Timothy & Lauren Loftus on wed 5 mar 97
Maybe I am just a total clay neophyte, but I have recently observed that
there seem to be two firmly planted camps as far as Voulkos is concerned.
I'm stumbling in on the end of the conversation, as usual, but I'm just
wondering why this is? Either they love him or they hate him. Is it that
someone in clay could achieve something close to greatness inside his
lifetime, and do it with non-functional type pottery? Am I mistaken?
Because if it's the old tired art vs. craft thing, I don't even want to
know. I've made my peace with art and craft.
Perhaps I have a unique perspective. I only just realized Voulkos existed.
I've only been making pots worth looking at since '93. I had been feeling
for a while that there must be some other form of expression besides mugs
and vases, and wondering the how's and why's of it. Perhaps in the vast
collection of CM's I read, I came across the name, I guess it didn't
interest me at the time. But last summer, a friend of mine showed me a
platter thingy she made, and I absolutely loved it. She told me how she did
it and that the techniques were from Voulkos and someone else (Arlene, help
me out here!) The platters appeal to my design sense. The "stacks" (?) I can
do without, but I really didn't get a very good look at them on the
web-page, either, so I'd hate to make a judgement based on that.
Well, I'll get to my point. I have had the advantage, or maybe the
misfortune, to have practiced most of the different artforms offered at NLU
(northeast louisiana university, for mel.) I can write about it, I can do
it, but I'm no genius, (yet.) Because I have no particular specialty, I feel
that I'm fairly objective about art in general.
I notice these kinds of conversations:
Kevin:>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.
>Vince: 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.
>Kevin: 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.
>Vince said:
>Not a chance.
But I would really like to know what's wrong with Voulkos? Is his
composition bad? Are his motives corrupt, and would that be a bad thing
anyway? What's ugly? It's a subjective term. Is he trying to tell us
something? And why are people so eager to have certain art and artists
closed out, shut off? Huh?
....picking thru the rubble,
Lauren
Louisiana
blade@linknet.net
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/j/o/e/joeybird.html
(learn something new every day)
dan wilson on wed 5 mar 97
Oh No! This is much more than art and craft. This is about influence...
When I look at a work of art I try to see/percieve the presense of the
artist. This is what I value. This presense at its extremes, can manifest
itself in the purely physical or purely intellectual. Most forms fall
somewhere in - between. Now I view Voulkos' early works as physical
explorations of the medium for its aesthetic potential. (in an abstract
expressionist way) His presense in the work is powerful, active and easily
recognized. This is what I like about his work. But this is not the reason
for this discussion of Voulkos. Voulkos was the first person in the modern
era to approach clay in this way. Up until this time clay was not
considered as usefull for anything other than utilitarian objects and
therefore not considered as fine art. The effects of Voulkos' success were
manifold but mainly centered around the schism that had developed in the
clay world as a result. Artists who believed that pottery can be art
(potters are artists) applauded his success and welcomed the affirmation
that resulted from it. Others viewed it as a threat to the viability of the
traditional values and beliefs embodied in the medium and expressed in the
writings of Leach, Yanagi and others. Mr. Hulch laments Voulkos' success
and subsequent influence as undeserved and points out that others have
approached clay in this way previously without recognition. He goes further
to say that much of the work being produced today is derivative of Voulkos
who, for him, represents the values embodied in the fine arts which he
views as unintellegible and irrelevant to our culture at large. He goes
even further to say that the motivation for much of this work and its
promotion is based on monetary gain and not on artistic merit. By saying we
have the artists but not the values and pointing toward the artistic
achievements of cultures past he is rejecting modern and contemporary views
in favor of more traditional values.. So while there may be nothing wrong
with Voulkos; might not Mr. Hulch be correct in his assertion that much of
the work of today is derivative of well established modern and contemporary
fine art idioms? Is he correct in his assertion that the motivation for
many contemporary expressions, yours for example, is based on monetary gain
and not on true artistic/aesthetic expression based on your personal
vision? Should we in view of our current aesthetic climate turn toward the
past for inspiration? Should we reject fine art values and make a concerted
effort to maintain our heritage in fossilized form? Can we identify values
in this culture, currently, that are relevant and worthy of reflection in
our work? This is my personal interpretation of the issues raised. You'll
have some ideas of your own. Perhaps you'll share them?
Dan Wilson
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Maybe I am just a total clay neophyte, but I have recently observed that
>there seem to be two firmly planted camps as far as Voulkos is concerned.
>I'm stumbling in on the end of the conversation, as usual, but I'm just
>wondering why this is? Either they love him or they hate him. Is it that
>someone in clay could achieve something close to greatness inside his
>lifetime, and do it with non-functional type pottery? Am I mistaken?
>Because if it's the old tired art vs. craft thing, I don't even want to
>know. I've made my peace with art and craft.
>
>Perhaps I have a unique perspective. I only just realized Voulkos existed.
>I've only been making pots worth looking at since '93. I had been feeling
>for a while that there must be some other form of expression besides mugs
>and vases, and wondering the how's and why's of it. Perhaps in the vast
>collection of CM's I read, I came across the name, I guess it didn't
>interest me at the time. But last summer, a friend of mine showed me a
>platter thingy she made, and I absolutely loved it. She told me how she did
>it and that the techniques were from Voulkos and someone else (Arlene, help
>me out here!) The platters appeal to my design sense. The "stacks" (?) I can
>do without, but I really didn't get a very good look at them on the
>web-page, either, so I'd hate to make a judgement based on that.
>
>Well, I'll get to my point. I have had the advantage, or maybe the
>misfortune, to have practiced most of the different artforms offered at NLU
>(northeast louisiana university, for mel.) I can write about it, I can do
>it, but I'm no genius, (yet.) Because I have no particular specialty, I feel
>that I'm fairly objective about art in general.
>I notice these kinds of conversations:
> Kevin:>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.
>>Vince: 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.
>>Kevin: 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.
>>Vince said:
>>Not a chance.
>
>But I would really like to know what's wrong with Voulkos? Is his
>composition bad? Are his motives corrupt, and would that be a bad thing
>anyway? What's ugly? It's a subjective term. Is he trying to tell us
>something? And why are people so eager to have certain art and artists
>closed out, shut off? Huh?
>...picking thru the rubble,
>Lauren
>Louisiana
>blade@linknet.net
>http://members.wbs.net/homepages/j/o/e/joeybird.html
>(learn something new every day)
Patrick & Lynn Hilferty on fri 7 mar 97
I don't want to stop Kevin, Dan and Vince from continuing this thread
(right: like I could), just remark that, as much as I respect Voulkos'
work, and for whatever reason, whether it be brainwashing or appreciation,
to follow Voulkos would be to would be to re-enforce the mannerist
tendancies that ceramics constantly flirts with (and yes, I followed the
mannerist thread). Now either Voulkos opened up important new directions,
or Voulkos led ceramics into a cul-de-sac from which it has never returned-
it's probably both. It's too bad that ceramics insists on such a small
pantheon to steal from, whether it be for sculture or pottery. Why is that?
Patrick Hilferty
At 11:08 PM -0500 3/5/97, dan wilson wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Oh No! This is much more than art and craft. This is about influence...
**************************************************
Patrick Hilferty
Belmont, CA 94002
E-Mail: philferty@earthlink.net
Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~philferty/
**************************************************
| |
|
