pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on mon 8 sep 08
Hi James,
Seems to me...
Once the 'name' became the commodity...the emphasis shifted from the Work,
to the 'name'...to the Mystique....even when the Work remained very good, or
in other cases, with some names, as with many so-called 'designer-names',
even when the Work was no longer particularly good.
Now, that is alright, certainly, when the Work continues to be good, and the
Mystique is upheld and remains fresh and vital...but, it signals a
transition or catagory of 'what' something 'is', or how something is
apprehended...or both...as we all know.
Convention governs expectation...or, in this case, is usually the frame into
which the 'picture' is coerced or obliged, or, expected to be.
No one ever expected 'Painters' to 'weave
their own canvases', or make and fit their own Frames.
Too...
When 'Von Dutch' Pin-Striped a Car, a Helmet, a Motorcycle, a Dining Room
Table, Front Door of a House, or other item...no one was ever confused into
thinking he'd also made the item from scratch.
It Stan Betz or other 'famous' Car Painters painted-a-Car, no one ever was
confused about thinking Stan had 'made' the Car.
If 'Picasso' had painted on Cars, Refrigerators, Helmets ( how cool if he
would have! ) there would be no confusions about those things.
The 'clay' thing...was a 'confusion' in people's minds.
And the 'plates' and whatever else were spoken of as 'Picasso's Ceramics' or
the likes, as if he'd made the things he was painting on.
I think that in many ways, including how everyone would have enjoyed the
items a lot more and would still be doing so, rather than to have done the
clay-painting foray, 'Picasso' would have done an infinitely happier and
non-ambiguous thing - to have painted and drawn on Refrigerators, Motorcycle
Helmets, Cars, Drapery, passage or entry Doors of Houses, Walls, Window
Glass and Cabinet Panels...Lamp Shades...
The staid 'convention' of drawings, gauche, paintings and so on ALWAYS being
'framed-on-a-wall', ought to have occurred to his ( and other's )
'creativity' as a very tired and silly way of insisting 'art' be removed
from Life and from the actual things one interacts with in daily Life, or
relegated only as a sort of 'glass-eyed', 'Trophy', Stuffed Animal Head is,
hanging-on-a-wall.
All through History untill recently, people lived with Art...
Now, people live with discontinuous and abstracted 'trophy-heads'
on-the-otherwise-bare-walls.
Ever look at color images of excavated Houses or other interior rooms of
Pompeii?
We can assume their various Textiles were in keeping, also...
Wow...so lovely...
Oye...
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "James F"
>
> So, then , are you saying that overglaze artists ....china
> painters... are not allowed to be considered as
> ceramists ? That we are not fit to hold the title ?
> There are a whole bunch of us out there who use commercially
> made glazed ceramics as a canvas..
This is a subject I have thought about often. If one paints on a panel, one
does not consider oneself a woodworker. If one paints on canvas, one does
not consider oneself a fiber artist. Heck, if one paints a fresco, one does
not consider oneself a plasterer. In all cases, one considers oneself a
painter regardless of the substrate. Why then does one who paints on
ceramic consider oneself to be a ceramist rather than a painter? Does
cooking the paint in a kiln really alter the paradigm? If one made the pot
upon which one also painted, then one would obviously be both a ceramist and
a painter. I don't think it has anything to do with "fitness to hold a
title", but rather with what craft is actually being employed by the artist.
It seems to be only a question of accurate nomenclature. Ultimately I
suppose it matters not a whit, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Be well.
...James
| |
|
