Lee Love on mon 1 sep 08
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Jim Kasper wrote:
> Ceramic Arts Discussion ListHi Lee,
> What jumps out at me is .... "I Cringe" ....
>
> I definitely respect what you say, and I feel that I understand your
> meaning. That said, I think that at some point you will not cringe when
> someone says the wheel is just a tool.
I doubt it. "Just" is dismissive. Seeing tools as only objects
blinds us to the process, which actually allows the tool to work.
> I love the new ( by new , I mean just recently came into my awareness)
> pejorative: "You are such a Tool" I am not really sure what it means, but I
> do resemble that remark.
A "tool", a "marionette"? We are much more than objects.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Lee Love on mon 1 sep 08
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:16 PM, James F wrote:
>
> From what I have read, pretty much all of them in Japan. From having built a half
>dozen houses, pretty much none of them in the U.S.
Daigu-san (carpenters) and even Newashi-san (gardeners) are both
shokunin. They approach their crafts as reverently as potters.
At New Years at my teacher's workshop, an offering of a stack
of mochi ricecakes with a tangerine on top was place on each wheel in
the workshop. Branches of Red Pine and Bamboo were tacked on each
workshop door.
But they are loosing these traditions in the face of global culture.
They are becoming more like us.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Pat Southwood on tue 2 sep 08
on, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Jim Kasper wrote:
>> I love the new ( by new , I mean just recently came into my awareness)
>> pejorative: "You are such a Tool" I am not really sure what it means,
>> but I
>> do resemble that remark.
Jim,
Not sure how to say this, In G.B. If one is called a tool, it is, um, the
same as calling one a knob, a d*ck, etc.
For your sake, I hope you dont resemble that remark !!
Best Wishes,
Pat Southwood.
>
> A "tool", a "marionette"? We are much more than objects.
>
> --
> Lee Love in Minneapolis
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
> http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
>
> "Let the beauty we love be what we do.
> There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
>
>
Ric Swenson on tue 2 sep 08
lee,
we have a larger brain and the ability to communicate above other beings.....we have oppossible thumbs.....others do not.....Homo sapiens! yeah!
so we can make tools other beings cannot make....so we can make pots ............and computers............. and do brain surgery...we walk upright.....we pot..... sitting at the wheel.....electric or kicked or spun by a stick...... We are superior in the world as we know it.
Why over-intellectualize the obvious?
tools are just what we invent to do the work we choose to do. The wheel and the computer help us to do what we want and need to do. Nice idea to think it is Zen.....or Dao....or Jesus.....or magic.....but it is just us trying to do what we want to do. Human nature.
get on with it............. you in your way....and me in mine.....ain't creativity great???
Best thoughts and regards,
Ric
"...then fiery expedition be my wing, ..." -Wm. Shakespeare, RICHARD III, Act IV Scene III Richard H. ("Ric") Swenson, Teacher, Office of International Cooperation and Exchange of Jingdezhen Ceramic Institute, TaoYang Road, Eastern Suburb, Jingdezhen City.JiangXi Province, P.R. of China. Postal code 333001. Mobile/cellular phone : 86 13767818872 < RicSwenson0823@hotmail.com> http://www.jci.jx.cn/http://www.ricswenson.com
> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:28:31 -0500> From: togeika@CLAYCRAFT.ORG> Subject: Re: The voice of the Clay Or "Just a tool"> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG> > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Jim Kasper wrote:> > Ceramic Arts Discussion ListHi Lee,> > What jumps out at me is .... "I Cringe" ....> >> > I definitely respect what you say, and I feel that I understand your> > meaning. That said, I think that at some point you will not cringe when> > someone says the wheel is just a tool.> > I doubt it. "Just" is dismissive. Seeing tools as only objects> blinds us to the process, which actually allows the tool to work.> > > I love the new ( by new , I mean just recently came into my awareness)> > pejorative: "You are such a Tool" I am not really sure what it means, but I> > do resemble that remark.> > A "tool", a "marionette"? We are much more than objects.> > --> Lee Love in Minneapolis> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/> http://claycraft.blogspot.com/> > "Let the beauty we love be what we do.> There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
Paul Haigh on tue 2 sep 08
Take the insult "you're a tool" for what it is- substitute "male genitalia" for "tool" and don't read into it any further. I had British buddies back in grad school that would call people a "spanner", carrying the tool reference once more removed.
Also "that bites", "bite me", "that sucks" all originally had sexual connotation. I stilll remember the first time I heard Bart Simpson say "that bites"- I wondered if the viewers knew the reference (now somewhat sanitized".
Personally- when I want to use a profanity- I just use it. Sometimes a bit more liberally than I should :)
Paul Haigh
Londonderry, NH
Getting ready for a wood firing this weekend
Lee Love on wed 3 sep 08
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Randall Moody wrote:
Let's agree we have different perspectives.
I see an subject centered approach as being limiting. When you
work for something greater than yourself, you can go beyond your
intellectual limitations. As Picasso said, "I can make anything the
art tells me to make." That is how craftsmen have worked for most of
our opposable thumb existence.
Here is a quote for you Randall:
"As the Potter turns the clay, the Clay turns the potter." --Clay Mudman
Also, I put up a poem by Gary Snyder, Ax Handles. You can read it here:
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
My teachers were ax heads. I was and ax handle. I am now an ax head.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Lee Love on wed 3 sep 08
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Pat Southwood
wrote:
> Phil,
>
> I am just a potter, and I do just make pots,
> - what was your point?
> My point was that is how any tool is used, rather than the tool being the
> most important thing. and as someone else said, it was the bit about "I
> cringe" that offended.-- semi -intellectualised snobbery.- ?
Depends upon where you are looking from.
> The reason I still maintain that a wheel is just a tool is because this was
> drummed into me as a student.
It is critical in our times of mass global communication, to
realize there are multiple ways of looking at things around the world.
Not every body learned what we were taught growing up.
"When the child was a child,
it had no opinion about anything,
had no habits,
it often sat cross-legged,
took off running,
had a cowlick in its hair,
and made no faces when photographed."
from Song of Childhood" by Peter Handke
(From The Film "Wings of Desire", dir. Wim Wenders, 1987)
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Randall Moody on wed 3 sep 08
"Seeing tools as only objects blinds us to the process, which actually
allows the tool to work."
I really have to disagree here. Eastern mysticism aside, the tool is,
after all, just that. The process, which follows the idea or
conception, is what drives the the creation. The tool in and of itself
is nothing more or less than an object which is used in the process.
The process doesn't "allow the tool to work" but rather the worker
uses the tool to work.
--
Randall in Atlanta
Lee Love on wed 3 sep 08
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
> I really have to disagree here. Eastern mysticism aside, the tool is,
> after all, just that.
It isn't mysticism, but simple observation. Subject and object
without the process between them means nothing gets done. Both are
simply starting points.
> The process doesn't "allow the tool to work" but rather the worker
> uses the tool to work.
Actually, for example, every woodfirer (as well as any scientist
for that matter), knows that you cannot fire effectively fire the kiln
if you don't pay attention to the feedback the kiln provides in the
form of smoke, temperature, back pressure, etc The most frequent
mistake someone used to a gas or electric kiln makes, is thinking
that more fuel always means more heat.
Fine tools are wasted on me if I don't know how to read them. I
might as well use the cheapest thing that works.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Randall Moody on wed 3 sep 08
You prove my point. The tool is nothing but a tool. The finest tools
in the hand of a person who doesn't know the process is wasted. A
master craftsman can still create master level work with the cheapest
tool handy. It is not the tool that makes the work but the craftsman.
My grandfather repeated the saying, "It is a poor workman who blames
his tools." I think that goes for the good as well as the bad.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
>
>> I really have to disagree here. Eastern mysticism aside, the tool is,
>> after all, just that.
>
> Fine tools are wasted on me if I don't know how to read them. I
> might as well use the cheapest thing that works.
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
Randall Moody on thu 4 sep 08
The tool is just the tool. It has no innate ability to create or
destroy. In the absence of a craftsman what does the tool do? Nothing.
There would be no Picasso's without Picasso creating them. All of the
"art tells me to make" and "the tool is speaking to me" etc. is simply
anthropomorphizing or mysticism.
BTW the discussion was not about "working for something greater than
yourself". It was about whether a tool is just a tool.
--
Randall in Atlanta
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Randall Moody wrote:
>
> Let's agree we have different perspectives.
>
> I see an subject centered approach as being limiting. When you
> work for something greater than yourself, you can go beyond your
> intellectual limitations. As Picasso said, "I can make anything the
> art tells me to make." That is how craftsmen have worked for most of
> our opposable thumb existence.
>
Lee Love on fri 5 sep 08
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> But even the finest tool is just a nice-looking inanimate object until we
> put it to use.
We are mutually put to use.
And a really fine tool just may out live its user.
My zen teacher's wife gave me my late teacher's shakuhachi.
Play shakuhachi is a meditative practice because it forces you to
breath out. If you have ever noticed, when you are frightened or
exerting or concentrating too hard. You hold your breath.
My teacher's wife said I could have the shakuhachi, if I let it
play me now and then.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on fri 5 sep 08
Hi Vince, and anyone else...
Just exactly what is it you are so wanting others to avoid?
I need this to be spelled out for me better, or in yet new ways, in order to
understand it.
Is anything 'more' than 'an inanimate object' to you then?
Art? Buildings? Places? Artefacts?
All 'just a' ( insert dismissive marginalisation here ) ?
Why would 'an inanimate object' even need to be mentioned as 'just a'?
Anyway???
A 'splinter of the True 'Cross' is "just a" piece of wood?
Anything not a Plant or Animal, is 'just a' thing, no more, no less? and
you disapprove of how people experience meanings or presence or connection,
unless it is the same as how you do? Or rather, unless it is the same as you
do not do? or unless it is the same as you have failed to do?
And for that matter, is a Dog or Cat or Horse or Bird, "just an animal" and
you would censure anyone who feels otherwise?
And, if not, just how is it any business of yours, to forbid others by
argument, to experience things differently than you do?
And why would you?
Why does this even matter in any way where such assertions would ever be
needed or called for? where anyone would 'feel' the 'need' to insist their
voice about forbidding whatevertitis, be heard?
What is served by this?
What is it you want?
Puzzled...
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
>I have been listening to this conversation and have stayed out of it, but I
> think I need to inject an opinion. The idea that any tool is more than an
> inanimate object is such baloney. A person can delude themselves and
> romanticize tools all they want. That's okay, but I think it is far
> better
> to live in the real world. A tool is just a simple manmade or found
> object,
> nothing more. What we invest in a tool is up to us, in terms of
> application, ritual, and celebration. The specialness of a tool is
> entirely
> in our use of it. A well-made tool may be a thing of beauty, admired as a
> finely-crafted object, but it does not really fulfill the maker's intent
> until it is put to use. The really special qualities appear only when we
> make it work. I am passionate about fine tools, especially the ones that
> artists/artisans make for their own use, and the ones made by
> potter/tool-makers like Phil Poburka, Michael Sherril, and Rick McKinney.
> But no matter what the tool-maker invests in the tool, it is still just an
> assembly of wood, steel, bone, brass, plastic, rubber, and/or other
> materials until it gets into the hands of the artist/artisan.
>
> Fine tools, whether purchased or homemade, become fixtures of studio
> ritual.
> A committed studio artist carefully selects or makes tools, and then when
> they perform at or beyond our best expectations, they become objects of
> every-day ritual and celebration. It is a pleasure to use them, and they
> make us look forward to the tasks that involve their use. People who
> settle
> for only the most common, ordinary tools are missing out on one of the
> most
> satisfying parts of studio life.
>
> But even the finest tool is just a nice-looking inanimate object until we
> put it to use.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Pat Southwood on fri 5 sep 08
Dear Lee,
You said, - As Picasso said, "I can make anything the
> art tells me to make." >
If that is the case then why did Picasso have to get "just a potter" to
make his ceramics for him?
.
Regards,
Pat Southwood
Lee Love on fri 5 sep 08
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Pat Southwood
wrote:
> If that is the case then why did Picasso have to get "just a potter" to
> make his ceramics for him?
This is a straw man argument. Neverltheless:
Collaboration is great!
Picasso spoke highly of the potters he worked with. I would have
made pots for him at the drop of a hat! I did as much for 3 years as
an apprentice. I developed great respect for the Shokunin that
taught me. ALL they did was make my teacher's work. They taught be
about the proper respect for tools. About paying attention to nature
and the seasons too.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Vince Pitelka on fri 5 sep 08
I have been listening to this conversation and have stayed out of it, but I
think I need to inject an opinion. The idea that any tool is more than an
inanimate object is such baloney. A person can delude themselves and
romanticize tools all they want. That's okay, but I think it is far better
to live in the real world. A tool is just a simple manmade or found object,
nothing more. What we invest in a tool is up to us, in terms of
application, ritual, and celebration. The specialness of a tool is entirely
in our use of it. A well-made tool may be a thing of beauty, admired as a
finely-crafted object, but it does not really fulfill the maker's intent
until it is put to use. The really special qualities appear only when we
make it work. I am passionate about fine tools, especially the ones that
artists/artisans make for their own use, and the ones made by
potter/tool-makers like Phil Poburka, Michael Sherril, and Rick McKinney.
But no matter what the tool-maker invests in the tool, it is still just an
assembly of wood, steel, bone, brass, plastic, rubber, and/or other
materials until it gets into the hands of the artist/artisan.
Fine tools, whether purchased or homemade, become fixtures of studio ritual.
A committed studio artist carefully selects or makes tools, and then when
they perform at or beyond our best expectations, they become objects of
every-day ritual and celebration. It is a pleasure to use them, and they
make us look forward to the tasks that involve their use. People who settle
for only the most common, ordinary tools are missing out on one of the most
satisfying parts of studio life.
But even the finest tool is just a nice-looking inanimate object until we
put it to use.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on sat 6 sep 08
Phil wrote:
"What is served by this?
What is it you want?"
Dear Phil -
I just expressed my opinion on the subject. If you wish to make this more
complicated, that's your business. I clearly said that I love fine handmade
(or machine-made) tools, including yours. I explained that it is up to each
to determine how we use them, and that they can become fixtures of daily
studio ritual, and thus become extremely important in our lives and our
work. But they are still just inanimate objects until we use them.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Ric Swenson on sat 6 sep 08
Vince,
I agree. Good Tools are a real pleasure to make and to use.
My favorite tools are teakwood ribs that I made in the 1970s. Oily woods like Teak and Koa are ideal for ribs that go in and out of the slip. I do soak them periodically in oil to preserve the wood so that they will not crack or cheque. I made about twenty different shapes, some taken from tracings of Kenkichi Tomimoto's black walnut ribs that Fred Olsen let me use in Grad School. Others I just made up for special shapes.
I used a table saw to split the blocks, then a band saw to cut the profile....and finally a balloon sander and then hand sanding with fine emory cloth.
See October, 1979, CM, p. 37.
Regards,
Ric
_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
Lee Love on sat 6 sep 08
Here are photos of my korean kickwheel. I forgot how much I liked to
use it. You work it with bare feet, pulling the wheel toward you
instead of kicking it.. ( It is interesting, saws in Japan cut on the
pull, instead of the push like our saws. It eliminates binding
totally.)
It was made by the box maker's brother, who is a Daigu/carpenter.
Made of keiyaki, but is larger than standard and has seal bearings
with grease nipples, a cross of old and new. I can never imagine
thinking of it as "Just a tool." Sounds dismissive. It is a very
grand tool in a way most commercial electric wheels are not.
I was a little sad putting it out of the platform, knowing I
wouldn't use it again in that studio in Mashiko.
see it here:
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/2008/08/pulled-my-wheel-today.html
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Lee Love on sun 7 sep 08
On 9/6/08, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> "What is served by this?
> What is it you want?"
>
> Dear Phil -
> I just expressed my opinion on the subject.
It is good to have various approaches. Especially minority ones that
go against the prevailing paradigm. It is where true innovation
comes out of;
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Jim Kasper on sun 7 sep 08
Right on Lee,
This little snippet has the names of three of my favorite
opinionated clay folks. While sometimes opinions might annoy me, I am most
grateful for the folks who stick their necks out. This is how we grow. Even
when I am not swayed, when I dig in and research my idea, I invariably learn
something. And occasionally I get a real payday, and find out I was wrong.
How glorious to be helped to uncover fogged thinking.
Regards,
Jim
On 9/6/08, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> "What is served by this?
> What is it you want?"
>
> Dear Phil -
> I just expressed my opinion on the subject.
It is good to have various approaches. Especially minority ones that
go against the prevailing paradigm. It is where true innovation
comes out of;
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (26)
Zafka Studios
Jensen Beach, FL
http://zafka.com
772-334-3070
Randall Moody on sun 7 sep 08
On 9/5/08, pdp1@earthlink.net wrote:
> Hi Vince, and anyone else...
> And, if not, just how is it any business of yours, to forbid others by
> argument, to experience things differently than you do?
>
> And why would you?
Phil,
I don't see anyone here "forbidding" others to experience things
differently. I can only speak for myself in that my position is that
assigning human attributes to tools or other inanimate objects is
anthropomorphizing and counter to reason and logic.
Just as others can speak in terms of mysticism and anthropomorphizing,
I and others can speak in terms of science, reason and logic.Nobody
gets, or should expect, a free ride on voicing their opinion. Feel
free to disagree with me. Reasonable people, after all, can.
Randall in Atlanta
Lee Love on sun 7 sep 08
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Randall Moody wrote:
> Just as others can speak in terms of mysticism and anthropomorphizing,
> I and others can speak in terms of science, reason and logic.Nobody
> gets, or should expect, a free ride on voicing their opinion. Feel
> free to disagree with me. Reasonable people, after all, can.
>
Randall, You aren't being fair. You are designating every thing
you believe to be "science" and "logic", and what folks who disagree
with you as mysticism and anthropomorphizing.
We can't understand each other if we categorically dismiss ideas
this way.
--
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
Randall Moody on sun 7 sep 08
I dismiss mysticism and anthropomorphizing. That is exactly what you
are doing in your position. Once again, I understand you. I also
disagree with your position.
On 9/7/08, Lee Love wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Randall Moody
> wrote:
>
>> Just as others can speak in terms of mysticism and anthropomorphizing,
>> I and others can speak in terms of science, reason and logic.Nobody
>> gets, or should expect, a free ride on voicing their opinion. Feel
>> free to disagree with me. Reasonable people, after all, can.
>>
>
> Randall, You aren't being fair. You are designating every thing
> you believe to be "science" and "logic", and what folks who disagree
> with you as mysticism and anthropomorphizing.
>
> We can't understand each other if we categorically dismiss ideas
> this way.
>
> --
> --
> Lee Love in Minneapolis
> http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
> http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
>
> "Let the beauty we love be what we do.
> There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
Lee Love on sun 7 sep 08
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Randall Moody wrote:
> I dismiss mysticism and anthropomorphizing. That is exactly what you
> are doing in your position. Once again, I understand you. I also
> disagree with your position.
>
I've replied to Randell privately.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
James F on mon 8 sep 08
Randall...
I think perhaps you and a few others are misinterpreting the more-than-a-to=
ol folks.
I do not think anybody on the list believes that there is some sort of ghos=
t=2C spirit=2C or kami inhabiting a tool=2C and I also do not believe they =
are engaging in anthropomorphism. The "power" a tool or other inanimate ob=
ject possesses stems not from the tool qua tool=2C but is rather an emotion=
al state in the human mind which is triggered by a particular object for an=
y number of rational reasons. As such=2C it is possible and even expected =
that such thoughts would not be shared by others with regard to any particu=
lar object.
When I cut wood with my great grandfather's bow saw=2C I experience an emot=
ional state=2C a connection to other things if you will=2C that I do not fe=
el when using my chainsaw or my modern bow saw. Certainly=2C for me perhap=
s alone=2C my great grandfather's bow saw is more-than-a-tool. You might l=
ook at that same saw and wonder why I use the worn old thing.
I recently read of a woman who spent in excess of $100=2C000 on a concours =
quality restoration of her 1964 Plymouth Valiant. This is a car that=2C in=
mint condition is likely only worth about $8000. She could have junked he=
r own worn out Valiant and purchased a restored car of the same year and mo=
del and saved over $90=2C000=2C but to her and to her alone that particular=
Valiant was far more than just-a-car.
One could look at Phil's fine tools for another example. For some it is ju=
st another tool=2C just like their Kemper=2C certainly "better" in that it =
stays sharper longer=2C but still just-a-tool. To others=2C the tool creat=
es an emotional response=2C a connection with the maker. "Look how he fair=
ed the carbide into the shank. He used fine hardwood for the handle when c=
heap poplar would have worked=2C and feel the hand rubbed finish when polyu=
rethane could have sufficed." While using the tool=2C it is entirely possi=
ble and even rational to feel that connection=2C which in your mind renders=
it more-than-a-tool. It is also entirely possible and totally rational to=
feel no connection=2C rendering it just-a-tool.
When Lee says that his wheel is more-than-a-tool=2C he speaks the truth for=
himself. His wheel likely conjures up in the emotional recesses of his mi=
nd all sorts of connections that you and I do not share. For Lee=2C it is =
certainly more-than-a-tool=2C while for us it is just-a-tool. There is no =
anthropomorphism involved or required=2C and the feeling is not mystical=2C=
but rather a common and rational psychological artifact. I am certain you=
view your wife as more than just-a-woman=2C though others may see her as j=
ust-a-woman.
One could argue that these and other examples are not economically rational=
=2C or scientifically rational=2C but they are all psychologically rational=
. THey are all artifacts of the way the human mind is wired=2C and none of=
them involve mysticism nor anthropomorphism. After you wrote your post an=
d settled into your favorite old chair and picked up your favorite mug=2C h=
ow did you feel?
Be well.
...James
> Date: Sun=2C 7 Sep 2008 20:30:13 -0400
> From: randall.moody@GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: The voice of the Clay Or "Just a tool"
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>=20
> I dismiss mysticism and anthropomorphizing. That is exactly what you
> are doing in your position. Once again=2C I understand you. I also
> disagree with your position.
>=20
>=20
> On 9/7/08=2C Lee Love wrote:
> > On Sun=2C Sep 7=2C 2008 at 12:39 PM=2C Randall Moody il.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Just as others can speak in terms of mysticism and anthropomorphizing=
=2C
> >> I and others can speak in terms of science=2C reason and logic.Nobody
> >> gets=2C or should expect=2C a free ride on voicing their opinion. Feel
> >> free to disagree with me. Reasonable people=2C after all=2C can.
> >>
> >
> > Randall=2C You aren't being fair. You are designating every thing
> > you believe to be "science" and "logic"=2C and what folks who disagree
> > with you as mysticism and anthropomorphizing.
> >
> > We can't understand each other if we categorically dismiss ideas
> > this way.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Lee Love in Minneapolis
> > http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
> > http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
> > http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
> >
> > "Let the beauty we love be what we do.
> > There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
> >
>=20
>=20
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows connects the people=2C information=2C and fun that are part=
of your life.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/=
Randall Moody on mon 8 sep 08
Maybe I need to be even more clear in what I am saying. I do not deny an
emotional attachment to certain objects. That attachment emanates from the
user and not from the object.
I am applying anthropomorphizing as defined. That being: *:* to attribute
human form or personality to things not human.
Also mysticism as: a: vague speculation *:* a belief without sound basis b*:
* a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition
of ineffable knowledge or power
Sorry to be so pedantic (c*:* a formalist or precisionist in teaching) about
this but I think that it helps with understanding. *:)*
To paraphrase you, the "power" a tool or other inanimate object possesses
stems not from the tool. Which was my original point when I wrote, " ... the
tool is, after all, just that. The process, which follows the idea or
conception, is what drives the the creation. The tool in and of itself
is nothing more or less than an object which is used in the process."
The process doesn't "allow the tool to work" but rather the worker uses the
tool to work
Randall in Atlanta
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:00 PM, James F wrote:
> Randall...
>
> I think perhaps you and a few others are misinterpreting the
> more-than-a-tool folks.
>
> I do not think anybody on the list believes that there is some sort of
> ghost, spirit, or kami inhabiting a tool, and I also do not believe they are
> engaging in anthropomorphism. The "power" a tool or other inanimate object
> possesses stems not from the tool qua tool, but is rather an emotional state
> in the human mind which is triggered by a particular object for any number
> of rational reasons. As such, it is possible and even expected that such
> thoughts would not be shared by others with regard to any particular object.
>
James F on mon 8 sep 08
Randall...
Your pedantry is unnecessary (and perhaps a bit patronizing)=2C as those de=
finitions have never been in question. If you attempted to temper your pos=
t with smiley faces=2C know that they did not come through=2C at least on m=
y email client.
Your paraphrase of me is incorrect=2C and a bit of sophistry. I absolutely=
did not say that "the 'power' a tool or other inanimate object possesses
stems not from the tool". Rather=2C I stated that the power a tool or any =
other object possesses stems from the interaction between the object and th=
e human mind that contemplates it. Your ostensible paraphrase is no more t=
han your own statement of your original position which you attempt to place=
in my mouth.
To directly address your assertions=2C no one has yet attributed human qual=
ities to any tool=2C hence no anthropomorphism. As to mysticism=2C no one =
has hidden behind ineffability=2C but rather have made every attempt to off=
er rational explanation=2C no one has claimed any intuitive acquisition=2C =
but have rather offered psychological and philosophical explanation=2C and =
any "speculation" has been explained ad nauseum=2C so is far from vague.
I am not sure what to make of your concluding statement that "The process d=
oesn't 'allow the tool to work'". When not engaged by me in a process=2C m=
y tools tend to just sit there.
My great grandfather's saw is certainly more-than-a-tool to me. Beside bei=
ng a tool that allows me to cut wood=2C it is also a thing that brings me j=
oy. When I hold it=2C I can feel the spots that my great grandfather's han=
ds wore smooth. It is an object that connects me to other things. Nothing=
mystical about it. My chainsaw does none of these things for me. It is=
=2C to me=2C just-a-tool that allows me to cut wood. I can say similar thi=
ngs about the tools that Phil made specifically for me=2C but the old Dolan=
s they replaced were=2C to me=2C just-a-tool. Vince said the same things a=
bout his DeLaval hit-and-miss engine=2C but I doubt he feels the same about=
the Briggs and Stratton on his lawnmower.
I do not know if Lee intended to make a blanket statement about wheels bein=
g more-than-a-tool. Perhaps it was merely the result of the immediacy of e=
mail communication. Unlike a letter=2C we tend not to proof nor edit email=
s. In any case=2C one cannot make a blanket statement that all tools are mo=
re-than-a-tool=2C but it is just as inaccurate to deny that any tool can be=
more-than-a-tool. I do not ask that you question your belief that a tool =
is just a tool. You are free to accept or deny such views=2C as neither pe=
rspective exists in the concrete world. Both positions exist only in the r=
ealm of thought=2C and since we do not share one mind=2C it would be the he=
ight of arrogance to insist that one's philosophical principle is Truth whi=
le another's is blasphemy. Isn't this precisely from whence most of the wo=
rld's ills stem? The point of my email was merely to ask you to question y=
our rather dismissive assertion that all of the more-than-a-tool arguments =
stem from mysticism or anthropomorphism. Since we all seem to be intellige=
nt beings=2C it seems fairly clear to me that there was never any mysticism=
nor anthropomorphism involved.
Be well=2C my friend. This has been great fun.
...James
> Date: Mon=2C 8 Sep 2008 14:16:43 -0400
> From: randall.moody@GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: The voice of the Clay Or "Just a tool"
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>=20
> Maybe I need to be even more clear in what I am saying. I do not deny an
> emotional attachment to certain objects. That attachment emanates from th=
e
> user and not from the object.
>=20
> I am applying anthropomorphizing as defined. That being: *:* to attribute
> human form or personality to things not human.
>=20
> Also mysticism as: a: vague speculation *:* a belief without sound basis =
b*:
> * a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisitio=
n
> of ineffable knowledge or power
>=20
> Sorry to be so pedantic (c*:* a formalist or precisionist in teaching) ab=
out
> this but I think that it helps with understanding. *:)*
>=20
> To paraphrase you=2C the "power" a tool or other inanimate object possess=
es
> stems not from the tool. Which was my original point when I wrote=2C " ..=
. the
> tool is=2C after all=2C just that. The process=2C which follows the idea =
or
> conception=2C is what drives the the creation. The tool in and of itself
> is nothing more or less than an object which is used in the process."
>=20
> The process doesn't "allow the tool to work" but rather the worker uses t=
he
> tool to work
>=20
> Randall in Atlanta
>=20
>=20
> On Mon=2C Sep 8=2C 2008 at 12:00 PM=2C James F wr=
ote:
>=20
> > Randall...
> >
> > I think perhaps you and a few others are misinterpreting the
> > more-than-a-tool folks.
> >
> > I do not think anybody on the list believes that there is some sort of
> > ghost=2C spirit=2C or kami inhabiting a tool=2C and I also do not belie=
ve they are
> > engaging in anthropomorphism. The "power" a tool or other inanimate ob=
ject
> > possesses stems not from the tool qua tool=2C but is rather an emotiona=
l state
> > in the human mind which is triggered by a particular object for any num=
ber
> > of rational reasons. As such=2C it is possible and even expected that =
such
> > thoughts would not be shared by others with regard to any particular ob=
ject.
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!5=
50F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008=
Randall Moody on mon 8 sep 08
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM, James F wrote: A
reply to me.
Thank you, James, for your fully formed and reasoned discourse. I do not
disagree that we apply sentimental value to objects and I am not arguing
such. We do agree on one thing. "When not engaged by me in a process, my
tools tend to just sit there."
My original opposition was to the statement, "Seeing tools as only objects
blinds us to the process, which actually allows the tool to work.". The tool
is only an object. My Uncle is a phenomenal wood worker and his tools mean a
great deal to me but the tool brings no ability other than what the tool
maker designed it to do to the process.
I am done with this as I can't think of any other way to state my opinion
that a tool it just an inanimate object with no personality, sentience.
--
Randall in Atlanta
James F on mon 8 sep 08
Randall...
I believe I have discovered what caused you to misinterpret what I said=2C =
and the fault may be mine. I inadvertently slipped into philosophical jarg=
on=2C and for this I apologize. I said that "The 'power' a tool or other i=
nanimate object possesses stems not from the tool qua tool". I believe you=
may have taken the "tool qua tool" as a typo. It is not. Tool qua tool m=
eans "the tool in it's capacity as a tool" as opposed to the tool in it's c=
apacity as an object (or any other capacity). Again=2C my fault=2C and my =
apologies. In my hurry to get my thoughts down=2C I employed the shorthand=
of possibly obscure jargon. Mea culpa=2C mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
All the best.
...James
> Date: Mon=2C 8 Sep 2008 14:16:43 -0400
> From: randall.moody@GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: The voice of the Clay Or 'Just a tool'
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>=20
> Maybe I need to be even more clear in what I am saying. I do not deny an
> emotional attachment to certain objects. That attachment emanates from th=
e
> user and not from the object.
>=20
> I am applying anthropomorphizing as defined. That being: *:* to attribute
> human form or personality to things not human.
>=20
> Also mysticism as: a: vague speculation *:* a belief without sound basis =
b*:
> * a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisitio=
n
> of ineffable knowledge or power
>=20
> Sorry to be so pedantic (c*:* a formalist or precisionist in teaching) ab=
out
> this but I think that it helps with understanding. *:)*
>=20
> To paraphrase you=2C the 'power' a tool or other inanimate object possess=
es
> stems not from the tool. Which was my original point when I wrote=2C ' ..=
. the
> tool is=2C after all=2C just that. The process=2C which follows the idea =
or
> conception=2C is what drives the the creation. The tool in and of itself
> is nothing more or less than an object which is used in the process.'
>=20
> The process doesn't 'allow the tool to work' but rather the worker uses t=
he
> tool to work
>=20
> Randall in Atlanta
>=20
>=20
> On Mon=2C Sep 8=2C 2008 at 12:00 PM=2C James F wr=
ote:
>=20
> > Randall...
> >
> > I think perhaps you and a few others are misinterpreting the
> > more-than-a-tool folks.
> >
> > I do not think anybody on the list believes that there is some sort of
> > ghost=2C spirit=2C or kami inhabiting a tool=2C and I also do not belie=
ve they are
> > engaging in anthropomorphism. The 'power' a tool or other inanimate ob=
ject
> > possesses stems not from the tool qua tool=2C but is rather an emotiona=
l state
> > in the human mind which is triggered by a particular object for any num=
ber
> > of rational reasons. As such=2C it is possible and even expected that =
such
> > thoughts would not be shared by others with regard to any particular ob=
ject.
> >
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows Mobile brings your life together=97at home=2C work=2C or on=
the go.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/=
James F on mon 8 sep 08
object with no personality=2C sentience.
> --
No one=2C including Lee=2C ever asserted otherwise. We all agree on one th=
ing!
As we are obviously not speaking the same language=2C you are correct in th=
at this thread should probably be allowed to die.
Be well.
...James
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows connects the people=2C information=2C and fun that are part=
of your life.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/=
Hank Murrow on mon 8 sep 08
--Apple-Mail-4--50307731
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Pat Southwood wrote:
>
> I am slightly loath to spin possibly yet another apocryphal story,
> this one about Hamada.:
> I can't remember where I read this but I do remember reading about
> Hamada showing up for a big-deal demo somewhere and their being a
> big fuss about the fact that the grand mans' tools were not
> available for some reasom.
> According to my memory of the tale, Mr. H. basically said (and I am
> paraphrasing wildly here) -No worries, I'll just go and pick up a
> few bits of wood from the garden, it'll be fine.
Dear Pat;
I think the story is about his visit to Black Mountain College in
North Carolina. He wanted to slip some pots and was without his
brushes that day, so he went out to the field outside and collected
some dried up weeds and bundled them together to make a Hakeme brush
to brush the slip on with. You get a lovely pattern of course using
such a coarse 'brush'..... and that is exactly why such a tool was
invented. The slip was too plastic for the clay body, so a coarse
brush broke up the coating of slip so it didn't crack off the piece
as it dried. The pattern was the 'bonus' in the adjustment for
shrinkage.
I have related elsewhere here a story about his 1963 Los Angeles
workshop where a lady asked him how to tell what's in wood ashes
without an analysis. Worth looking up in the archives.
Cheers, Hank
Pat, here is a pic of the bowl I bought from him in '63.
--Apple-Mail-4--50307731
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
12" diameter, thrown and trimmed by his son , Shinsaku, and slipped,
glazed, and decorated by Shoji.
--Apple-Mail-4--50307731--
Pat Southwood on tue 9 sep 08
James F,
All credit, that was a brilliant post.
This discussion has gone all over the place.
I too have old and favourite tools that I use, a broken toy of my sons'
(he is now 16) my dead Dads' chisel, a bit of old wood my tutor gave me,=20
etc.
They all have their own resonance.
My first wheel was a nasty plastic cheapie that couldn't cope with more t=
han=20
5k. It was all I could afford.
My current wheel was bought after 3 years of graduating: it was then a 10=
yr=20
old second hand Alsager for =A3500----- a lot of money.
New they are over =A31,500
I wanted the same wheel I used at college, not just because they were the=
=20
best but because I was comfortable on it and that feeling had memories.
That is all lovely and a pleasure on a daily basis.
This is a plus in my life.
If I was still stuck with the plastic nasties of yesteryear and tools tha=
t=20
had no personal emotion, how would that affect my work ?
- I think it would remove some of the sensual/emotional pleasure from th=
e=20
process, but it wouldn't actually make my pots any worse,
I dont think so anyway.
I am a potter because I want to make pots.
Nice stuff is a pleasure and something of a luxury, it is not necessary i=
n=20
order to make.
I am going to apply for a month long residency next year, will my pots be=
=20
worse ?
Once I familiarise myself, I hope not.
I am slightly loath to spin possibly yet another apocryphal story, this o=
ne=20
about Hamada.:
I can't remember where I read this but I do remember reading about Hamada=
=20
showing up for a big-deal demo somewhere and their being a big fuss about=
=20
the fact that the grand mans' tools were not available for some reasom.
According to my memory of the tale, Mr. H. basically said (and I am=20
paraphrasing wildly here) -No worries, I'll just go and pick up a few bi=
ts=20
of wood from the garden, it'll be fine.
That is pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole discussion.
At the end of the day, they really are just tools.
It is what you know and do that counts.
Emotion is a bonus.
And as for Picasso, well, Lee, if you are still reading this, I don't kno=
w=20
what you mean by a "straw man" arguement.
I can possibly guess.
and yes, Marcia, I'm sorry, according to the dictionary, I dont think you=
=20
are actually a ceramist.
That does not detract in any way from your level of skill or artistry, it=
is=20
simply semantics.
If I saw your work and you were described as a ceramist I would have=20
automatically assumed that the form and surface were of your creation.
Had you described yourself as a china/ceramic painter I would have assume=
d=20
that you were responsible for the surface, not the form.
Over the last ten years that I have been teaching ceramics at every level=
=20
from diversionary to degree, I can conclude that there are generally 2 ty=
pes=20
of students.
There are those that are primarily concerned with form and process, and h=
ave=20
no concept of surface until they are forced to consider glazing.
There are those to whom the surface is the goal and they are looking for=
=20
the most effective method of producing a form on which to put it.
Rarely, and with some excitement one comes across an individual that want=
s=20
both.
Regards,
Pat Southwood
Original Message -----=20
From: "James F"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: The voice of the Clay Or "Just a tool"
Randall...
I think perhaps you and a few others are misinterpreting the=20
more-than-a-tool folks.
I do not think anybody on the list believes that there is some sort of=20
ghost, spirit, or kami inhabiting a tool, and I also do not believe they =
are=20
engaging in anthropomorphism. The "power" a tool or other inanimate obje=
ct=20
possesses stems not from the tool qua tool, but is rather an emotional st=
ate=20
in the human mind which is triggered by a particular object for any numbe=
r=20
of rational reasons. As such, it is possible and even expected that such=
=20
thoughts would not be shared by others with regard to any particular obje=
ct.
When I cut wood with my great grandfather's bow saw, I experience an=20
emotional state, a connection to other things if you will, that I do not=20
feel when using my chainsaw or my modern bow saw. Certainly, for me perh=
aps=20
alone, my great grandfather's bow saw is more-than-a-tool. You might loo=
k=20
at that same saw and wonder why I use the worn old thing.
I recently read of a woman who spent in excess of $100,000 on a concours=20
quality restoration of her 1964 Plymouth Valiant. This is a car that, in=
=20
mint condition is likely only worth about $8000. She could have junked h=
er=20
own worn out Valiant and purchased a restored car of the same year and mo=
del=20
and saved over $90,000, but to her and to her alone that particular Valia=
nt=20
was far more than just-a-car.
One could look at Phil's fine tools for another example. For some it is=20
just another tool, just like their Kemper, certainly "better" in that it=20
stays sharper longer, but still just-a-tool. To others, the tool creates=
an=20
emotional response, a connection with the maker. "Look how he faired the=
=20
carbide into the shank. He used fine hardwood for the handle when cheap=20
poplar would have worked, and feel the hand rubbed finish when polyuretha=
ne=20
could have sufficed." While using the tool, it is entirely possible and=20
even rational to feel that connection, which in your mind renders it=20
more-than-a-tool. It is also entirely possible and totally rational to f=
eel=20
no connection, rendering it just-a-tool.
When Lee says that his wheel is more-than-a-tool, he speaks the truth for=
=20
himself. His wheel likely conjures up in the emotional recesses of his m=
ind=20
all sorts of connections that you and I do not share. For Lee, it is=20
certainly more-than-a-tool, while for us it is just-a-tool. There is no=20
anthropomorphism involved or required, and the feeling is not mystical, b=
ut=20
rather a common and rational psychological artifact. I am certain you vi=
ew=20
your wife as more than just-a-woman, though others may see her as=20
just-a-woman.
One could argue that these and other examples are not economically ration=
al,=20
or scientifically rational, but they are all psychologically rational. T=
Hey=20
are all artifacts of the way the human mind is wired, and none of them=20
involve mysticism nor anthropomorphism. After you wrote your post and=20
settled into your favorite old chair and picked up your favorite mug, how=
=20
did you feel?
Be well.
...James
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:30:13 -0400
> From: randall.moody@GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: The voice of the Clay Or "Just a tool"
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>
> I dismiss mysticism and anthropomorphizing. That is exactly what you
> are doing in your position. Once again, I understand you. I also
> disagree with your position.
>
>
> On 9/7/08, Lee Love wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Randall Moody om>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Just as others can speak in terms of mysticism and anthropomorphizin=
g,
> >> I and others can speak in terms of science, reason and logic.Nobody
> >> gets, or should expect, a free ride on voicing their opinion. Feel
> >> free to disagree with me. Reasonable people, after all, can.
> >>
> >
> > Randall, You aren't being fair. You are designating every thing
> > you believe to be "science" and "logic", and what folks who disagree
> > with you as mysticism and anthropomorphizing.
> >
> > We can't understand each other if we categorically dismiss ideas
> > this way.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Lee Love in Minneapolis
> > http://heartclay.blogspot.com/
> > http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
> > http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
> >
> > "Let the beauty we love be what we do.
> > There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." --Rumi
> >
>
>
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part o=
f=20
your life.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/
| |
|
