Lili Krakowski on thu 9 aug 07
I have,with great awe, followed--well, tried to follow--the discussion
about The Beautiful. I have learned two new words-- "qualia" and
"meme"--which I will try hard to work into my daily vocabulary. Beyond
that, I remain confused--not about the topic, but about the nature of the
discussion.
I admit the only part of philosophy that interests me is ethics. How do I
know what I know, do I know I am, and if so, do I care? is all beyond me.
Having acknowledged this failing--to me beauty is not to be explained by
philosophy, because it is an emotion. Like love, it is an emotional
EXPERIENCE, and, if it must be explained at all--and I see no real
reason--then it can only be explained by psychology.
My guess is that emotions are "hard-wired" into us. I have seen infants
reacting to what they consider beautiful, although their language skills
reduce it to a drooled "putty" or "perty". We all have seen children
embrace a particular toy, picking a certain piece of clothing...all
manifestations of a concept of beauty. We all know the story of the owl
mother who thought her babies "the most beautiful babies in the world".
Certainly concepts of beauty are entwined with culture. Our own wonderful
Mensch, Elizabeth, said our culture does not consider her as beautiful as
a certain movie star, because Zaftig is out, and beanpole is in. This
"Beauty as commercial product", is, I fear, the best the culture does right
now. Theoretically, and God forbid, if we took Our Elizabeth and sent her
to a spa (factory) we could turn her into yet another product. I doubt any
spa/factory could turn a pop-culture-star into a Mensch!
Beauty, as an emotion like love, fits into experience. We look across a
crowded room, see someone, and are hit in the gut by overpowering love.
We look over a mist filled valley on a Spring morning and are hit in the gut
by its overpowering beauty. Thought comes into the picture later. (If we
misbehave, we are hit in the gut by Mel or Wayne with that 2 x4 --but that
is another matter. )
So when we make beautiful objects we express personal emotion. I don't
think we follow some outline.
In a recent post someone spoke of "art made by non-artists" which expressed
perfectly the confusion language inflicts on us.
It was apparently work made by some people in a mental hospital...If mental
illness prevented people from making works of art, then half a dozen
rightly-famous artists would drop off the list. If the works ARE "art" then
is it not by definition that them wot made'em is "artists"? I think we
have, perhaps in pursuit of PC, confused both ourselves and others. We call
something "art" we call something "beautiful" without any criterion except
that the current cultural convention imposes the terms on us. (Just as, to
my ongoing horror, fear of PC police makes respectable publications allow
sentences such as "our resort gives each
guest the vacation THEY want..." so frightened is everyone of the third
person singular!
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
Lee Love on fri 10 aug 07
On 8/10/07, Fred Parker wrote:
>
> I recall inciting much consternation and discontent among art/architecture
> faculty and students alike by stating my personal definition of "art" back
> in college during the '60's and '70's. I said it is simply an expression
> of human emotion.
Fred, do you have a webpage with your work up? I want to view
the emotion in your work.
Emotion is a subset of what art is, but art is not limited to
emotions. On the otherhand...
We are exposed to more cultures from a variety of times and places
than at any other time in human history. So a large part of our
endeavor is to find some focus. We aren't limited by provincial
blinders, unless we choose to be, so we have to put arbitrary
limitations on what we do. An emotional focus is as good as any.
> This is why we are often taken by the elegance of a simple little scribble
> by a five year-old or a sculpture made by a toothless grade-school dropout
> shade tree mechanic who put his welding skills to the task of showing us
> how he sees a discarded, rusted-out fender.
What research has found (you can find it on the web
with Google), and what is seen in zen inspired art, is that simpler
curves, lines and gestures often say more than more complicated ones
do. Examples given are spare cave paints, but also the drawings of
savants who otherwise have very limited intellectual capabilities.
Less can say more.
> There will always be those who opt to blather on about their "philosophy"
> et cetra ad nauseum... Like trained seals, some are occasionally
> entertaining.
You said it. Even with words, often, less said has more meaning.
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Fred Parker on fri 10 aug 07
Dear Lili Krakowski:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:48:28 -0400, Lili Krakowski
wrote:
>BIG SNIP OF MUCH RIGHT-ON, TO-THE-POINT COMMENT...
>
>We call
>something "art" we call something "beautiful" without any criterion except
>that the current cultural convention imposes the terms on us. (Just as, to
>my ongoing horror, fear of PC police makes respectable publications allow
>sentences such as "our resort gives each
>guest the vacation THEY want..." so frightened is everyone of the third
>person singular!
I recall inciting much consternation and discontent among art/architecture
faculty and students alike by stating my personal definition of "art" back
in college during the '60's and '70's. I said it is simply an expression
of human emotion. I suppose as an architecture student I was supposed to
be more philosophical and eloquent...
However, in the years since, I have yet to find any reason to revise.
Whether its medium is clay or paint/canvas or sonic vibrations or bricks
and mortar or a fresh fillet of rainbow trout makes little difference.
This is why we are often taken by the elegance of a simple little scribble
by a five year-old or a sculpture made by a toothless grade-school dropout
shade tree mechanic who put his welding skills to the task of showing us
how he sees a discarded, rusted-out fender.
There will always be those who opt to blather on about their "philosophy"
et cetra ad nauseum... Like trained seals, some are occasionally
entertaining.
Fred Parker
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sat 11 aug 07
Hi Fred, all...
Below...amid...just a little...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Parker"
> I recall inciting much consternation and discontent among art/architecture
> faculty and students alike by stating my personal definition of "art" back
> in college during the '60's and '70's. I said it is simply an expression
> of human emotion. I suppose as an architecture student I was supposed to
> be more philosophical and eloquent...
Well...I think that is definitely toward the correct direction...but it
paused short.
Actually, as an Architectural Student, or once having one's "stamp", the
role to which one is assigned, all along, is to be someone's "bitch" one way
or the other, and have no real anything going for one's self, but to
patronize the idiot teachers for grades, and later, the idiot clients, for
money, or the idiot senior pardners, as it were...for security and money.
It seems to me ( not that I have solved the riddle for myself, or certainly
not well enough in practice to feel satisfied, but enough to feel
encouraged )...that...
Emotion needs to be distinguished from Aesthetics, or rather, from one's
innate or endemic and approximately innocent aesthetic sense, the sort of
'apogeocentrism' with which we were endowed, but which is liable to
interferance from damaged compromised ( needy ) others, who will do harm to
satiate their anxieties.
Aesthetic Sense, as endemic grace and intelligence, which may be lived,
while not loseing sight of the relation
or confluences, of this, of it, with 'emotion'.
Probably, if there is anything of value to be somehow wrung from the 'Garden
of Eden' Story, it would be to consider that the 'Apple', was, in fact,
'emotion'...
'emotion' is Spiritual and mental damage, and the dynamics of that damage,
and it's compromises and dis-advantage's all too supressed and dynamic
insecuritys.
As I understand it, or have noticed in various ruminations about myself,
emotion is a corruption and de-railing of aesthetic
sense, usually being some permutation of concessions to the effects of
trauma ( experiences of violation , overwhelming and untimely threat,
conmdition of powelessness under duress or threat, or privation which one
could not
handle or have or bear at the time, under the circumstances ) .
A culture values 'emotion' ( as ours does, ) to the degree it is traumatized
and damaged from having any genuine perception or proprioception which is
aesthetically centered.
Aesthetic sense, and aesthetic sense as self posession and centeredness,
'as' Intelligence, in fact, without emotion, is imaginably the optimum
situation from which
one's apprehensions or experience may be the least cluttered or off-center
or
discontinuous or abstracted from implicit appropriateness of scale and
context and self.
Conditions of 'Beauty' or other satisfactions would be entirely vivid and
however profound or interesting in this 'light'.
'emotion' is approximately everything which is aesthetically 'wrong' with
our Society, and, with
humanity...and wrong with individuals who comprise both.
When we think of someone acting 'emotionally' we find ready examples which
are clues to this.
Including what for us, may be the obligatory responses we may have learned
to make or offer to someone ( or to ourselves, ) who is emotionally behaved.
These can be any of various things of course, including resentment, or pity,
or guilt or anger, which is just more of it.
Emotion then, whether as casual cause, or whether we attribute cause to the
trauma from
which emotion arise or becomes habituated...render genuine aesthetic sense
( and hence, self or self posession, )
to be abdicated,
or abaondoned or at least seriously compromised and diminshed...even when
capturing fringe waftings of
aesthetic apprehensions or aperceptions, to bend them to whatever yoke, or
other
harness or cage or
mis-use or pimping them, to favor emotion's biddings and drives and needyess
and collusions
for consolation and stimulations and contests or games, in endless disguises
and hungers and
permutations.
A 'Picasso' painting of a 'boy' selling for 152 million dollars or
whatever, is an example in various ways at once, of how 'emotion' will elect
substitutes for
authentic experience, do so in subterfuge and abstraction-making, and when
possible, find it, and,
flaunt it...and make things into political gestures calculated to assert
something to one's self or others, to compensate
for something lost.
So is an ugly, facile, usually overpriced condesention of a 'building'
costing about as much, or less...
Something aesthetic sense would never do.
An aesthetic sense would walk past the painting, admire it however so, and
walk on...
Or, not build the building under those terms and conditions...not patronize
the client or senior pardners, or anyone else...for money or security or
anything...for to do so, would be suicide.
In a landscape of the walking 'dead' we do well to bear in mind, that
suicide in this sense, preceeded their sorry conditions and hungers and
occupations bent to satisfy or compensate the aftermath.
Possibly, moving on to play with or make lunch for, a real boy or girl, and,
with no
need to posess or interfere with any of them...or to pay 152 million ill
gotten dollars, to posess an idea of a likeness of something no one else may
'have'.
In a society of the Living ( metaphorically speaking, ) , of posessing
authentic aesthetic sense and self posession, Picasso would have been no
more of interest than a million other things one passes every day, pauses to
enjoy a moment, and moves on...and it might not outrank the charm of a
Cricket rustling out from under a fallen Leaf...
So in summary, beware 'emotion'...and it's fruits...
Know it for what it is.
To wit: "damage" and the endless dis-guises of 'death'...and slow,
cumulative 'death' by introjection and emulation.
Thus is 'Eden'...and 'Nod'...and what distinguish them neatly.
Phil
l v
>
> However, in the years since, I have yet to find any reason to revise.
> Whether its medium is clay or paint/canvas or sonic vibrations or bricks
> and mortar or a fresh fillet of rainbow trout makes little difference.
>
> This is why we are often taken by the elegance of a simple little scribble
> by a five year-old or a sculpture made by a toothless grade-school dropout
> shade tree mechanic who put his welding skills to the task of showing us
> how he sees a discarded, rusted-out fender.
>
> There will always be those who opt to blather on about their "philosophy"
> et cetra ad nauseum... Like trained seals, some are occasionally
> entertaining.
>
> Fred Parker
Lee Love on sat 11 aug 07
I put up an example of approaching archetypal simplicity, a Jomon Venus:
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/2007/08/jomon-venus.html
On 8/10/07, Lee Love wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Fred Parker wrote:
> > This is why we are often taken by the elegance of a simple little scribble
> > by a five year-old or a sculpture made by a toothless grade-school dropout
> > shade tree mechanic who put his welding skills to the task of showing us
> > how he sees a discarded, rusted-out fender.
> do. Examples given are spare cave paints, but also the drawings of
> savants who otherwise have very limited intellectual capabilities.
> Less can say more.
>
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Linda White on sat 11 aug 07
I was an actor for a time, and I thought a lot about what acting
consisted of. In the end, I decided that emotions are the instrument
of an actor--as a piano is for a pianist, the body for a dancer, clay
and glazes for a ceramist, words for a writer. Every art form
involves human emotion because we are human, and no matter what we
do, we cannot divorce ourselves from emotion. But acting is the only
art form that uses personal emotion as it is expressed by the body as
the art form. Dancers also use the body and emotion, but it is a
trained body that moves in repeatable motions. Acting is just the
emotions--that's why every performance is different, and why
different actors can radically change the same script, even though
the words are the same, and those radically different performances
can all embody beautiful art (or truth).
So, why do I work with clay? Because it is solid--permanent. When I
make something in clay, I have a product. Something I can look at and
say, "I made that." Emotions are transparent silk scarves that float
around us and are then gone--evanescent. The most beautiful
performance on earth is only a short piece of time. Once it's gone,
it's gone. Nothing is left, only a memory. That can be good, but I
like looking at my plate in the dish drainer and seeing 1985 on the
bottom. It's still here with me, my little piece of eternity.
Linda White
LickHaven Pottery
Dushore PA
Lee Love on sat 11 aug 07
On 8/11/07, Linda White wrote:
> I was an actor for a time, and I thought a lot about what acting
> consisted of. In the end, I decided that emotions are the instrument
> of an actor--as a piano is for a pianist, the body for a dancer, clay
> and glazes for a ceramist, words for a writer.
Music, singing and chanting are good vehicles for emotion too.
Bach, especially his stringed quartets, speak about the bitter
sweetness of life.
> So, why do I work with clay? Because it is solid--permanent. When I
> make something in clay, I have a product. Something I can look at and
> say, "I made that." E
I lock our cats in the studio at night in Mashiko. Our road
outside the compound is busy. Delivers cats to the second dimension.
I kept only one piece from 5 years of work. A tsubo
imprinted with fish. Too precious to sell. They broke it one night,
knocked it off a shelf.
I chose clay, because the clay doesn't lie. We can talk
about our art until we are blue in the face. But it is better to let
the work speak.
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on sat 11 aug 07
On 8/11/07, claystevslat wrote:
> Gosh, who was it who recently said "That's might ugly. Should have to
> pay someone to remove it. haha!"?
>
> Oh, yeah. Right.
I could have wrote this for you Steve:
" I chose clay, because the clay doesn't lie. We can talk
about our art until we are blue in the face. But it is better to let
the work speak."
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on sun 12 aug 07
On 8/12/07, John Connolly wrote:
Hi John,
Emotions are often confused with intuition. Emotion is
limited to feelings, while intuition covers our mental faculties that
are not covered by the intellect/discursive thought.
In Meyers/Briggs intuition is the the counterpart to
thinking while feeling/emotion is the counterpart of thinking.
We misuse words like beauty and love when we really mean
attraction and desire. It makes these words pretty meaningless, if
in a philosophical discussion, we insist on the colloquial useage.
The Liliputianization of language.
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on sun 12 aug 07
On 8/12/07, Lee Love wrote:
> In Meyers/Briggs intuition is the the counterpart to
> thinking while feeling/emotion is the counterpart of thinking.
Sorry, dyslexed this: It is intuition/thinking and feeling/sensate
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Ivor and Olive Lewis on sun 12 aug 07
I subscribe to the idea that it is the Emotion a work incites within the =
beholder that is important. Therein lies the value of Art. It has the =
power to engender emotion.
The emotional response of a spectator is not necessarily identical to =
the emotion supposedly conveyed by the artist through her or his work. =
To expect that it should seems to be an act of supreme egotism. Such a =
goal is, perhaps, self conceit.
Best regards,
Ivor
Tom at Hutchtel.net on sun 12 aug 07
I have posted this before, but it bears repeating.
"Technique and skills must be absorbed and wrapped up and put away to become
such an intergral part of yourself that they are revealed in your work
without your thought"
-Shoji Hamada, Japanese Potter
What I think he is saying is similar to what Linda says....the emotions and
the form that follow them, whether piano, painting, pottery are where style
and art come from. Without the skils that come from practice, you won't be
able to get the emotion to show.
See the movie "The Shine" for more on this. (It's the story of pianist David
Helfgott trying to become a concert classical pianist).
Tom Wirt
Hutchinson, MN
twirt@hutchtel.net
www.claycoyote.com
>>From: "Linda White"
>>Subject: Re: "Words of art" and clear speech
>I was an actor for a time, and I thought a lot about what acting
> consisted of. In the end, I decided that emotions are the instrument
> of an actor--as a piano is for a pianist, the body for a dancer, clay
> and glazes for a ceramist, words for a writer. Every art form
> involves human emotion because we are human, and no matter what we
> do, we cannot divorce ourselves from emotion.
Lee Love on sun 12 aug 07
On 8/12/07, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
> I subscribe to the idea that it is the Emotion a work incites within the beholder that is >important. Therein lies the value of Art. It has the power to engender emotion.
I see art as a communication. Sometimes artists "express"
without an intention of communication. Their focus is on themselves
and not necessarily what affect they have on the appreciator.
In communication, the more you know about the language, the
better chance you have of successful communication. The more you
know about the language that is not limited to your personal
experience, the better chance you have of communicating with more
people.
We are really lucky with the craft of clay,the wheel,
the hand and use. They give us some limitations that help keep our
expression universal. Many "pure" arts do not have these
advantages.
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
John Connolly on sun 12 aug 07
Lee, in a post about clear speech, who broke in? The cats.
John Connolly in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
claystevslat on sun 12 aug 07
Gosh, who was it who recently said "That's might ugly. Should have to
pay someone to remove it. haha!"?
Oh, yeah. Right.
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Lee Love wrote:
>
> I put up an example of approaching archetypal simplicity, a Jomon
Venus:
claystevslat on mon 13 aug 07
Lee -
It seems that what got your goat here is that while
you dish it out real good, you don't take it well
when it comes back -- even when it comes back in
exactly the same words that you yourself used.
If you really believed that "it is better to let
the work speak" you would never have bothered to
write "that's might ugly. Should have to pay
someone to remove it. haha!" But you did, so
clearly you don't live by the idea that "it is
better to let the work speak" (unless you believe
it and fail to live by it).
And since you've (in the message you posted and
the one you sent to me directly) again gotten
into your posturing on related subjects that
make you apopletic, let's review your other issues.
You have complained that I don't have a website.
Right, I don't. I don't need one. I sell locally.
I have no need of a website. I know how to make one
(I used to be in the systems business) but there's
no point to it for me. And if you needed a website
to be a good potter, none of your hero-potters would
qualify. After all, did Hamada have a website? Did
the Jomon potters have websites?
Further, even if my pots are inferior to yours, it
doesn't make my aesthetic or my analysis worse.
There are connoisseurs of every art and craft who
don't themselves produce -- aesthetic sense may be
necessary to a 'good' artist or craftsman (note I
say may be, not is -- the point is debatable)
but aesthtic sense is verifiably not unique to
artists and craftsmen.
And as far as your criticisms of my logic, well,
fundamentally you're trying to make the argument
that:
1st premise --
Lee is a better potter than Steve
2nd premise -- (unstated)
conclusion -- "The proof is in the pudding" i.e., anything
Lee believes that disputes what Steve believes must
be right and Steve must be wrong.
Now, what's the missing premise in your syllogism?
It's the statement "A better potter must also be
better in all other classes of skill and knowledge
than a lesser potter can be." With this premise,
your syllogism 'works.' Without it, it fails.
And the missing premise is, fundamentally, the
equivalent of "I wear designer clothes so I'm
better than you" or, alternately, "might makes
right." This kind of premise I find intellectually
invalid, morally repugnant, and, based on history*,
myth**, and religion***, manifestly untrue.
In great outcomes it ends with genocide,
in small outline it's some bully on a school
yard insisting that he's 'right' that Spiderman
is cool and Superman is dumb because he's capable
of beating up anyone who disagrees with him.
I have no difficulty saying that it appears+ to me that
you throw well. No doubt better than I do. (Of course,
I see work by hundreds of potters who also throw well,
then there're the ones who hand build beautifully, and
those who do great tile work, and the carvers, and the
decorators etc. -- it goes on.) But fundamentally, that
doesn't affect anything between us. It doesn't make
anything else about your craft, or your thinking, or
your aesthetic superior.
-- Steve S
+ Based on photos -- of course you can't really understand
a pot unless you can hold it.
* Germany, 19th and 20th century
** The house of Atreus (Oresteia and source myths for it)
*** Christianity, Shia Islam, Bahai, etc.
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Lee Love wrote:
>
> On 8/11/07, claystevslat wrote:
>
> > Gosh, who was it who recently said "That's might ugly. Should
have to
> > pay someone to remove it. haha!"?
> >
> > Oh, yeah. Right.
>
> I could have wrote this for you Steve:
>
> " I chose clay, because the clay doesn't lie. We can talk
> about our art until we are blue in the face. But it is better to
let
> the work speak."
> --
> Lee
Carl Finch on mon 13 aug 07
At 08:41 PM 8/12/2007, Lee Love wrote:
>On 8/12/07, Lee Love wrote:
>
> > In Meyers/Briggs intuition is the the counterpart to
> > thinking while feeling/emotion is the counterpart of thinking.
>
>Sorry, dyslexed this: It is intuition/thinking and feeling/sensate
Keep trying, Lee. You're getting closer...
[Shhh, the rest of you! No helping!]
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on mon 13 aug 07
Hi Lee, all...
Below...amid...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Love"
> On 8/12/07, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
>
>> I subscribe to the idea that it is the Emotion a work incites within the
>> beholder that is >important. Therein lies the value of Art. It has the
>> power to engender emotion.
>
> I see art as a communication.
Well...yes, it rather would be...inevitably.
Can you name something which is not? Or which is not at least potentially
communicative?
The 'world' we 'live' in, and, the World we Live 'in', and ourselves, our
Bodys, and
the wherebywhich we percieve, also,
are, or are aggregates of 'Artifacts', and any or all of these, depending
one's wits or receptivity, are 'communicative' and
communicating...endlessly...about all sorts of things.
I guess I have never been able to isolate or abstract 'Art' from everything
else.
Or, I am surprised others can, or think they can, or imagine that they have.
> Sometimes artists "express"
> without an intention of communication. Their focus is on themselves
> and not necessarily what affect they have on the appreciator.
I have noticed.
But this, possibly, or it's compliment of cloying to effect others, is more
a succumbing to banality I think, or, 'Art' as pejoritive or low-calling or
mere indulgance of low politics...itself, something which may be
'communicated' of course, or may be celibrated even, but to be distinguished
form happier or nicer things, one would hope.
Were I making 'Art' I am certain my interest and motives would about an idea
or vignette or arrange I want to see happen or exist, and not
about per-se communicating anything as intention...or, would be about
bringing into
focus or existance, something I wish to 'see'...and after that, Devil may
take the Hindermost.
Or...
It would be because I am interested in the experience of making the Art,
more as process than resultant product...and
of seeing if I satisfied the creation of something I wanted to see happen
and or
exist, seeing if I could find the thing I wanted to respect...and
of being focused in a particular mode of being, or of mind, or of respect,
in which to do it, or to have made or claimed
a 'where' ( or mode of self ) to do it from...
...and without critical analysis about what it may or
may not 'mean' to hypothetical or unknown others, or to what sort of whom it
may or may not mean what kind of
something...or, these would be peripheral entanglements or regards anyway,
like so
much Sea Weed wafting or streaming back from the Hull as one Sail, or, Sail
on....where the Sea Weed pointeth opposite one's heading...and at best, slow
one's way.
That is my understanding as for myself anyway.
Others may have something to say, or wish to suppose they have something to
'say', which is intended
for others, in making something, making 'Art' or as may be...and where the
somehting they have to say is primary motive or interest...or confluent
anyway.
...and that is fine too of course...that is splendid even, when it is...
Fine with me anyway...
Maybe what I would have to 'say', is implicitly, that I felt something
deserved to exist, or, that it pleased me to be it's Mid-Wife.
> In communication, the more you know about the language, the
> better chance you have of successful communication.
This would not be my conclusion...or my expectation...at all.
> The more you
> know about the language that is not limited to your personal
> experience, the better chance you have of communicating with more
> people.
Should the use of Language then be limited to the personal experience of the
unknown or only partially known audience of 'other people' then, instead?
How ever would one guess these, to defer to them?
And, why would one, even if one could?
Do Birds Sing to 'Fish'?
No...they 'Sing' to those who shall understand them...and such others as may
hear it, and not understand it, shall make of it what they will.
> We are really lucky with the craft of clay,the wheel,
> the hand and use. They give us some limitations that help keep our
> expression universal. Many "pure" arts do not have these
> advantages.
They keep our expressions no more 'universal' than anything else would.
A simple servicable Bowl is able to be widely reconised as for function...as
would be a Tumbler or Pitcher and less so from there...
Probably, now a days, an AK47 or a a roll of 'Tums' or some banded stack of
$20.00s or $100.00s, would be even more of a universal appeal, and
more keenly and eagerly recognised and desired, in more of the 'world' than
not.
Or...
Universal among whom? And for what? Others who have only their own
experience, instead of
ours?
> Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
> discussion on Beauty:
>
> http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
>
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
>
> "Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
"We cook our food on Buffalo Chips, grabbin' ones that's newly born...
If I knew then what I know now, I'd've gone 'round the Horn..!"
- Abstract from an old Concertina Song of the 1840s - 1850s migrations to
Oregon and California...
No connection, just an old line I like...and which for me, or any Pilgrim by
now, probably sums up nicely enough, the whole shebang of it all in general.
Love,
Phil
l v
Ivor and Olive Lewis on mon 13 aug 07
Dear Lee Love,
I appreciate your comment regarding my suggestion that the emotion =
excited in the spectator or viewer by the works of others must be =
considered.
In regard to your suggestion <<...In communication, the more you know =
about the language, the better chance you have of successful =
communication. The more you now about the language that is not limited =
to your personal experience, the better chance you have of communicating =
with more people.>>
I would offer the following example to show that it is not necessary to =
have knowledge of the language of the maker to become highly emotional =
when faced with the work.
Some years ago I went to view an exhibition of historic works by Chinese =
Masters of antiquity. For the most part I was impressed with the works I =
saw until I came to a hanging scroll of a landscape. I stopped and =
looked and found myself unable to stem the flow of tears that erupted =
from my eyes. Rooted to the spot I cried silently as line of spectators =
divided and walked past me.
I put it to you that such an occurrence cannot be brought about through =
linguistic communication. I could not read the calligraphic cartouche. =
It was meaningless to me. I had not studied art of that period of =
Chinese history so I knew nothing of the canons of expressive =
composition. Nor would the artist have anticipated that several =
centuries after painting that scroll someone would look at their work =
and become emotionally engaged.=20
Perhaps Empathy of this nature come from the realms of Metaphysics.
Best regards,
Ivor.
Lee Love on mon 13 aug 07
On 8/13/07, claystevslat wrote:
> the work speak" you would never have bothered to
> write "that's might ugly. Should have to pay
> someone to remove it. haha!"
I never did see if it sold. I bet shipping was a big factor
in selling it.
There really wasn't anything beautiful about that pot.
The size was impressive, so, interesting from a technical perspective.
But not aesthetically interesting.
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on mon 13 aug 07
On 8/13/07, Carl Finch wrote:
> At 08:41 PM 8/12/2007, Lee Love wrote:
> >On 8/12/07, Lee Love wrote:
> >
> > > In Meyers/Briggs intuition is the the counterpart to
> > > thinking while feeling/emotion is the counterpart of thinking.
> >
> >Sorry, dyslexed this: It is intuition/thinking and feeling/sensate
>
> Keep trying, Lee. You're getting closer...
>
> [Shhh, the rest of you! No helping!]
>
> --Carl
> in Medford, Oregon
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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 in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee Love on mon 13 aug 07
On 8/13/07, Carl Finch wrote:
> Keep trying, Lee. You're getting closer...
>
S-N and T-F
Our culture is dominant S(ensate) T(hinking.) Which
would more incline us to like big and technically outrageous things
(think Hummer not Pirus.) ;^)
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Ron Roy on mon 13 aug 07
Hi Fred,
So it's not so much what you are looking at as how you feel when you are
looking at it?
RR
>I recall inciting much consternation and discontent among art/architecture
>faculty and students alike by stating my personal definition of "art" back
>in college during the '60's and '70's. I said it is simply an expression
>of human emotion. I suppose as an architecture student I was supposed to
>be more philosophical and eloquent...
>
>However, in the years since, I have yet to find any reason to revise.
>Whether its medium is clay or paint/canvas or sonic vibrations or bricks
>and mortar or a fresh fillet of rainbow trout makes little difference.
>
>This is why we are often taken by the elegance of a simple little scribble
>by a five year-old or a sculpture made by a toothless grade-school dropout
>shade tree mechanic who put his welding skills to the task of showing us
>how he sees a discarded, rusted-out fender.
>
>There will always be those who opt to blather on about their "philosophy"
>et cetra ad nauseum... Like trained seals, some are occasionally
>entertaining.
>
>Fred Parker
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Lee Love on tue 14 aug 07
On 8/14/07, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> Lofty goals for a potter, to be sure, but unless I try, I will never even have a
> chance of fleeting success.
That's what ideals are for: goals to strive toward.
You get old and inflexible before your time if you think you have arrived.
--
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
discussion on Beauty:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/beauty/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"For a democracy of excellence, the goal is not to reduce things to a
common denominator but to raise things to a shared worth."
--Paolo Soleri
Elizabeth Priddy on tue 14 aug 07
Ivor said:
I put it to you that such an occurrence cannot be brought about through
linguistic communication. I could not read the calligraphic cartouche.
It was meaningless to me. I had not studied art of that period of
Chinese history so I knew nothing of the canons of expressive composition.
Nor would the artist have anticipated that several centuries after
painting that scroll someone would look at their work and become
emotionally engaged.
Perhaps Empathy of this nature come from the realms of Metaphysics.
Best regards,
Ivor.
_____________________________________
As a chinese brush painter, I can tell you that this is the goal of it.
To engage the viewer at a level that brings great feeling to light is the
main goal either through methods of composition or subject matter
or quality of line. It rarely occurs, and much art is simply decorative.
But a brush-painter's goal is to work and practice and study enough to
be able to infuse a painting with chi, the internal energy we all can
manifest into the world with intense concentration. Some painters hold their
brush waiting and concentrating their energy before making a mark until
their arm shakes with pent up chi, or passion.
My paintings rarely achieve this, I have only one painting that makes me
feel emotional when I look at it. It is a very simple painting of a cold bird.
It is not on display. It is private.
But as I said, most of my art is decorative, a reflection of the beauty I find in nature,
an attempt to share my myopic vision of the world and capture a moment of clarity.
Lofty goals for a potter, to be sure, but unless I try, I will never even have a
chance of fleeting success.
Michelangelo's Pieta maks me react this way, the large one where she is holding her
dead son, caught at the moment between life and resurrection, when it is just a mother
and her dead son, no miracle, just a still relationship. I felt this way about it long
before I had my own son, and now that I do, I cannot bear to look at it.
And that is just a carved piece of stone.
So, In all, your experience would have made that painter the happiest painter on earth for
that moment, as your vision was clearly in tune with his.
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/
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
Fred Parker on tue 14 aug 07
Hi Ron:
The older I get, the more convinced I become that in truth I am nowhere
near as smart as I thought I was when I was younger. This has been going
on for a long time now. Bit by bit all the "intellectual" trappings
slough off into the atmosphere leaving an exposed core of opinion,
preference and, well, "feeling."
As all of this is happening I seem to become more and more comfortable
relying on that core. Maybe this is a little of what causes me to really
not give much of a gnat's ass when others disagree with my views on
things. Probably, it is also a factor in the commonplace conversion of
energetic young bucks, eager for a showdown, into crochity old farts who
see the showdowns of the bucks as mildly interesting diversions...
So I suppose the way you put it makes a lot of sense: "...it's not so much
what you are looking at as how you feel when you are looking at it." I
can recall many visits to galleries and museums to see the works of some
extraordinary artists, during which I alternated between boredom and
ecstacy -- all a function of my own reaction to the objects. I wouldn't
say that what I didn't like wasn't art in every case. For me however, the
effect it had on me emotionally is what determined how much I valued it.
I'm sure much of this was my own lack of knowledge -- or perhaps my
failure to pick up some arcane metaphor somewhere. In the end, it doesn't
really matter. To qualify as "Art" for me, the piece has to do something
for me, which is precisely why I argued some time ago that "Artist" is a
title legitimately conferred only by others -- not by the producer of the
object in question. Draftsmanship and craftsmanship don't really make
it "Art."
Thanks for replying. You triggered a recollection of something I need to
run by you. I'll do so off-list.
Regards,
Fred Parker
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:58:58 -0500, Ron Roy wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>So it's not so much what you are looking at as how you feel when you are
>looking at it?
>
>RR
>
>
>>I recall inciting much consternation and discontent among
art/architecture
>>faculty and students alike by stating my personal definition of "art"
back
>>in college during the '60's and '70's. I said it is simply an expression
>>of human emotion. I suppose as an architecture student I was supposed to
>>be more philosophical and eloquent...
>>
>>However, in the years since, I have yet to find any reason to revise.
>>Whether its medium is clay or paint/canvas or sonic vibrations or bricks
>>and mortar or a fresh fillet of rainbow trout makes little difference.
>>
>>This is why we are often taken by the elegance of a simple little
scribble
>>by a five year-old or a sculpture made by a toothless grade-school
dropout
>>shade tree mechanic who put his welding skills to the task of showing us
>>how he sees a discarded, rusted-out fender.
>>
>>There will always be those who opt to blather on about their "philosophy"
>>et cetra ad nauseum... Like trained seals, some are occasionally
>>entertaining.
>>
>>Fred Parker
>
>Ron Roy
>RR#4
>15084 Little Lake Road
>Brighton, Ontario
>Canada
>K0K 1H0
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
____
>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.
sacredclay on tue 14 aug 07
Indeed! It kind of just sat there, not singing out about anything
except it's massive size and gravity. The pot had nothing to say to
keep me looking at it. Kathryn Hughes in NC --- In
clayart@yahoogroups.com, Lee Love wrote:
>
> On 8/13/07, claystevslat wrote:
>> There really wasn't anything beautiful about that pot.
> The size was impressive, so, interesting from a technical perspective.
> But not aesthetically interesting.
>
>
> --
> Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
> discussion on Beauty:
>
>
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 15 aug 07
Dear Elizabeth Priddy,
Thanks for your analysis and the reference to your own works.
I may have been incorrect about the intentions of the Artist. But I =
still consider this to be a Metaphysical manifestation.
Best regards,
Ivor
| |
|
