Bill Aycock on wed 30 oct 96
please see the reference at:
http://www.berkeley-square.co.uk
and go to the display of works by the artist with the initials "H M"
Then- tell me if form is not enough.
Bill- remembering a garden full of his work in Atlanta, but content to be on
persimmon Hill, mostly.
Bill Aycock --- Persimmon Hill --- Woodville, Alabama, USA
--- (in the N.E. corner of the State)
also-- W4BSG -- Grid EM64vr
Bob Kavanagh on fri 1 nov 96
Good morning Bill
So I have been to see moore's sculptures in person, and as you suggested I
went to the (virtual) gallery in London. While I think the work is
striking and the forms' integration with size, location, subject matter,
texture, sheen and hue of finish along with the enduring quality of the
material itself (and a few other features), incline me to admire the work
and feel moved by it, the question about form - by itself - is still not
clear to me. I try (not really successfully, but with glimmers) to imagine
this work in alabaster, soapstone, wood or even moss (or more extremely in
whale blubber or butter) and the impact of the same work then changes for
me. Of course to fully get the change, we would be obliged to see the
actual sculptures themselves made out of "moss", "wood", etc., but I think
this material would alter the significance of the work, even though the
form would be (essentially) the same. While I tend to think that great
sculptors like moore will convey a breadth of message in almost any
material or context within which they work, the comprehensive ramifications
of the work would vary.
All of this only to say, I'm still not convinced that "form is enough".
Have a good day.
bob kavanagh
Michael McDowell on sun 3 nov 96
I've been following this thread for a while now, and can't resist joining in.
Bob Kavanaugh's recent post on the subject points out that every form has a
surface and a substance in which it manifests. These aspects of a piece must be
integrated with the form to produce a succesful result. But I don't think that
the originator of this thread was ignorant of these issues. Perhaps I'm
projecting my own concerns here, but I think that the original question had to
do with the prevalence of embellishment of surfaces of pots in the marketplace.
I imagine the original questioner to be asking "why can't I be succesful with
elegant, strong forms for my pots with simple glazes that don't smother the form
with surface decoration?" To that question I would answer, you can succeed in
making beautiful pots that way, but success in the marketplace may be more
difficult.
The simpler the glaze decoration, the greater the focus on the form becomes, and
for many of us - especially early in our carreers - it can be difficult to
clearly see our own forms. Our vision tends to be clouded by our intentions &
desires. Assuming one is past that hurdle, it is important to recognize the
significance of Bob Kavanaugh's remarks. Your forms unavoidably have surface &
substance. These aspects will either integrate with & enhance the form or they
will detract from the overall effect of the piece. This is true whether you
embellish the surface heavily, or not at all.
My impression of the market for pots today is that it is easier to sell brightly
colored, highly embellished pots that are weak in form than it is to sell pots,
however strong in form, that are not further strengthened by their surface &
substance. Pots which integrate strength in all these aspects will find buyers
whether the surface is bright multicolored majolica or a well chosen,
sensitively applied, and perfectly fired "simple glaze" like a celedon, shino,
or temmoku, though the market for the latter may be somewhat more rareified.
Ultimately, I think the answer to this question depends on who you are seeking
to please.
Michael McDowell
Whatcom County, WA, USA
Bill Aycock on mon 4 nov 96
At 09:44 PM 11/1/96 EST, you wrote: **** in part ****
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
, the question about form - by itself - is still not
>clear to me. While I tend to think that great
>sculptors like moore will convey a breadth of message in almost any
>material or context within which they work, the comprehensive ramifications
>of the work would vary.
>
>All of this only to say, I'm still not convinced that "form is enough".
>
>bob kavanagh
>
Bob, of course, I oversimplified to make a point,and your observations are
very valid. However, I meant "WHEN form is enough", not "form is enough" and
Moore seemed to be a good example.
I see a big difference in the use of the texture, sheen, etc, to allow the
form to be comprehended, and the same things "added" to the form in ways not
inherent in it. A bronze object, with natural bronze color, but lighter in
areas where natural "rubbing" might take place is very different from the
same color differences applied in stripes or ovals or whatever not inherent
in the form.
Form is enough, in itself, but is not the only expression that is valid, and
enough in its own right. If form alone were enough, then any 2D (ie, flat)
expression would be ruled out, except as it represented 3D objects, and we
know that is a fallacy (see, for example, Mondrian, or Picasso)
If you want my personal selection as a great example of "FORM !!" ( and I
mean the !!), see the "veiled Lady" in the Minneapolis Institute of Art.
Here, the artist has taken white, opaque stone, and leads you to see what is
beyond, by form alone. Extraordinary.
Bill, where Persimmon Hill just had its first freeze of the year (late this
year) (I know, west of Montreal, this is a joke)
Bill Aycock --- Persimmon Hill --- Woodville, Alabama, USA
--- (in the N.E. corner of the State)
also-- W4BSG -- Grid EM64vr
Don Sanami on mon 4 nov 96
Dear Michael, Certainly,over the past 35 years we have seen decoration
take precedance over form. A great many pots we see today appear to be
refl;ections of the desire of potters to achieve some financial level
acceptable to themselves and their contemporaries. The pots cream at us:
"Look at me,look at me!!"rather than seeing the pot,we are required to
look at the potter. I would suggest a re-reading of Yanagi,
Soeyetsu,"The Unknown Craftsman."(Not politically correwct but that is
the way history demands.)Don & Isao On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Michael McDowell
wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I've been following this thread for a while now, and can't resist joining in.
> Bob Kavanaugh's recent post on the subject points out that every form has a
> surface and a substance in which it manifests. These aspects of a piece must b
> integrated with the form to produce a succesful result. But I don't think that
> the originator of this thread was ignorant of these issues. Perhaps I'm
> projecting my own concerns here, but I think that the original question had to
> do with the prevalence of embellishment of surfaces of pots in the marketplace
>
> I imagine the original questioner to be asking "why can't I be succesful with
> elegant, strong forms for my pots with simple glazes that don't smother the fo
> with surface decoration?" To that question I would answer, you can succeed in
> making beautiful pots that way, but success in the marketplace may be more
> difficult.
>
> The simpler the glaze decoration, the greater the focus on the form becomes, a
> for many of us - especially early in our carreers - it can be difficult to
> clearly see our own forms. Our vision tends to be clouded by our intentions &
> desires. Assuming one is past that hurdle, it is important to recognize the
> significance of Bob Kavanaugh's remarks. Your forms unavoidably have surface &
> substance. These aspects will either integrate with & enhance the form or they
> will detract from the overall effect of the piece. This is true whether you
> embellish the surface heavily, or not at all.
>
> My impression of the market for pots today is that it is easier to sell bright
> colored, highly embellished pots that are weak in form than it is to sell pots
> however strong in form, that are not further strengthened by their surface &
> substance. Pots which integrate strength in all these aspects will find buyers
> whether the surface is bright multicolored majolica or a well chosen,
> sensitively applied, and perfectly fired "simple glaze" like a celedon, shino,
> or temmoku, though the market for the latter may be somewhat more rareified.
>
> Ultimately, I think the answer to this question depends on who you are seeking
> to please.
>
> Michael McDowell
> Whatcom County, WA, USA
>
Eleanora Eden on wed 6 nov 96
I thought it was an issue of balance between form and surface. When I
see a pot I think is truly great it sucessfully balances the two, makes a
marriage of it if you will.
I'm not out there looking at alot of pots it is true. I'm sure not in a
position to know the intent, background etc of the artist in most cases.
What seems like pretentious bull-pucky to a viewer certainly could just
be exactly that and also could be as righteous an artistic effort as the
next guy's.
I do know the pressure to do fancy pots for sure. I recently made an
attempt to break away by doing some raku, I thought quite nice, and
displayed a dozen pieces on a shelf for my annual sale. So here the
studio is full of people and I point out this shelf of pots. You could
have heard a pin drop. They all just thought I was nuts. Doesn't she
know why we're here?
Anyway this discussion makes me think of the Sung pots that sing and
dance so vigorously, and prehistoric pots. I think that's why I like
Andrea Gill's work so much, she so successfully combines complex form and
complex surface.
Just my 2c....
Eleanora.....and I actually made my hotel reservation and sent Paula my
Yes Breakfast
Eleanora
Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
Paradise Hill
Bellows Falls, VT 05101 eden@maple.sover.net
| |
|
