborate on this? What words or style distinguishes whether
#one is "informing" or opining. Besides, IMHO, even the most dry
#technical information is an opinion derived from education/training and
#experience.
#I also think you assume too much about the members of the list. Some
#may not have had the art history education we've had. So, to them it
#may, indeed, be informative. And, if they're interested in knowing more
#they will search out other sources of information on the subject and
#arrive at an informed opinion of their own.
#From now on I will include a disclaimer in all of my posts. Just kidding. I
#will use the cyberprotocol of "IMHO" from now on.
>The dialogue is what's important. Having the courage to
>state one's convictions without concern for social acceptance or
political
>correctness is also important.
That's not what you are doing. What you are doing is stating an extreme
point of view in order to stir up the pot just for the hell of it.
#I share this characteristic with another diminutive Texan, Ross Perot.
#Seriously, I was just replying to an interesting thread and hoping to add
#something to the discourse.
I do not care for Voulkos's newer bronze work. To me it is completely
out of character, and reminds me of 3-D design projects.
#Common ground?
#This whole trend of clay artists creating cast-bronze work is intriguing.
#Artists like Voulkos, Soldner, Laidman, Boyden (whom I admire very
#much) etc.,..., are exploring this process. I think they're motives are
#based on aesthetics, but, I can't help but wonder if there aren't ulterior
#ones as well. It's a well known fact that bronze is considered more
#durable and, as a consequence more valuable. Is it possible that there
#could be pressure from gallery owners and collectors to work in
#bronze? Just a thought.
#Finally, the tide is changing. There is a paradigm shift underway. A
schism, if you will. Pottery, utilitarian and decorative, is asserting itself t
#its rightful importance. And, there's nothing Garth Clark can do about it.
#Evidence of this trend is the recent Utilitarian Clay Conference. BTW,
#the second such gathering. I don't recall a national conference of
#ceramic sculptors (unless you count the sometimes ceramic sculpture
#dominated NCECA) being held.
#I'll close with a quote from Harry Davis from his essay Potters, Zombies
#and Other "...potters should have the courage to be potters. When are
#the potters going to get the sculptors out of their hair...or when are
#some sculptors going to stop pretending to be potters? Sculptors have
#been traditionally content to be known by that simple title. They do not
#seem to have felt the need to qualify their activities with prefixes
#indicating they work in stone or wood or bronze or even terra cotta. So
#why, may one ask, this insistence on ceramic sculpture?...it is time for
#such nonpotters to tag on to the world of sculptors pure and simple...
#Potters could then settle down to being potters."
Rafael Molina-Rodriguez, Potter
rmr3431@dcccd.edu
| |
|
