Ivor and Olive Lewis on mon 6 aug 07
Dear Elizabeth Priddy,=20
Thank you for your note. As I suggested, it would seem that this is a =
discussion about Metaphysical things. Perhaps I would understand better =
if it were possible to define the qualia of Ugliness.
When is a Pot Ugly ?
Best regards,
Ivor
Elizabeth Priddy on mon 6 aug 07
Ivor,=0A=0AI have changed this to rich text with no additional formatting,=
=0Aso here goes, according to kathy's suggestion:=0A=0AI did not suggest th=
at you are afraid of words, Ivor, but=0Arather that Lee seems to dislike th=
e big words...since he=0Aremoved the one he was unfamiliar with from the po=
stings=0Aabout it and then ranted about how it did not exist. You don't do=
=0Athings like this and are speaking ( I think) in a second language just=
=0Ato talk here at all, so I respect your use of words very much.=0A=0AQual=
ia is a real thing, passed down from the ancient =0AGreek philosophers. Ge=
stalt is unproven and a psychological =0Aconcept.=0A=0AThe qualia of ugly t=
hings is still inherent to the observer and=0Anot the observed object, same=
as everything else. =0A=0AUgliness, in my view for instance, is character=
ized=0Aby two main things, although there are certainly others=0A(Jon Benet=
Ramsey comes to mind):=0A=0A1. form that does not follow function=0A=0A2. =
chaotic visual imagery=0A=0Aboth of these things are very subjective to my =
taste and =0Aunderstanding, hence the qualia residing in my perception=0Aan=
d not the object itself. I have thought a lot, as philosophers=0Atend to d=
o, about why I think things are ugly or beautiful and I=0Aam clear in my ow=
n mind regarding my rough sort categories,=0Athe converse of the two above =
being beautiful to me.=0A=0Aexample 1=0A=0AWhen I see a thing that is calle=
d a teapot and=0Ait pours badly or is not made of clay, it is ugly to me. =
I do not=0Afind objects d'art of this class ironic or entertaining, but rat=
her=0Aperversions of a form that is classical and inherently functional.=0A=
I simply do not like them. Call them a sculpture derived from=0Athe teapot=
form and I am happy enough to look at the aesthetics=0Aand go from there.=
=0A=0ASo the thing that is making it ugly or not definitely resides in my=
=0Aexperience of the thing and not the thing, hence qualia.=0A=0Aexample 2=
=0A=0ASpattered random glaze and slashes and jabs of paint without =0Areaso=
n, harmony, and an imposed sense of order make me=0Avisually ill. I hate t=
hat type of "design" and although I certainly =0Aunderstand it in principle=
, I detest it and see it as an artistic cop-out.=0AArtists who are pursuing=
this style of decoration rarely pull it off.=0APollock pulled it off. I h=
aven't seen any others that do that in my=0Aexperience. This means nothing=
other than an issue of my own=0Atastes and preference for order in my life=
. The ugliness of objects=0Alike this is purely an issue of qualia for me =
and not of the object itself,=0Aas plenty of others observe the same things=
and relish their lack of=0Aboundaries and order. A lot of amateur pottery=
resorts to this method=0Aof covering the surface when their skills do not =
allow for more.=0A=0ASo that would be qualia regarding ugliness in pots and=
other things.=0A=0AE=0A=0AElizabeth Priddy =0ABeaufort, NC - USA =0A=0ANat=
ural Instincts Conference Information: =0Ahttp://downtothepottershouse.com/=
NaturalInstincts.html =0Ahttp://www.elizabethpriddy.com =0Ahttp://www.flick=
r.com/photos/7973282@N03/ =0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ---- =0AFrom: =
Ivor and Olive Lewis =0ATo: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.OR=
G =0ASent: Monday, August 6, 2007 2:16:42 AM =0ASubject: : Re: qualia, beau=
ty, and clear speech =0A=0A=0ADear Elizabeth Priddy, =0A=0AThank you for yo=
ur note. As I suggested, it would seem that this is a discussion about Meta=
physical things. Perhaps I would understand better if it were possible to d=
efine the qualia of Ugliness. =0A=0AWhen is a Pot Ugly ? =0A=0ABest regards=
, =0A=0AIvor =0A=0A________________________________________________________=
______________________ =0ASend postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org =0A=0AY=
ou may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription =0Aset=
tings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/ =0A=0AModerator of the list is =
Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.=0A=0A=0A ______=
___________________________________________________________________________=
___=0ALuggage? GPS? Comic books? =0ACheck out fitting gifts for grads at Ya=
hoo! Search=0Ahttp://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=3Doni_on_mail&p=3Dgraduatio=
n+gifts&cs=3Dbz
Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 7 aug 07
Dear Elizabeth Priddy,=20
Thanks for trying to eliminate the formatting text. Your efforts were =
thwarted.
Again I enjoyed reading an exquisite essay.
Do I take it you are averse to the work of Jackson Pollock ! I have =
feelings about disorganised marks or when decoration and structure do =
not complement each other. Another aversion is the way some artists =
negate function via distortion, a frequent fate of "The Teapot" as =
frequently illustrated in CM.
In some of the postings it is often difficult to separate language from =
metalanguage.
Best regards and thank you for taking the time.
Ivor=20
Kathy Forer on tue 7 aug 07
Elizabeth,
A pity the Rich Text didn't work. Mel's right, Yahoo is messed up
(though there's a lot to like). Either switch back to stable non-
beta, wait for the new LSV tech to change things, get Yahoo extended
for POP mail or get Gmail or another.
Kathy
(I took the liberty, ha! of reformatting your post below)
On Aug 6, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> Ivor,
>
> I have changed this to rich text with no additional formatting,
> so here goes, according to kathy's suggestion:
>
> I did not suggest that you are afraid of words, Ivor, but
> rather that Lee seems to dislike the big words...since he
> removed the one he was unfamiliar with from the postings
> about it and then ranted about how it did not exist. You don't do
> things like this and are speaking ( I think) in a second language just
> to talk here at all, so I respect your use of words very much.
>
> Qualia is a real thing, passed down from the ancient
> Greek philosophers. Gestalt is unproven and a psychological
> concept.
>
> The qualia of ugly things is still inherent to the observer and
> not the observed object, same as everything else.
>
> Ugliness, in my view for instance, is characterized
> by two main things, although there are certainly others
> (Jon Benet Ramsey comes to mind):
>
> 1. form that does not follow function
>
> 2. chaotic visual imagery
>
> both of these things are very subjective to my taste and
> understanding, hence the qualia residing in my perception
> and not the object itself. I have thought a lot, as philosophers
> tend to do, about why I think things are ugly or beautiful and I
> am clear in my own mind regarding my rough sort categories,
> the converse of the two above being beautiful to me.
>
> example 1
>
> When I see a thing that is called a teapot and
> it pours badly or is not made of clay, it is ugly to me. I do not
> find objects d'art of this class ironic or entertaining, but rather
> perversions of a form that is classical and inherently functional.
> I simply do not like them. Call them a sculpture derived from
> the teapot form and I am happy enough to look at the aesthetics
> and go from there.
>
> So the thing that is making it ugly or not definitely resides in my
> experience of the thing and not the thing, hence qualia.
>
> example 2
>
> Spattered random glaze and slashes and jabs of paint without
> reason, harmony, and an imposed sense of order make me
> visually ill. I hate that type of "design" and although I certainly
> understand it in principle, I detest it and see it as an artistic
> cop-out.
> Artists who are pursuing this style of decoration rarely pull it off.
> Pollock pulled it off. I haven't seen any others that do that in my
> experience. This means nothing other than an issue of my own
> tastes and preference for order in my life. The ugliness of objects
> like this is purely an issue of qualia for me and not of the object
> itself,
> as plenty of others observe the same things and relish their lack of
> boundaries and order. A lot of amateur pottery resorts to this method
> of covering the surface when their skills do not allow for more.
>
> So that would be qualia regarding ugliness in pots and other things.
>
> E
>
> Elizabeth Priddy
> Beaufort, NC - USA
>
> Natural Instincts Conference Information:
> http://downtothepottershouse.com/NaturalInstincts.html
> http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/7973282@N03/
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ivor and Olive Lewis
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Sent: Monday, August 6, 2007 2:16:42 AM
> Subject: : Re: qualia, beauty, and clear speech
>
>
> Dear Elizabeth Priddy,
>
> Thank you for your note. As I suggested, it would seem that this is
> a discussion about Metaphysical things. Perhaps I would understand
> better if it were possible to define the qualia of Ugliness.
>
> When is a Pot Ugly ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ivor
| |
|
