primalmommy on mon 23 apr 07
Lili, I've been thinking about photography of pots. There's no question
that a good photo can make something out of not much. In fact, of the
ewers I posted for feedback about form, at least two don't work -- (one
has a blind spout, another pees to the left). Since they are only steps
in a process and not a final result, it doesn't concern me, overly. I'm
not trying to get into a show with them, and I have nothing to sell. But
photography does have the ability to misrepresent reality. Just look at
the magazine supermodels.
(Side story: Saturday, before my brother's wedding, flower-girl-Molly
and I took the bride to a salon to have her hair piled elegantly atop
her head, with wispy cascading ringlets around the sides. Molly had
never been in a salon (poor girl has me for a mom) and was quite
interested in all the goings on. But when she looked through the
magazines, she was surprised at how realistic the "mannekins" looked. I
explained that they were actual humans, with pores and wrinkles
airbrushed away, but I am not sure she believed me entirely.)
Back to pots, though. There is another facet of the photography issue, I
think, that can't be dismissed.
When I was in grad school before, 20 years ago, I took a darkroom
photography class. We learned to cut a square in a bit of cardboard and
peer through it at the world, framing this scene and that, isolating a
bright spot, a bit of texture, half a shadow. I took pictures of fresh
cut stumps of old growth trees, the details of rusting psychedelic paint
on Ken Kesey's bus (rotting in a cow pasture in Pleasant Hill, OR), and
kiln gods and fragments around the U of Oregon kiln yard.
But the framing was magical. It blotted out the bigger picture to give
me a focus on one element, out of context. That allowed me to really see
what was there.
That's what a photo can do for a pot -- it can make you pay attention to
a drip of glaze, the curve and shadow of a handle, in a way that you'd
never really see it, grabbing it out of a cupboard in mid
meal-preparation. A coffee mug, maybe, gets out leisurely perusal from
time to time, but more people are looking for mugs that will fit in the
car's cup holder --so maybe not even that.
A photo filters out the distraction of the countertop and its clutter,
the tabletop and the neighborhood of dishes all around, the drip of
milk, the bad lighting. If I took the ancient celadon bowl out of its
glass case at the Toledo Museum of Art, and piled it upside down with
the coffee cups in my dishwasher rack, it might look ordinary. On a
lighted pedestal in a darkened room, it gets the attention it deserves.
And a photo can show us what's really there, sometimes, better than our
eye can. Joanne North, an MA in our program, is making large sculptures
with surfaces based on microscopic photography -- the pores in a
beetle's exoskeleton, the scales on a butterfly's wing, a diatom, a cell
wall, the surprisingly variegated surface of a flower petal.
Fong Choo has learned to use the magic of the frame to sell his little
bright gemlike teapots. His display is solid walls of wood panels with
small, brightly lit windows, one teapot in each shining chamber. It's
the way they present jewelry, or artifacts in a museum, or the tiny
jewel toned rain forest frogs at a good aquarium. It demands that you
look just at THIS -- give it your full attention. A Fong Choo pot on the
shelf at the goodwill, or in a cluttered booth at an art fair or garage
sale surrounded by competitors, wouldn't demand the same extra three
seconds of visual engagement we offer the thing in the shining box.
Yes, good lighting and photoshopping can make a surface look more
lively, but so can carrying a pot out into sunlight. What is lost in a
photo seems the hardest thing; a sense of volume, the gesture with which
something stands on a table, its heft and how it fits in one's hand. The
touchability factor. My little tripod forms are terribly difficult to
photograph. They look unfairly balanced on two feet from one view, oddly
triangulated from another, and in the real world they'll mostly be
viewed from above. So more is lost than gained, in a photo. Lee B. gave
me a long and detailed critique, but with disclaimers: "I need to see
these from more angles". Even then, it's not the same as seeing/holding
the pot.
None of this changes the unfairness of the off-plumb "claying field", as
you call it. I'm not lookingto argue (and don't remember that we have,
ofthen, though you paint us at opposite ends of the spectrum.) These are
just some random thoughts about photography. It can be a manipulated
fiction, and yet more true than our daily lives will allow us to see.
The photo on the cover of CM is the bride in all her glory, walking down
the aisle. The wife without makeup who crawls out of bed in the morning
in her husband's t-shirt, rumpled and yawning, is the same woman, just a
bit less visually arresting than she was in "presentation mode".
Maybe a well lit slide or digital is the suit and tie a pot wears when
it's looking for a job.
And as for that level field -- I'm not sure anybody, anywhere is going
to get rich and famous from making pots, not with all the degrees and
photoshop technologies in the world. Not every good potter even cares to
sell pots, and others have no interest in being recognized by other
potters. So maybe this is a case of the quote my husband likes -- "The
battles are so fierce because the stakes are so low".
Yours
Kelly in Ohio, on the monday of finals week... after 9 months of driving
200+ miles a week, sleeping away from home every Tuesday night and
making not one single pot that wasn't for school, I'll be done for the
summer starting thursday morning. I'm a little freaked out by that ;0)
http://www.primalpotter.com
Reduce your debt up to 40%. Click here for debt consolidation
information.
_______________________________________________________________
Get the Free email that has everyone talking at http://www.mail2world.com
Unlimited Email Storage – POP3 – Calendar – SMS – Translator – Much More!
Pat Southwood on tue 24 apr 07
Hi,
Lee said,
> I believe drawing is essential, but seeing is even more
> important.............
Photography can help you know what is essential in an
image..................
> Helps you cut out what is unnecessary. It can be the "haiku" of
> seeing. ..............
That sums up my feelings about the photographs that I take of the farming
landscape around me which directly inform my work. From this point of
observational clarity I can draw a distilled conclusion to convey
information of both form and surface pattern.
O.K.
truth.
I cant do "proper drawing" for toffee. Mine is kind of a rural Norfolk
version of the minimalist approach of Chinese brush painting.
Weirdly, some people who really CAN draw stuff that looks like stuff, with
shading and everything, seem to think I can draw too.
I cant, I just go for the bones.
That is why I find working from photos helpful , I can begin the process of
isolation more efficiently. _
Pat Southwood.
_________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
Lee Love on tue 24 apr 07
No doubt, it is some kind of pipe dream, with all the art programs
being closed in public schools (you know what a culture values by what
it spends its money on), but with the advent of inexpensive digital
cameras, I can see how photography could be a very useful teaching
tool .
I believe drawing is essential, but seeing is even more important.
Photography is a "safe" way for children to explore "seeing." A way
to look more closely at the world with out being expected to render
it. That, teamed up with working with images on the computers,
developing computer skills, would be an effective multi-discipline
approach.
Photography can help you know what is essential in an image.
Helps you cut out what is unnecessary. It can be the "haiku" of
seeing. Writing haiku is about sharing an experience within the
framework of a very few words. You try to evoke the experience
directly, rather than talk about it. It is a good practice for
folks who write rambling emails. I rarely read emails that cover
more than one screen (not counting the signature.) That first screen
has to show me that the writing isn't simply infatuated with their own
voice, before I will page down.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Charles Hazelaar on wed 25 apr 07
I have noticed lately that the photos I take tend to get considered for use
in their "wholeness." This is a new word, I just made it up, it refers to
seeing the background of the photo as having equal potential value as the
subject. Some of my sculpture is photo based and as it unfolds I have uses for
the sky and the parking lot, or whatever the background is, as well as the
primary subject.
Charles Hazelaar
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 25 apr 07
Dear Pat Southwood,
Drawing is about Making Marks. Image clarity comes from controlling =
those marks. But not all marks need to contribute to a precise image. =
You may accomplished at making "Gestural Statements", marks that convey =
meaning without creating a recognisable image. Often, such marks convey =
ideas about motion, or emotion.=20
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
Vince Pitelka on wed 25 apr 07
Ivor Lewis wrote:
"Drawing is about Making Marks. Image clarity comes from controlling those
marks. But not all marks need to contribute to a precise image. You may
accomplished at making "Gestural Statements", marks that convey meaning
without creating a recognisable image. Often, such marks convey ideas about
motion, or emotion."
This is really such a wonderful statement. I've taught drawing before, and
the great challenge is never to get people to draw accurately. Most people
can learn to do that just through rather lame and repetitive exercises. The
challenge is to get people to draw in a fashion that can "convey ideas about
motion, or emotion" - so that the work has real experiential content, rather
than just communicating pictorial information.
Drawing and writing are very valuable tools for developing and communicating
ideas, worthy of the expenditure of considerable time to develop both. Any
potter will benefit greatly by drawing pots (and other things) and by
writing about pots (and other things).
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Kathy Forer on thu 26 apr 07
On Apr 25, 2007, at 10:31 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Ivor Lewis wrote:
>> "Drawing is about Making Marks. Image clarity comes from =20
>> controlling those
>> marks. But not all marks need to contribute to a precise image. =20
>> You may
>> accomplished at making "Gestural Statements", marks that convey =20
>> meaning
>> without creating a recognisable image. Often, such marks convey =20
>> ideas about
>> motion, or emotion."
>
> This is really such a wonderful statement. I've taught drawing =20
> before, and
> the great challenge is never to get people to draw accurately. =20
> Most people
> can learn to do that just through rather lame and repetitive =20
> exercises. The
> challenge is to get people to draw in a fashion that can "convey =20
> ideas about
> motion, or emotion" - so that the work has real experiential =20
> content, rather
> than just communicating pictorial information.
Anyone can "learn to draw," it just takes practice, "lame and =20
repetitive exercises." The big divide in teaching drawing seems to be =20=
"draw what you see" vs. "draw what you know."
Robert Beverly Hale used to tell us how without training we draw =20
people with big feet and small heads because when we're little we see =20=
them that way. We are only drawing what we know and not what we see =20
so it's important to learn anatomy and study line, plane, color, =20
light and shade. When you really investigate what you see, you can =20
change what you know.
Another teacher taught us how important it is to move your whole arm =20
and body, to feel the sweep of the figure in space. We need both =20
approaches learning to draw. One provides structure, the other =20
expression.
Accuracy can be terribly important. It allows for freedom to play and =20=
be expressive, to discard rules, to make marks that are neither in =20
rebellion or in servitude, but possibly in awe.
Accuracy is "bones" or chops. Monet taught himself to paint by =20
learning to understand what he was seeing. That took accuracy. He =20
created his own scales perhaps, but they are there in the work.
Without practicing piano scales it might be hard to put together =20
anything remotely in between "Einstein on the Beach" and Bach Partita =20=
#7. Though 4=E2=80=B233=E2=80=B3 could probably have been created =
without =20
learning, practicing or developing scales, it might lack a certain Je =20=
ne sais quoi.
Kathy
www.kathyforer.com
Pat Southwood on thu 26 apr 07
Ivor wrote:
Drawing is about Making Marks. Image clarity comes from controlling those
marks. But not all marks need to contribute to a precise image. You may
accomplished at making "Gestural Statements", marks that convey meaning
without creating a recognisable image. Often, such marks convey ideas about
motion, or emotion.
Yes, I agree, drawing is about making marks, maybe what I really meant was
draughtsmanship, those people that do "proper" representational drawings.
Ivor, can you clarify what you mean by "not all marks need to contribute to
a precise image "
If you had to specify , say, a painter that made your point, who would you
choose?
Regards,
Pat Southwood
Lee Love on thu 26 apr 07
On 4/25/07, Charles Hazelaar wrote:
> I have noticed lately that the photos I take tend to get considered for use
> in their "wholeness."
Hi Charles, Have you every worked with pinhole images?
Everything is equally focused, unlike the human eye.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Ivor and Olive Lewis on fri 27 apr 07
Dear Pat Southwood ,
You ask, relating to Drawing as a process of making marks <to specify , say, a painter that made your point, who would you choose? =
>>=20
An interesting question, though you may find my answer unacceptable.
I am not in the habit of using works of artists as examples to =
illustrate concepts or processes when teaching the practice of Drawing. =
I follow the example of people who taught me to draw. Given the medium =
and the support I encourage exploration of what can be done with both to =
generate as many alternative marks as possible. These can then be =
exploited as a personal graphic vocabulary. I also teach my students to =
use erasers as creative mark makers.
I have found when companions in a class try to mimic the actions of each =
other there is such a difference in results they appreciate imitation is =
not really possible. Graphic expression has unique individual traits. =
Gesture and Emotion are governing factors.
An interesting exercise is to photocopy a sketch of one of the master =
draughtsmen and to copy it. When you reach point beyond which you feel =
there will be no improvement take a fresh sheet of paper, invert your =
model and make a new copy, inverted as you see it. I am sure anyone who =
tries this will learn something of their own skills, their strengths and =
inadequacies.
Best regards,
Ivor.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on fri 27 apr 07
Dear Vince Pitelka,=20
Thank you for supporting my statement about the nature of drawing
I believe there is a wonderful relationship between some forms of =
graphic express and clay expression. Both can by highly gestural, highly =
dynamic, intensely expressive.
Best regards,
Ivor
Ivor and Olive Lewis on sat 28 apr 07
Taking up the point made by Kathy Forer about perception and perspective =
representation <training we draw people with big feet and small heads because when we're =
little we see them that way. We are only drawing what we know and not =
what we see>>
Described this way, that is, as a memory from childhood that becomes a =
stereotype, the image should also show the arms projecting from the =
head.
For an early view of the development of drawing ability see Rhoda =
Kellog, "Analysing Children's Art" ( sorry, no other details to hand).
I found that a good way to assess the visual perceptiveness of =
adolescents and adults was to ask them to draw a rectilinear plaster =
block about 20 cms high with a 10*10 base, located on its base with one =
vertical face in their direct line of sight. (they had made these blocks =
and were to learn the skills of direct carving)
Taylor Hendrix on sat 28 apr 07
Analyzing children's art /
Rhoda Kellogg
1977
English Book [4], 308 p. : ill. ; 21 cm.
Palo Alto : Mayfield Pub. ; London : Muller,
LCCN: 67-29530
Don't have this book in hand, but being an early 70's book, it may be
dated with respect to current theory. But then, what's so great about
current theory?
She also wrote:
The psychology of children's art,
Rhoda Kellogg; Scott O'Dell
1967
English Book 109 p. col. illus. 29 cm.
[San Diego, Calif.] CRM; distributed by Random House, New York
LCCN: 67-31968
and
Children's drawings, children's minds /
Rhoda Kellogg
1979
English Book 244 p. (p. 242-244 blank) : ill. ; 26 cm.
New York, N.Y. : Avon, ; ISBN: 0380473992 : 9780380473991
and
What children scribble and why.
Rhoda Kellogg
1959
English Book 137 p. illus. 26 cm.
Palo Alto, Calif., N-P Publications
LCCN: 60-17053
Enjoy,
Tay, in Rock TX
On 4/27/07, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
...
> For an early view of the development of drawing ability see Rhoda Kellog, "Analysing Children's Art" ( sorry, no other details to hand).
The Goodsons on sat 28 apr 07
Taylor Hendrix wrote:
> Analyzing children's art /
> Rhoda Kellogg
>
Hello! That book caught my eye! I have it, love it, mine is worn and
underlined. The author has studied the scribbles of children in
depth. She also links art with mental development. Rhonda Kellogg
makes a great case for the importance of art in a child's education- she
shows how the scribbles progress over time. (lots of great pictures of
scribbles) She tells how adults and society begin to influence their
art as well.
It has been a while since I have read this- I think of will have to
dust it off and read it again. Thank you Ivor and Taylor for suggesting it.
The information in this book seems timeless to me - I hope that it is
still recommended reading for anyone majoring in art ed.
Good day,
Linda Goodson
Lincolnton, NC
Pat Southwood on sat 28 apr 07
Ivor,
I too was taught to draw with a rubber (that is to say an eraser) - it is,
I believe a taught practice straight from the Bauhaus Foundation course.
Best Wishes,
Pat S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivor and Olive Lewis"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: thinking about photos
Dear Pat Southwood ,
You ask, relating to Drawing as a process of making marks <specify , say, a painter that made your point, who would you choose? >>
An interesting question, though you may find my answer unacceptable.
I am not in the habit of using works of artists as examples to illustrate
concepts or processes when teaching the practice of Drawing. I follow the
example of people who taught me to draw. Given the medium and the support I
encourage exploration of what can be done with both to generate as many
alternative marks as possible. These can then be exploited as a personal
graphic vocabulary. I also teach my students to use erasers as creative mark
makers.
I have found when companions in a class try to mimic the actions of each
other there is such a difference in results they appreciate imitation is not
really possible. Graphic expression has unique individual traits. Gesture
and Emotion are governing factors.
An interesting exercise is to photocopy a sketch of one of the master
draughtsmen and to copy it. When you reach point beyond which you feel there
will be no improvement take a fresh sheet of paper, invert your model and
make a new copy, inverted as you see it. I am sure anyone who tries this
will learn something of their own skills, their strengths and inadequacies.
Best regards,
Ivor.
______________________________________________________________________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on sun 29 apr 07
Dear Taylor Hendrix,=20
Thanks for dotting the "I's" and crossing the "T's" on that one.
Having avoided classrooms for over fifteen years I am sure my approach =
to teaching is well past its "Use by date". But I always maintain the =
principles set down by Quintilian continue to be applied in most =
schools.
Best regards,
Ivor
| |
|
