Richard Aerni on thu 8 nov 07
Lili,
I'm having to write you personally as the archives don't seem to be
responding so I can answer you on list...
Not that I've much an answer to your thoughts, which make me realize that I
am far more "old school" than the new breed out there.
I wanted to be a potter because I admired the potters I knew, and the life
they lead. I was into the counterculture, but political activism was
waning, and I was a bit burnt out. I got into the co-op movement, and into
the organic movement, and worked in, and managed, and finally owned a
vegetarian restaurant. But it didn't answer something in me that was
calling out. I took a clay course at a local pottery and was hooked. Being
an object maker seemed the coolest thing possible for a person who had
previously been pretty much a person of ideas. Slowing down life, living
consciously and with care and attention to detail, which seemed to embody
the potter's life, was incredibly attractive to me. Anais Nin in her
diaries, which came out in the early 70s, talked about changing yourself,
and then changing those around you. This was a more attainable goal than
some of the other things I'd been trying to accomplish with political
activism. And pottery, at the level that I saw it being practiced, was
something that engaged the mind, body and soul on a lifelong basis. I
didn't care about (or at least not too much) recognition, fame, etc. It was
the lifestyle that got me.
And with the exception of a few speedbumps along the way (magazine covers,
articles, believing that because people came to see me work at my workshops,
that I was "extra special"), it still is the life that matters. It's not as
discipline oriented as say, a monastic life, but there is something of that
in it for me. I look around at all of the other things I could be doing,
and with few exceptions, I think that I made a wise choice to be a potter.
I am sure there is much to be learned by furthering one's education at an
academic institution, such as by getting an MFA, but if I believed that all
learning happened there, I'd have been there long ago. Tony Clennell has
got a goal in mind with his return to school, and good on him going after
it. But, the criticism and education that he is receiving there is
available elsewhere, and I just don't mean in another school. You just have
to want to get it, and be determined enough to find it.
Anyway, this has turned into a long slog with little payback. Personally, I
don't care what anyone calls me or my work. Artist, potter, craftsman, it's
all about someone else's view of what's important. And I simply call myself
an object maker. It's what I do...no value judgments attached.
Let the chips fall where they may. After I'm gone, others will call my work
what they will, and it won't matter one whit to me.
Enjoy the journey!
Best,
Richard
Richard Aerni
146 Eastland Avenue
Rochester, NY 14618
585-473-5579
Studio
1115 East Main St. Suite 106
Rochester, NY 14609
585-429-0211
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 13 nov 07
Hi Richard,
I enjoyed your mentions, they make perfect sense to me...and are
somewhat related to my own Romance of Making Things.
Anyway...
I did not find the part which goes into ''...can Trees communicate.." which
the subject line had indicated.
And, of course, that interests me also...so...
Where did that part go?
Or had it been somewhere previous and I missed it?
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Aerni"
> Lili,
> I'm having to write you personally as the archives don't seem to be
> responding so I can answer you on list...
>
> Not that I've much an answer to your thoughts, which make me realize that
> I
> am far more "old school" than the new breed out there.
>
> I wanted to be a potter because I admired the potters I knew, and the life
> they lead. I was into the counterculture, but political activism was
> waning, and I was a bit burnt out. I got into the co-op movement, and
> into
> the organic movement, and worked in, and managed, and finally owned a
> vegetarian restaurant. But it didn't answer something in me that was
> calling out. I took a clay course at a local pottery and was hooked.
> Being
> an object maker seemed the coolest thing possible for a person who had
> previously been pretty much a person of ideas. Slowing down life, living
> consciously and with care and attention to detail, which seemed to embody
> the potter's life, was incredibly attractive to me. Anais Nin in her
> diaries, which came out in the early 70s, talked about changing yourself,
> and then changing those around you. This was a more attainable goal than
> some of the other things I'd been trying to accomplish with political
> activism. And pottery, at the level that I saw it being practiced, was
> something that engaged the mind, body and soul on a lifelong basis. I
> didn't care about (or at least not too much) recognition, fame, etc. It
> was
> the lifestyle that got me.
>
> And with the exception of a few speedbumps along the way (magazine covers,
> articles, believing that because people came to see me work at my
> workshops,
> that I was "extra special"), it still is the life that matters. It's not
> as
> discipline oriented as say, a monastic life, but there is something of
> that
> in it for me. I look around at all of the other things I could be doing,
> and with few exceptions, I think that I made a wise choice to be a potter.
> I am sure there is much to be learned by furthering one's education at an
> academic institution, such as by getting an MFA, but if I believed that
> all
> learning happened there, I'd have been there long ago. Tony Clennell has
> got a goal in mind with his return to school, and good on him going after
> it. But, the criticism and education that he is receiving there is
> available elsewhere, and I just don't mean in another school. You just
> have
> to want to get it, and be determined enough to find it.
>
> Anyway, this has turned into a long slog with little payback. Personally,
> I
> don't care what anyone calls me or my work. Artist, potter, craftsman,
> it's
> all about someone else's view of what's important. And I simply call
> myself
> an object maker. It's what I do...no value judgments attached.
> Let the chips fall where they may. After I'm gone, others will call my
> work
> what they will, and it won't matter one whit to me.
>
> Enjoy the journey!
> Best,
> Richard
> Richard Aerni
> 146 Eastland Avenue
> Rochester, NY 14618
> 585-473-5579
>
> Studio
> 1115 East Main St. Suite 106
> Rochester, NY 14609
> 585-429-0211
Richard Aerni on tue 13 nov 07
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:48:18 -0800, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>I enjoyed your mentions, they make perfect sense to me...and are
>somewhat related to my own Romance of Making Things.
>Anyway...
>I did not find the part which goes into ''...can Trees communicate.." which
>the subject line had indicated.
Phil,
I don't know where that part went...I just threw it in there because the
discussion got sidetracked onto whether the intent of art is to communicate
primarily, whether craft communicates, whether two year olds having tantrums
are communicating, and whether trees falling in forests in solitude are
communicating. I did get some private emails about methods of communication
in nature which were interesting, however!
Now, if you feel that this is communication, I guess it is art, which makes
you and I ARTISTES!
Best,
Richard
Lee Love on wed 14 nov 07
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:48:52 -0500, Richard Aerni
wrote:
>I don't know where that part went...I just threw it in there because the
>discussion got sidetracked onto whether the intent of art is to communicate=
>primarily, whether craft communicates, whether two year olds having
>tantrums are communicating, and whether trees falling in forests in
>solitude arecommunicating.
The problem comes from the maker not knowing the difference between=
expressing and communicating.
Communication requires some intent to hear the other person.
Expressing only requires an Ego and narcissisms. Communication requires
some altruistic intent. Expressing doesn't necessarily enhance character
development. Communicating with an altruistic intend does.
When you work for something larger than yourself you are enabled to=
go beyond the constrains of your personality.
"As the potter turns the wheel, the wheel turns the potter."
~~Clay Mudman
--
Lee Love, now in Mashiko, Japan
=93When it is working, you completely go into another place, you're tapping
into things that are totally universal, completely beyond your ego and your
own self. That's what it's all about.=94 ~~Keith Haring
Kathy Forer on wed 14 nov 07
On Nov 14, 2007, at 2:05 AM, Lee Love wrote:
> Communication requires some intent to hear the other
> person.
> Expressing only requires an Ego and narcissisms. Communication
> requires
> some altruistic intent. Expressing doesn't necessarily enhance
> character
> development. Communicating with an altruistic intend does.
Not all communication is altruistic! Think of the Mass Communicator,
Master Communicator... communication can as easily be manipulative as
altruistic.
A baby communicates very well when it's wet, tired or hungry. A
tantrum can be anger and frustration expressed for all to hear.
Without that expression there is no communication.
Communication is a message the tree shares with the forest. It is an
exchange and has little to do with altruism or intent. Intent is a
shading or variant, not an essential factor.
-- Kathy
www.kathyforer.com
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on thu 15 nov 07
Hi Richard,
Ahhhhh...
Makes sense.
Yeah...as for me, it seems that I notice matters getting vexed sometimes
when especially narrow and connotative forms of meaning being meant or
desired, when actually very general terms are being used, and of course
contentions or troubles can easily result then 'as' the formost quality or
dimension of the 'communication'...or of the disjunction.
The term 'communication' is so general and all-encompassing that when we
have something specific in mind in terms of quality or character of
communication, that we intend to mean, probably it is best if we use the
specific terms of those qualitys or character, to mean it with...instead of
the general term which includes them, and, usually, includes too much else
which is not-them.
Trying to make the general term mean sub-tenses will occasion confusions.
Thats my appreciation anyway.
But just to have some more fun with the medley -
Have you ever noticed how people pay attention to 'Babys'? To Infants?
Toddlers? ( let alone the deplorable quality of attention they pay to
one-another? and everything else? )
My own occasions of seeing how the young child is payed attention to by
their parents and others, supplies more than enough 'reason' to my
understandings, for that child TO end up having 'tantrums'.
Personally, I would much rather see sentient, ingenuous 'two year olds', and
the disjunctive insular spoiled disingenuous and typically schitzogenic
parents, having the 'tantrums'...and in this day-and-age, if they did so in
public, the cops would show up and 'Tazer' them for it, too I expect...
In fact, the way things are going, cops will soon be Tazering 'two year
olds' for that matter.
But anyway...
Whatchagunnado...
All in all, there is something so mysterious and delicate and curious about
'Trees communicating' I do not have the Heart to discuss it so close to
those human confusions which are
everything their occupations are not.
Later...be fun to do though...
Love,
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Aerni"
>>Hi Richard,
>>I enjoyed your mentions, they make perfect sense to me...and are
>>somewhat related to my own Romance of Making Things.
>>Anyway...
>>I did not find the part which goes into ''...can Trees communicate.."
>>which
>>the subject line had indicated.
>
> Phil,
> I don't know where that part went...I just threw it in there because the
> discussion got sidetracked onto whether the intent of art is to
> communicate
> primarily, whether craft communicates, whether two year olds having
> tantrums
> are communicating, and whether trees falling in forests in solitude are
> communicating. I did get some private emails about methods of
> communication
> in nature which were interesting, however!
> Now, if you feel that this is communication, I guess it is art, which
> makes
> you and I ARTISTES!
> Best,
> Richard
Richard Aerni on thu 15 nov 07
Phil,
I enjoyed your response. My thoughts run wild at the moment, after a long
hard day in the studio, but a few thoughts in response...
First, I heard a story on the news yesterday where police in Georgia (I may
be wrong about the location) tazered a five year old. So, not so far
removed from a two year old, sadly...
Secondly, I've nothing against communication. In fact, I strongly believe
in it. But, it is a broad term, as you noted, and I prefer not to engage in
a semantic discussion which perhaps will never end, and instead get on with
the making of pots, which will either be finished and sold in the next month
or else wait around for a long time to come. But, I do not think that
"expression" and "communication" are mutually exclusive, as has been implied
in another part of this "discussion." And in fact, there are so many ways
to communicate, so many creatures that communicate, that trying to parse
which is the type of communication that Lee intended in his statements is a
bit futile. I don't think ill of Lee at all for his contentions or his
parts in the discussion...I enjoy his thoughts, but just didn't feel the
need to decide here and now whether art is about communication, expression,
or something else entirely. That is for others to worry about...not my bag,
as they used to say. But, I do happen to believe that a two year old's
tantrum is most often a communication technique as well as an expressive
act. In fact, as I was reading one of Wendell Berry's stories yesterday,
_The Solemn Boy_, I was thinking about Lee (who likes his writings very
much) and thinking that a tantrum is in fact a communication, and that a
child who is without words or visible emotions has lost that kind of ability
to communicate.
At any rate, I'm sorry that I didn't sufficiently engage in a discussion
about the means of communication of other living entities. It is a
fascinating subject indeed, but just a bit off track of the original topic.
All the best,
Richard Aerni
Rochester, NY...snow tomorrow, they say!
Lee Love on sat 17 nov 07
On 11/16/07, Richard Aerni wrote:
> which is the type of communication that Lee intended in his statements is=
a
> bit futile. I don't think ill of Lee at all for his contentions or his
> parts in the discussion...I enjoy his thoughts, but just didn't feel the
> need to decide here and now whether art is about communication, expressio=
n,
> or something else entirely.
Richard,
Let me make it simple. (I get unsubbed to this list just about
every day and find that some of my posts don't reach the list.)
It is just the difference between the post-modern
emphasis on "self-expression" and the perennial devotional
motivation. In simple expression, you just put it out there make it
the observers responsibility to figure out what you are saying.
For most of creative human life, the work has been about
more than one person's self. It is a connection of the present, with
all the past and all the future to come.
When you work with an intention that is greater than
yourself, you can do more than you might otherwise be able to. Very
ordinary people can make remarkable work. Just look at the worlds
folk art and craft. But, they tend not to have an egocentric
perspective.
Not to say other ways of working are invalid. But when
we live in a society that is so immersed in "the cult of personality",
the way we have always worked gets lost.
Questions are important. Answers just stop your search
unless they create new questions. It requires humility and the right
intention:
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn
how to do it."
=97 Pablo Picasso
"Painting is stronger than I am. It can make me do whatever it wants."
-- Pablo Picasso
"Most people have turned their solutions toward what is easy and
toward the easiest side of the easy; but it is clear that we must
trust in what is difficult; everything alive trusts in it."
=97 Rainer Maria Rilke
"If the angel
deigns to come
it will be because
you have convinced
her, not by tears
but by your humble
resolve to be always
beginning; to be a beginner."
=97 Rainer Maria Rilke
"Anything you grab hold of on the bank breaks with the river's
pressure. When you do things from your soul, the river itself moves
through you. Freshness and a deep joy are signs of the current."
=97 Coleman Barks, The Essential Rumi
"Setting skepticism aside, even briefly, can make for very interesting
explorations. . . . It is not necessary that we change any of our
beliefs. It is necessary that we examine them."
=97 Julia Cameron, The Artist's Way
--=20
Lee in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by
education." -- Bertrand Russell
| |
|
