James F on sat 25 oct 08
Personal definitions aside=2C here are the relevant dictionary definitions =
of "master" (Webster):
1) a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices
2) an artist=2C performer=2C or player of consummate skill
3) a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as =
a model or ideal
As to definitions 1 and 2=2C in the absence of a guild (union) to decide wh=
en one is qualified to teach or when one has demonstrated consummate skill=
=2C the title "master" is utterly meaningless. If you think your work demo=
nstrates consummate skill or if you believe you have something to teach=2C =
you are a master. Congratulations.
As to definition 3=2C it's pretty clear that you have to be dead=2C and fol=
ks who are still alive have to think your work is worth studying. If confe=
rred under definition 3=2C your master designation won't help your career m=
uch.
"Artist" is another largely meaningless ipse dixit title. Defined as "a pe=
rson skilled in one of the fine arts"=2C we are back to "Says who?". One o=
f my favorite quotations on this subject comes from Frederick Franck in his=
wonderful book "Zen Seeing=2C Zen Drawing": =20
"When I hear someone proclaim: 'I am an artist'=2C something in me whispers=
'That so?' But if they say : 'I paint'=2C or 'I draw'=2C or 'I play the =
piano'=2C I like to talk about painting or drawing or playing the piano wit=
h them. Saying=2C 'I paint' or 'I am a painter or a pianist' may be a fact=
ual statement=2C but 'artist' is an honorific. Proclaiming oneself to be a=
n artist is all too pretentious. Art is neither a profession nor a hobby. =
Art is a Way of being."
Modesty=2C false or otherwise=2C never enters the equation. In the absence=
of a guild=2C claiming that you are or someone else is a "master" or an "a=
rtist" is no different than claiming that they are beautiful. In your eyes=
they may well be=2C but that does not make it so. Such judgements are alw=
ays merely opinions=2C and can never be facts. Neither is consensus a fact=
=2C but merely a widely held opinion.
For whatever it's worth.
...James
James Freeman
www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
_________________________________________________________________
You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/=
Linda White on sat 25 oct 08
On Oct 25, 2008, at 2:11 AM, Mary Driever wrote:
> I have the affliction of being an artist, it is a state of mind
> like being
> bi-polar or schitzoid LOL it doesn't pay a darn thing!!
One of the slogans of the Sullivan County Council on the Arts is:
ART: the mental disease that's good for you!
Mary Driever on sat 25 oct 08
I have the affliction of being an artist, it is a state of mind like being
bi-polar or schitzoid LOL it doesn't pay a darn thing!!
In a message dated 10/24/2008 10:29:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jsfreeman@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
Personal definitions aside, here are the relevant dictionary definitions of
"master" (Webster):
1) a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices
2) an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill
3) a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as a
model or ideal
As to definitions 1 and 2, in the absence of a guild (union) to decide when
one is qualified to teach or when one has demonstrated consummate skill, the
title "master" is utterly meaningless. If you think your work demonstrates
consummate skill or if you believe you have something to teach, you are a
master. Congratulations.
As to definition 3, it's pretty clear that you have to be dead, and folks
who are still alive have to think your work is worth studying. If conferred
under definition 3, your master designation won't help your career much.
"Artist" is another largely meaningless ipse dixit title. Defined as "a
person skilled in one of the fine arts", we are back to "Says who?". One of my
favorite quotations on this subject comes from Frederick Franck in his
wonderful book "Zen Seeing, Zen Drawing":
"When I hear someone proclaim: 'I am an artist', something in me whispers
'That so?' But if they say : 'I paint', or 'I draw', or 'I play the piano', I
like to talk about painting or drawing or playing the piano with them.
Saying, 'I paint' or 'I am a painter or a pianist' may be a factual statement,
but 'artist' is an honorific. Proclaiming oneself to be an artist is all too
pretentious. Art is neither a profession nor a hobby. Art is a Way of
being."
Modesty, false or otherwise, never enters the equation. In the absence of a
guild, claiming that you are or someone else is a "master" or an "artist" is
no different than claiming that they are beautiful. In your eyes they may
well be, but that does not make it so. Such judgements are always merely
opinions, and can never be facts. Neither is consensus a fact, but merely a
widely held opinion.
For whatever it's worth.
...James
James Freeman
www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
_________________________________________________________________
You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/=
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211625659x1200715650/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=82&bcd=emailf
ooter)
Lee Love on sat 25 oct 08
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Mary Driever wrote:
> I have the affliction of being an artist, it is a state of mind like being
> bi-polar or schitzoid LOL it doesn't pay a darn thing!!
I married a teacher and an artist. I highly recommend them both. ;^)
Teachers are highly respected in Japan. So much so, that the
honorific for M.D.s is Sensei/teacher. She will miss that when she
moves back to the USA.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://togeika.multiply.com/journal
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 sat 25 oct 08
James Freeman wrote:
"Artist" is another largely meaningless ipse dixit title. Defined as "a
person skilled in one of the fine arts", we are back to "Says who?". One of
my favorite quotations on this subject comes from Frederick Franck in his
wonderful book "Zen Seeing, Zen Drawing":
"When I hear someone proclaim: 'I am an artist', something in me whispers
'That so?' But if they say : 'I paint', or 'I draw', or 'I play the
piano', I like to talk about painting or drawing or playing the piano with
them. Saying, 'I paint' or 'I am a painter or a pianist' may be a factual
statement, but 'artist' is an honorific. Proclaiming oneself to be an
artist is all too pretentious. Art is neither a profession nor a hobby.
Art is a Way of being."
James -
It is sad that our culture is so afraid of the word "artist." In its
simplest connotation the word just refers to someone who makes art, without
any qualitative implications. We also use the term "artist" to refer to
someone who is very skilled at their craft, but in its strictest definition
it is just someone who makes art. Therefore, there is nothing pompous or
self-congratulatory when a person says that they are an artist. The
appropriate response would be an acknowledgement that they are doing
something important. I wish we could all just accept that.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
James F on sun 26 oct 08
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> It is sad that our culture is so afraid of the word "artist."
I don't think we are afraid of the word at all. Quite the opposite. I thi=
nk Franck's point (and Lili's too) is that we as a culture are much too loo=
se and free with the word.
> but in its strictest definition
> it is just someone who makes art.
This is actually it's loosest possible definition=2C not it's strictest. I=
t is self-referential=2C and begs the question of "who says it's art?"
>Therefore=2C there is nothing pompous or
> self-congratulatory when a person says that they are an artist. The
> appropriate response would be an acknowledgement that they are doing
> something important.
This also assumes that we agree that the work being done is "important".
Franck points out that what you made is certainly a pot=2C or a painting=2C
or a piece of music=2C but it may or may not be art. Saying that you are a
painter or a potter or a sculptor is a statement of fact. Saying you
are an artist can only be opinion=2C as it requires=2C even by your
definition=2C that we agree that the work in question is "art" and that
it is "important". I met a young lady who introduced herself as a performa=
nce artist. Turns out she was a stripper.
With no possible agreement on what is "art" or what is "important"=2C can t=
here ever be agreement on who is an "artist"? I personally equate claiming=
the title of Artist just because you paint or sculpt=2C with congressmen c=
laiming the title Honorable just because of the job they hold. "Ain't nece=
ssarily so". In my opinion=2C Artist is a title that can only be bestowed =
by history and posterity=2C and even then it should always be open to argum=
ent. It is a value judgment=2C not a statement of fact.
Having said this=2C I absolutely do understand that for commercial reasons =
one sometimes has to quash the internal conflicts and claim the mantle=2C o=
r at least not argue when it is bestowed by another. You can't get the rol=
e unless you can play the part.
All the best.
...James=2C maker of stuff
_________________________________________________________________
You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/=
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on mon 27 oct 08
Hi James,Vince, all...
The question seems to concern whether it is a mistake ( or rather, whether
it is worthwhile to assay
the consequences either way, in order to tell the merits or liabilities, or
the cost of the mistake, ) to catagorically
include or assign as 'Art', activites associated with occurances of 'Art',
as
though they were Art themselves.
There is no question as to the option...but there are questions as to what
each option offers or denys.
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
> James Freeman wrote:
> "Artist" is another largely meaningless ipse dixit title. Defined as "a
> person skilled in one of the fine arts", we are back to "Says who?". One
> of
> my favorite quotations on this subject comes from Frederick Franck in his
> wonderful book "Zen Seeing, Zen Drawing":
> "When I hear someone proclaim: 'I am an artist', something in me whispers
> 'That so?' But if they say : 'I paint', or 'I draw', or 'I play the
> piano', I like to talk about painting or drawing or playing the piano with
> them. Saying, 'I paint' or 'I am a painter or a pianist' may be a factual
> statement, but 'artist' is an honorific. Proclaiming oneself to be an
> artist is all too pretentious. Art is neither a profession nor a hobby.
> Art is a Way of being."
>
> James -
> It is sad that our culture is so afraid of the word "artist." In its
> simplest connotation the word just refers to someone who makes art,
> without
> any qualitative implications. We also use the term "artist" to refer to
> someone who is very skilled at their craft, but in its strictest
> definition
> it is just someone who makes art. Therefore, there is nothing pompous or
> self-congratulatory when a person says that they are an artist. The
> appropriate response would be an acknowledgement that they are doing
> something important. I wish we could all just accept that.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
Larry Kruzan on mon 27 oct 08
I have found this an interesting exercise in sophistry since, like the
definition of Art, I really think the whole thing is hard to pin down here
in the US. Since we have no governing body to define what is or is not art,
who is or is not a master we exercise true freedom - we can be anything we
want to be. Our piers make final judgment on whether we are correct or not.
I think Vince (as he is apt to do) nailed it on the definition of art or
title of artist. Art is an experience as much as a thing. A painting
described to a blind person may leave that blind person wondering what the
big deal is - but the emotional experience evoked on the sighted viewer can
easily transcend verbal description (translation???). Isn't that what keeps
us trying?
But when we choose to take on the title of master it implies a great command
of artistic experience, knowledge, ability, skill and mastery of technique.
Which you may or not really possess. In short your piers will know for sure
but the public as a whole may not.
I could not be so bold - I'm just a small town potter.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Vince Pitelka
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:34 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: [CLAYART] Master Potter / Artist
To James Freeman -
I am going to try to clarify what I was saying about the word "art," because
I believe that you misunderstood me.
You really cannot define what art is, because then you limit what it can be.
The all-inclusive, non-judgmental, non-qualitative description is "Art is
nothing more than visual expression intended to decorate or make a
statement." Children with no training at all spontaneously make art, and it
is almost always honest and often remarkably good. Problems arise as soon
as people start saying what art is or what it should be. So, in the most
basic sense, anyone who attempts to communicate through visual means by
making images or objects is an artist. Every drawing made by a young child
is art. When we look at art, it is up to each of us to decide whether we
think it is good art, because the word "art" carries no qualitative measure.
Learning about art and learning about life help us to decide what is good
art and what is not, but it is always a purely subjective, individual
interpretation, and one person's good art is another person's pointless
schlock. Look at all the people who love Thomas Kinkade.
There are no set standards by which you can judge art to be good, and there
never should be. Any commonality for judging art is a product of constantly
changing cultural dynamics, and what is avant garde and exciting in
mainstream art today will seem stale and derivative tomorrow. We as a
culture can cast a collective opinion (often via the marketplace) on what we
believe to be good art, but it is still the cumulative mass effect of
personal opinion - a lot of people agreeing with each other about what is
good art. Subsequently, those people often look foolish or misguided.
Who says it is art? No one needs to. A bottle of mayonnaise is not art.
But if the artist presents it as a work of art and says it is art, and then
who are we to say it isn't? By placing that bottle of mayonnaise in a
gallery setting, the artist (however derivative of Duchamp) challenges our
notion of what art is, and that is always a healthy thing to do.
Every single object that could be considered art "begs the question 'Who
Says it's art?'" and as I said above, it is up to each of us to judge that
question for ourselves.
To use a fictitious "Joe" as an example, for Joe to say that he is an artist
is a perfectly harmless statement of fact that is not inherently pompous or
misleading. It says that Joe makes what he thinks of as art, and his
parameters for determining what art is are as valid as anyone else's.
Whether you think Joe's "artwork" is art is your business and has nothing to
do with Joe being an artist. If Joe makes decorated objects or attempt to
communicate ideas visually through art-making, then Joe is an artist, and
the quality of his "art" is irrelevant. Whether or not we think Joe is
justified in calling himself an artist, it is a far more pompous act for any
of us to think we have the right to announce whether or not Joe is an
artist.
When Joe says that he is an artist, it implies that he is making what he
thinks is art, which is always a good thing and is always important in the
grand scheme of things. Whether or not you think Joe is an artist and
whether or not you think Joe's work is art has no bearing on the importance
of what he is doing.
Within the context of each person's experience, anyone has the option to say
that he/she is an artist, and it is by definition a statement of truth. You
cannot define what art is, and therefore you cannot say that someone is or
is not an artist.
Please do not say that this devalues the term "artist," because as I said
before, the term "artist" contains no qualitative judgment. If you wish to
communicate your opinion about Joe's art, you have every right to say that
Joe is a "poor artist" or a "good artist" or a "great artist," but none of
us would be justified in saying that he is not an artist.
As a maker of stuff, James, you are an artist.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on mon 27 oct 08
To James Freeman -
I am going to try to clarify what I was saying about the word "art," because
I believe that you misunderstood me.
You really cannot define what art is, because then you limit what it can be.
The all-inclusive, non-judgmental, non-qualitative description is "Art is
nothing more than visual expression intended to decorate or make a
statement." Children with no training at all spontaneously make art, and it
is almost always honest and often remarkably good. Problems arise as soon
as people start saying what art is or what it should be. So, in the most
basic sense, anyone who attempts to communicate through visual means by
making images or objects is an artist. Every drawing made by a young child
is art. When we look at art, it is up to each of us to decide whether we
think it is good art, because the word "art" carries no qualitative measure.
Learning about art and learning about life help us to decide what is good
art and what is not, but it is always a purely subjective, individual
interpretation, and one person's good art is another person's pointless
schlock. Look at all the people who love Thomas Kinkade.
There are no set standards by which you can judge art to be good, and there
never should be. Any commonality for judging art is a product of constantly
changing cultural dynamics, and what is avant garde and exciting in
mainstream art today will seem stale and derivative tomorrow. We as a
culture can cast a collective opinion (often via the marketplace) on what we
believe to be good art, but it is still the cumulative mass effect of
personal opinion - a lot of people agreeing with each other about what is
good art. Subsequently, those people often look foolish or misguided.
Who says it is art? No one needs to. A bottle of mayonnaise is not art.
But if the artist presents it as a work of art and says it is art, and then
who are we to say it isn't? By placing that bottle of mayonnaise in a
gallery setting, the artist (however derivative of Duchamp) challenges our
notion of what art is, and that is always a healthy thing to do.
Every single object that could be considered art "begs the question 'Who
Says it's art?'" and as I said above, it is up to each of us to judge that
question for ourselves.
To use a fictitious "Joe" as an example, for Joe to say that he is an artist
is a perfectly harmless statement of fact that is not inherently pompous or
misleading. It says that Joe makes what he thinks of as art, and his
parameters for determining what art is are as valid as anyone else's.
Whether you think Joe's "artwork" is art is your business and has nothing to
do with Joe being an artist. If Joe makes decorated objects or attempt to
communicate ideas visually through art-making, then Joe is an artist, and
the quality of his "art" is irrelevant. Whether or not we think Joe is
justified in calling himself an artist, it is a far more pompous act for any
of us to think we have the right to announce whether or not Joe is an
artist.
When Joe says that he is an artist, it implies that he is making what he
thinks is art, which is always a good thing and is always important in the
grand scheme of things. Whether or not you think Joe is an artist and
whether or not you think Joe's work is art has no bearing on the importance
of what he is doing.
Within the context of each person's experience, anyone has the option to say
that he/she is an artist, and it is by definition a statement of truth. You
cannot define what art is, and therefore you cannot say that someone is or
is not an artist.
Please do not say that this devalues the term "artist," because as I said
before, the term "artist" contains no qualitative judgment. If you wish to
communicate your opinion about Joe's art, you have every right to say that
Joe is a "poor artist" or a "good artist" or a "great artist," but none of
us would be justified in saying that he is not an artist.
As a maker of stuff, James, you are an artist.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Lee Love on tue 28 oct 08
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Larry Kruzan wrote:
> But when we choose to take on the title of master it implies a great command
> of artistic experience, knowledge, ability, skill and mastery of technique.
> Which you may or not really possess. In short your piers will know for sure
> but the public as a whole may not.
Larry,
The master potters I know have little artistic skill. They are
craftsmen who work under the direction of a studio artist. I have
watched them try to make their own designs on their pots. They had
great difficulty. But they have forgotten more skills than I will
ever learn.
> I could not be so bold - I'm just a small town potter.
I am a small city Hairy Potter. When I fill out registrations
that asked for my profession, I say self employed, studio potter.
When they ask for a title I put down Big Kahuna.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://togeika.multiply.com/journal
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
Thomas G. Sawyer, M.D.,J.D. on tue 28 oct 08
Vince,
You stated the following:
You really cannot define what art is, because then you limit what it can be.
and
Please do not say that this devalues the term "artist," because as I said
before, the term "artist" contains no qualitative judgment.
I tend to agree with these statements. But can one define what "art" is not?
And if we define what it is not then are we not defining what it is?
Tom Sawyer
James F on tue 28 oct 08
Vince=2C et alii...
Actually=2C I believe that I did understand you=2C but do appreciate the cl=
arification. Since we are wading into pure philosophy here ( I can hear th=
e collective groan already)=2C I shall keep my reply short.
You see all objects made in an attempt to decorate or express as "art" ("Ar=
t is nothing more than visual expression intended to decorate or make a sta=
tement.").
From my perspective=2C some objects made in an attempt to decorate or expre=
ss are "art" while others fail=2C and I further believe that some made obje=
cts never intended to decorate or express can nonetheless sometimes rise to=
the level of "art". The Porsche 356=2C Movado Museum Watch=2C and perhaps=
Rikyu era tea ware come to mind=2C but I also include some purely engineer=
ed forms. On my shelf=2C amongst part of my pottery collection=2C is an el=
egant Jacobs chuck=2C polished through a generation by the palm of a machin=
ist's hand as he stopped the motor. In my garden=2C on a pedestal=2C is a =
small chunk of bulldozer that is to me absolutely minimalist sculpture=2C t=
hough never intended as such. I believe such objects are no less moving an=
d no less worthy of contemplation than a work of Noguchi.
You see made objects as falling along an egalitarian spectrum from "bad art=
" through "good art". I see made objects as falling along a spectrum from =
"not art" through "art". Though we clearly disagree on the units to proper=
ly append to the scale=2C it is nonetheless the same scale=2C and I do beli=
eve that you and I would agree in many cases on where along said scale cert=
ain objects belong=2C Thomas Kinkade being a good example. I personally do=
not accept the concept of "bad art" at all. Rather=2C in my weltanshauung=
=2C if it's bad=2C it's not "art". I tend to view the word "art" (in the s=
ense that we are discussing) as an adjective=2C while it seems that you ten=
d to view it as a noun. I do not accept that "art" is an ingredient that c=
an simply be stirred into the mix when making an object.. I view "art" muc=
h like "Wabi"=3B an object possesses it or it does not.
I believe we both recognize that all of the preceding discussion is opinion=
=2C not fact=2C and can never be otherwise. I had heretofore never mention=
ed my own views on this matter=2C but rather was relating Franck's=2C and p=
erhaps Lili's and other posters'=2C opinion. Their point=2C and mine=2C is=
that if=2C as you say=2C "art" is anything one claims as such=2C and an "a=
rtist" is anyone who claims the mantle=2C then both words become utterly an=
d hopelessly meaningless. I have always viewed the words "art" and "artist=
" as being tremendously lofty=2C almost sacred (in a purely secular sense) =
honorifics=2C not to be bandied about lightly. I do not think you and I sh=
all ever agree on this=2C nor need we. Both camps=2C however=2C need to re=
cognize that one cannot use the word "is" in the speculative realms of opin=
ion and philosophy. Where no facts exist=2C one should perhaps replace "is=
" with "I believe". Many=2C many of the world's problems stem directly fro=
m confusing "I believe" with "is". If it is wrong for me to deny someone's=
claim of being an "artist"=2C it is equally wrong of you to force me to ac=
cept that claim on it's face.
I do plainly see that if one accepts your definition of "art"=2C then anyon=
e can rightly claim the mantle of "artist". I believe that you will agree =
that if one does not accept your definition of "art"=2C rightly or wrongly=
=2C then one could logically object to the broad application of the title. =
The issue=2C then=2C is whether or not one must accept your definition of =
"art". You do not view "artist" as an honorific=2C but rather as a simple =
descriptive noun. Others view "artist" purely as an honorific. Arguments =
can certainly be made for both sides=2C but both remain merely opinions=2C =
not facts.
Here is a line from a very early version of my "artist's" statement (as muc=
h as I despise such things):
"I
endeavor to create works that are interesting=2C well designed=2C well craf=
ted=2C
well proportioned=2C and aesthetically pleasing=2C perhaps even beautiful. =
If you find =93Art=94 in my work=2C then I was an
Artist for that moment=2C but may not be tomorrow. Please enjoy my work fo=
r what it is."
It is a joy engaging in discussion with people whose arguments and opinions=
are well reasoned and well thought-out even if we never agree=2C though em=
ail is perhaps a particularly ineffective medium. Vince=2C if ever we meet=
I should like to buy you a beer or three. You are a thinker and a mensch.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
_________________________________________________________________
When your life is on the go=97take your life with you.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/=
Vince Pitelka on wed 29 oct 08
James Freeman wrote:
"I personally do not accept the concept of "bad art" at all. Rather, in my
weltanshauung, if it's bad, it's not "art". I tend to view the word "art"
(in the sense that we are discussing) as an adjective, while it seems that
you tend to view it as a noun. I do not accept that "art" is an ingredient
that can simply be stirred into the mix when making an object.. I view
"art" much like "Wabi"; an object possesses it or it does not."
James -
You might want to rethink the above. The first statement is a
non-statement, an impossibility. OF COURSE there is bad art. And
furthermore, decades or centuries later, the stuff condemned in its own time
as bad art often becomes seen as the work of genius. James, I apologize for
how this sounds, but it would be very arrogant for an individual to say that
something is not art just because they think it is badly done. I cannot
believe that you really think that you have the all-encompassing knowledge
of art history and technique and contemporary culture to be able to discern
so clearly what is "bad" and therefore is not art. Your concept above is
self-contradictory, because you do not have the context to determine what is
bad art except in your own opinion. Your opinions about what is good art are
valid and important, but irrelevant in this conversation about art in the
broad view.
James, I have said what I believe about this, and my beliefs are based upon
40 years of being an artist, looking at art, making art, reading about art,
and 25 years of teaching art (including 2-D and 3-D design, drawing,
ceramics, art history, and art appreciation). None of that makes me more
"right" than you, but I just want to emphasize that my opinions are very
well-considered, and the opinions I have come to in this matter are intended
to be inclusive and fair, rather than limiting and judgmental. I believe in
being very open-minded about what art can be in order to maximize the
possibilities of what it can be.
You wrote:
"Their point, and mine, is that if, as you say, "art" is anything one claims
as such, and an "artist" is anyone who claims the mantle, then both words
become utterly and hopelessly meaningless."
On the contrary, James, they become far more inclusive, greatly increasing
the range of possibility as to who can be an artist and what can be art.
The words are what they are. You have nothing to gain by trying to make
them something more special or exclusive than they are. Every time someone
claims to be an artist, and claims that something is their "art," it opens a
conversation. People listen to the artist, look at the artwork, discuss the
artist and her/his work, and then present opinions and draw conclusions.
Things are communicated, ideas are clarified, and somewhere along the line
each viewer decides in their own mind whether the art is good or bad. It is
a fascinating and essential process, and making the words "art" and "artist"
more lofty and exclusionary accomplishes absolutely nothing and risks
severely limiting the possibilities and parameters of "art."
You wrote:
"I have always viewed the words "art" and "artist" as being tremendously
lofty, almost sacred (in a purely secular sense) honorifics, not to be
bandied about lightly. I do not think you and I shall ever agree on this,
nor need we. Both camps, however, need to recognize that one cannot use the
word "is" in the speculative realms of opinion and philosophy. Where no
facts exist, one should perhaps replace "is" with "I believe".
Sorry James. I am in this way to deep to do that. I know for a fact that
the world is better off if the possibilities of "artist" and "art" are left
as open and accessible as possible, with no lofty distance between the
lay-person and the "artist," no exclusionist implications in the words
"art," "artist," or the phrase "art-making." Those are not opinions.
You wrote:
"You do not view "artist" as an honorific, but rather as a simple
descriptive noun. Others view "artist" purely as an honorific. Arguments
can certainly be made for both sides, but both remain merely opinions, not
facts."
Of course that is true, but again, my "definition" of art is intended to be
more inclusive and to maximize the range of possibilities, encouraging more
people to make art and think of themselves as artist, which could never,
ever be a bad thing.
You wrote:
"Here is a line from a very early version of my "artist's" statement (as
much as I despise such things):
"I endeavor to create works that are interesting, well designed, well
crafted, well proportioned, and aesthetically pleasing, perhaps even
beautiful. If you find "Art" in my work, then I was an Artist for that
moment, but may not be tomorrow. Please enjoy my work for what it is."
The only thing wrong with the preceding exert is the line you wrote before
quoting your artist's statement. You write well, and you are obviously
committed to making art, so why could it be a problem to write about your
artwork? I should be careful, because we have had some long and perhaps
tiresome discussions about artist's statements in the past. I believe in
them wholeheartedly and believe that every artist has something to gain by
writing and then periodically re-writing their artist's statement. To
understand my approach, please check out my handout on writing an artist's
statement at
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/syllabi-handouts/handouts/artist%27s%20state
ment.htm
ement.htm>
You wrote:
"It is a joy engaging in discussion with people whose arguments and opinions
are well reasoned and well thought-out even if we never agree, though email
is perhaps a particularly ineffective medium. Vince, if ever we meet I
should like to buy you a beer or three. You are a thinker and a mensch."
Your kind words mean more to me than you might imagine. We will meet, and I
will look forward to the beers and conversation.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on wed 29 oct 08
Tom Sawyer wrote:
"I tend to agree with these statements. But can one define what "art" is
not?
And if we define what it is not then are we not defining what it is?"
Tom -
In terms of your statement above, you could only define what art is if you
defined EVERYTHING that it is not, which would of course be impossible. I
think that you can narrow the parameters by assuming that art is not a lot
of things, but it does get messy. I deal with it on an individual case
basis. Much of the installation and conceptual art that I see in museums
and galleries doesn't impress me at all, and I often cannot justify calling
it art in my own terms, even though I acknowledge that it is art in the mind
of the person who made it, and that the person who made it is an "artist"
simply by having made it. This can get pretty confusing.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Dave Pike on thu 30 oct 08
Lee Love wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Larry Kruzan wrote:
>
>
>> But when we choose to take on the title of master it implies a great command
>> of artistic experience, knowledge, ability, skill and mastery of technique.
>> Which you may or not really possess. In short your piers will know for sure
>> but the public as a whole may not.
>>
>
> Larry,
>
> The master potters I know have little artistic skill. They are
> craftsmen who work under the direction of a studio artist. I have
> watched them try to make their own designs on their pots. They had
> great difficulty. But they have forgotten more skills than I will
> ever learn.
>
>
>
>> I could not be so bold - I'm just a small town potter.
>>
>
> I am a small city Hairy Potter. When I fill out registrations
> that asked for my profession, I say self employed, studio potter.
> When they ask for a title I put down Big Kahuna.
>
> --
> Lee Love in Minneapolis
> http://togeika.multiply.com/journal
> 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
>
>
>
Hello Lee,
Can you flesh out this part "
The master potters I know have little artistic skill. They are
craftsmen who work under the direction of a studio artist. I have
watched them try to make their own designs on their pots."
The master potters I know definitely don't fit this model.
Hello Larry,
"In short your piers" Shouldn't that be peers?
Thank you,
Dave
http://togeii.wordpress.com/
James F on thu 30 oct 08
Vince...
We are very close to saying the same things=2C but are using different labe=
ls. You will perhaps recall that the first Brancussi piece to be brought i=
nto this country was rejected at the border because the customs form indica=
ted that the crate contained "art". After negotiation=2C the form was redr=
awn as "scrap metal"=2C and the piece was allowed through. When Whistler f=
irst exhibited his Nocturnes=2C the great art critic John Ruskin wrote "I h=
ave never expected to hear a coxcomb ask 200 guineas for flinging a pot of =
paint in the public's face." These people did not view the works in questi=
on as "bad art"=2C but rather as not art at all. I am not defending these =
judgments=2C but merely pointing out that they exist. Clearly a spectrum f=
rom "not art" through "art" has precident.
My point was only that in my opinion=2C any judgement of good art/bad art=
=2C not art/art=2C or artist/not artist can only be personal things=2C and =
apply only to the person making the judgment. I never stated=2C and vocife=
rously reject=2C any notion that any one person is qualified to make the "b=
ad art/good art" or "not art/art" decree for all=2C and I believe you agree=
with this statement. Yes=2C for me to declare for all that a certain piec=
e was or was not art would be arrogant=2C but I never ventured into these w=
aters. Rather=2C my contention is and was that likewise for you to force m=
e to accept that a piece is art would be equally arrogant. To paraphrase O=
scar Wilde=2C arrogance is not believing as one wishes to believe=3B it is =
asking others to believe as one wishes to believe. For me it is not art=2C=
for you it may be. Both are=2C and can only be=2C opinions=2C no matter h=
ow many years of study or practice back those opinions. When I ventured to=
Washington=2C DC to see Whistler's Nocturnes at either the Freer or Sackle=
r gallery (I was never sure where one collection ended and the other began)=
=2C I stood transfixed. To me=2C they were among the most moving and beaut=
iful paintings I had ever seen. I could not see how Ruskin could have dism=
issed them as "not art". To me they were very clearly "art"=2C but to him=
=2C the most respected art critic of his day=2C they were absolutely not ar=
t. This does not make Ruskin wrong and me right. We were both right for o=
urselves=2C and both wrong for the other. Opinions may certainly change ov=
er time=2C but they remain opinions.
I respect your years of study of and devotion to art=2C but while these cer=
tainly lend weight to your opinions=2C they do not make those opinions fact=
s. Equally studied and lettered folk can and do disagree with your opinion=
. David Pye=2C the late professor at the Royal College of Art=2C London=2C=
stated "The value and essence of art is that it makes us know beauty. If =
a putative work of art fails in that=2C then it fails finally and is no art=
however much it may inform or persuade or comment." David Hume=2C the gre=
at philosopher=2C said "Beauty in things exists in the mind which contempla=
tes them." I do not offer these lines as "truth" nor as proof that my opin=
ions are "right"=2C but only to demonstrate that my opinions are not unreas=
oned nor without precident. I completely agree that your personal definiti=
on of art is much broader and likely much more widely held than mine=2C but=
neither of these facts render it "better" than mine. Both are merely opin=
ions=2C and "better" brings with it it's own set of arguments and value jud=
gments.
This has been a great discussion=2C but at this point=2C we may owe a beer =
to many on the list for subjecting them to our philosophical banter. Perha=
ps it is time to shift discussion back to floating blue? I shall close wit=
h a line from Bertrand Russel: "It matters little what you believe=2C so l=
ong as you don't altogether believe it."
Be well.
...James
James Freeman
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> Date: Wed=2C 29 Oct 2008 19:59:19 -0500
> From: vpitelka@DTCCOM.NET
> Subject: Re: Master Potter / Artist
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>=20
> James Freeman wrote:
> "I personally do not accept the concept of "bad art" at all. Rather=2C i=
n my
> weltanshauung=2C if it's bad=2C it's not "art". I tend to view the word =
"art"
> (in the sense that we are discussing) as an adjective=2C while it seems t=
hat
> you tend to view it as a noun. I do not accept that "art" is an ingredie=
nt
> that can simply be stirred into the mix when making an object.. I view
> "art" much like "Wabi"=3B an object possesses it or it does not."
>=20
> James -
> You might want to rethink the above. The first statement is a
> non-statement=2C an impossibility. OF COURSE there is bad art. And
> furthermore=2C decades or centuries later=2C the stuff condemned in its o=
wn time
> as bad art often becomes seen as the work of genius. James=2C I apologiz=
e for
> how this sounds=2C but it would be very arrogant for an individual to say=
that
> something is not art just because they think it is badly done. I cannot
> believe that you really think that you have the all-encompassing knowledg=
e
> of art history and technique and contemporary culture to be able to disce=
rn
> so clearly what is "bad" and therefore is not art. Your concept above is
> self-contradictory=2C because you do not have the context to determine wh=
at is
> bad art except in your own opinion. Your opinions about what is good art =
are
> valid and important=2C but irrelevant in this conversation about art in t=
he
> broad view.
>=20
> James=2C I have said what I believe about this=2C and my beliefs are base=
d upon
> 40 years of being an artist=2C looking at art=2C making art=2C reading ab=
out art=2C
> and 25 years of teaching art (including 2-D and 3-D design=2C drawing=2C
> ceramics=2C art history=2C and art appreciation). None of that makes me =
more
> "right" than you=2C but I just want to emphasize that my opinions are ver=
y
> well-considered=2C and the opinions I have come to in this matter are int=
ended
> to be inclusive and fair=2C rather than limiting and judgmental. I believ=
e in
> being very open-minded about what art can be in order to maximize the
> possibilities of what it can be.
>=20
> You wrote:
> "Their point=2C and mine=2C is that if=2C as you say=2C "art" is anything=
one claims
> as such=2C and an "artist" is anyone who claims the mantle=2C then both w=
ords
> become utterly and hopelessly meaningless."
>=20
> On the contrary=2C James=2C they become far more inclusive=2C greatly inc=
reasing
> the range of possibility as to who can be an artist and what can be art.
> The words are what they are. You have nothing to gain by trying to make
> them something more special or exclusive than they are. Every time someo=
ne
> claims to be an artist=2C and claims that something is their "art=2C" it =
opens a
> conversation. People listen to the artist=2C look at the artwork=2C disc=
uss the
> artist and her/his work=2C and then present opinions and draw conclusions=
.
> Things are communicated=2C ideas are clarified=2C and somewhere along the=
line
> each viewer decides in their own mind whether the art is good or bad. It=
is
> a fascinating and essential process=2C and making the words "art" and "ar=
tist"
> more lofty and exclusionary accomplishes absolutely nothing and risks
> severely limiting the possibilities and parameters of "art."
>=20
> You wrote:
> "I have always viewed the words "art" and "artist" as being tremendously
> lofty=2C almost sacred (in a purely secular sense) honorifics=2C not to b=
e
> bandied about lightly. I do not think you and I shall ever agree on this=
=2C
> nor need we. Both camps=2C however=2C need to recognize that one cannot =
use the
> word "is" in the speculative realms of opinion and philosophy. Where no
> facts exist=2C one should perhaps replace "is" with "I believe".
>=20
> Sorry James. I am in this way to deep to do that. I know for a fact tha=
t
> the world is better off if the possibilities of "artist" and "art" are le=
ft
> as open and accessible as possible=2C with no lofty distance between the
> lay-person and the "artist=2C" no exclusionist implications in the words
> "art=2C" "artist=2C" or the phrase "art-making." Those are not opinions.
>=20
> You wrote:
> "You do not view "artist" as an honorific=2C but rather as a simple
> descriptive noun. Others view "artist" purely as an honorific. Argument=
s
> can certainly be made for both sides=2C but both remain merely opinions=
=2C not
> facts."
>=20
> Of course that is true=2C but again=2C my "definition" of art is intended=
to be
> more inclusive and to maximize the range of possibilities=2C encouraging =
more
> people to make art and think of themselves as artist=2C which could never=
=2C
> ever be a bad thing.
>=20
> You wrote:
> "Here is a line from a very early version of my "artist's" statement (as
> much as I despise such things):
> "I endeavor to create works that are interesting=2C well designed=2C well
> crafted=2C well proportioned=2C and aesthetically pleasing=2C perhaps eve=
n
> beautiful. If you find "Art" in my work=2C then I was an Artist for that
> moment=2C but may not be tomorrow. Please enjoy my work for what it is."
>=20
> The only thing wrong with the preceding exert is the line you wrote befor=
e
> quoting your artist's statement. You write well=2C and you are obviously
> committed to making art=2C so why could it be a problem to write about yo=
ur
> artwork? I should be careful=2C because we have had some long and perhap=
s
> tiresome discussions about artist's statements in the past. I believe in
> them wholeheartedly and believe that every artist has something to gain b=
y
> writing and then periodically re-writing their artist's statement. To
> understand my approach=2C please check out my handout on writing an artis=
t's
> statement at
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/syllabi-handouts/handouts/artist%27s%20st=
ate
> ment.htm
> tat
> ement.htm>
>=20
> You wrote:
> "It is a joy engaging in discussion with people whose arguments and opini=
ons
> are well reasoned and well thought-out even if we never agree=2C though e=
mail
> is perhaps a particularly ineffective medium. Vince=2C if ever we meet I
> should like to buy you a beer or three. You are a thinker and a mensch."
>=20
> Your kind words mean more to me than you might imagine. We will meet=2C =
and I
> will look forward to the beers and conversation.
> - Vince
>=20
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net=3B wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
_________________________________________________________________
Store=2C manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=3D1?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_sky=
drive_102008=
Neon-Cat on thu 30 oct 08
I have followed the thread about master potters (and art/artists) out of
curiosity but ran right into the term "Master" yesterday when some of my
potter buds talked me into entering a show - the Fort Worth Ceramic Art
Guild's 55th Annual Ceramic and Doll show. To enter there were rules for
competition entries based on these classifications: Masters, Professional,
Teenage, Children, Hobbyists, Senior Citizens (60 yrs. or older),
Handicapped, and Hobbyists Beginner (less than 1 year).
Here is how part of their entry form reads:
"Classification of entries between professionals and hobbyists is based as
follows:
A professional is anyone who either teaches ceramics, has a tax number or a
license to sell ceramics and/or supplies. Any other entry would be a
hobbyist. Masters has a degree in art, shows, sells work for profit in art
galleries or any commercial establishment. Has authored a book on ceramic
techniques or business techniques. Has accumulated three (3) major awards or
trophies, such as Peggy, Best of Show, Judges Award, NCMA or ICA etc. Has in
the past won a Master Award in ceramic competition."
Like it or not quite a few of you, were you to have entered this show, might
have selected the "Masters" classification. A nice, neat placard next to
your work would inform show visitors of your Masters status.
I am still trying to get my head around 'my' classification as "hobbyist".
At a little over a year in clay and almost every waking moment spent
thinking about some aspect of clay they should have had an "obsessed" class
for folks like me. It would fit right in during this Halloween week. I've
had hobbies, but nothing like this thing I have for clay.
But for me none of this discussion impacts today's activities in clay for
me - labels aside I'll just keep on practicing and having fun along the way
(it's a 'let's try terra sigillata' day for me and I need to make a form to
host it). I am thinking now how to shed an instilled bias I've picked up
already regarding this local show. When I go back to view the show this
weekend I will be tempted to look more critically or with greater
expectation at those works exhibited by professions and masters and
personally, I rather go and just be delighted by what I see. Will I find one
piece among hundreds that gives me one of those "oh wow!" arresting moments?
Something that rocks my world a little? One can only hope.
Marian
Lee Love on thu 30 oct 08
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Dave Pike wrote:
> Hello Lee,
> Can you flesh out this part "
>
> The master potters I know have little artistic skill. They are
> craftsmen who work under the direction of a studio artist. I have
> watched them try to make their own designs on their pots."
>
> The master potters I know definitely don't fit this model.
Shokunin work for the artist. They have high levels of technical
skills, but they don't necessarily have artistic or creative skills.
When you leave school at the age of 14, your intellectual development
is sacrificed.
Each can be appreciated in their own light, but they shouldn't be
confused. It is only in modern times, that our prosperity has
allowed the craftsman and the artist to be present in a single person.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://togeika.multiply.com/journal
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
Mayssan Farra on sat 1 nov 08
Dear all:=0A=0ASo A person that draws is a drawer and he that makes install=
ations is an installer? and he who does those and more will be a drawer pai=
nter( with no difference between house painter and fine art painter), insta=
ller sculptor person? Is that how we descibe ourselves=A0( we of=A0=A0the s=
cattered interest)?=0A=0AThis is getting to be silly and petty, whether=A0g=
ood or bad is for you to judge but I am an artist.=0A=0AMayssan Shora Farra=
=0Ahttp://www.clayvillepottery.com=0Ahttp://clayette.blogspot.com=0A=0A=0A=
=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: "pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET" .NET>=0ATo: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=0ASent: Friday, October 31, 2008 7:18:=
21 AM=0ASubject: Re: Master Potter / Artist=0A=0AHi Vince, James, Tom, all.=
..=0A=0A=0A=0AProbably we'd all be better off if the word 'Art' were abando=
ned=0Aentirely...and, instead, for people to say 'A Painting'...'A=0ASculpt=
ure'...'An Installation'...'A Drawing' or whatever, since the term=0Aseems =
to be un-necessary in the first place, and, gets=0Aeven worse, after that..=
.which is to say, it indicates nothing anymore,=0Aother than to be leading,=
and, one is=0Abetter off seeing the thing-in-question for one's self anywa=
y, to decide=0Awhatever one may about it, intinfitely more-so than to have =
others refer to=0Ait as 'Art'.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0APhil=0Al v=0A=0A=0A----- Or=
iginal Message -----=0AFrom: "Vince Pitelka"=0A=0A=0A
James F on mon 3 nov 08
Snail...
I too hold David Pye in very high regard and wholeheartedly recommend his b=
ooks. I offered his definition not because I agreed or disagreed with it=2C=
but rather only to demonstrate that some lettered folk do reject the idea =
that any purported work of art is=2C in fact=2C art.
I did enjoy your retort to your literary friend. As with your other writing=
s=2C both on and off list=2C it is intelligent=2C clever=2C and challenging=
(in the good way).
I think Pye's definition is only narrow if one holds a narrow view as to wh=
at is beautiful=2C or ascribes a narrow view to him. Beauty can be other th=
ings besides a pretty flower. Odd Nerdrum's paintings definitely challenge =
our ideas on beauty=2C as do the sculptures of Rodin. Fujiwara no Teika sho=
ws us the beauty in sadness and loneliness:
All Around=2C no flowers in bloom
nor maple leaves in glare.
A solitary fisherman's hut alone
on the twilight shore
of this autumn eve.
Sengai shows us the beauty in mortality:
To what shall I compare this life of ours?
Even before I can say
it is like a lightning flash or a dewdrop
it is no more.
Buson even finds beauty in futility and death:
Skull in the grasses
All that remains
of the warrior's dreams
In fact=2C the entire Japanese aesthetic concepts of wabi and sabi center a=
round seeing beauty in what is not conventionally viewed as such. Taoism to=
o is filled with the idea of finding beauty or other value in things by app=
reciating them for what they are rather than comparing them to what they ar=
e not. Recall the famous allegorical painting of the Vinegar Tasters. In th=
e painting=2C Lao Tzu is smiling.
I'm not sure if Pye intended his definition to be read broadly or narrowly=
=2C but my guess=2C or at least hope=2C is the former. In any case=2C debat=
ing 'What is beauty?' would doubtless prove even thornier than 'What is art=
?'.
For anyone interested=2C the David Pye books to which Snail and I refer are=
The Nature and Art of Workmanship (ISBN 0713689315) and The Nature & Aesth=
etics of Design (ISBN 0713652861). They are definitely NOT ceramics books=
=2C but are excellent treatises on the topics named in their respective tit=
les. Pye is a joy to read=2C regardless of topic.
Sorry to wax philosophical again. This just seems to have been my week. Per=
haps there is a pill for it=2C or a 12-step program.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> Date: Fri=2C 31 Oct 2008 10:12:43 -0500
> From: claywork@FLYING-SNAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: Master Potter / Artist
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>
> On Oct 30=2C 2008=2C at 8:10 AM=2C James F wrote:
>> ...David Pye=2C the late professor at the Royal College of Art=2C London=
=2C
>> stated 'The value and essence of art is that it makes us know beauty.
>> If a putative work of art fails in that=2C then it fails finally and is
>> no art however much it may inform or persuade or comment.'
>
>
> I have a high regard for David Pye=2C and often re-read
> and recommend his books=2C but I think this is a rather
> narrow criterion. A friend of mine (a literary guy who'd
> not thought much about visual art) said one day=2C ''Art' is
> what it beautiful'. I asked him=2C 'Is 'literature' a story with
> a happy ending?'
>
> -Snail
_________________________________________________________________
Store=2C manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=3D1?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_sky=
drive_102008=
Ric Swenson on tue 4 nov 08
Mel Brooks had a good take on painter vs house painter....in the movie ther=
e was a play....SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER ...one of the characters.....a retire=
d nazi....touted a line that went something like...
=20
=20
=20
=20
" Ah zie furher vas a vonderful painter! Three rooms in one day!...."
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
hehe
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Ric
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
> Date: Sat=2C 1 Nov 2008 07:32:32 -0700> From: mayssan1@YAHOO.COM> Subject=
: Re: Master Potter / Artist> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG> > Dear all:> > =
So A person that draws is a drawer and he that makes installations is an in=
staller? and he who does those and more will be a drawer painter( with no d=
ifference between house painter and fine art painter)=2C installer sculptor=
person? Is that how we descibe ourselves ( we of the scattered interest)?=
> > This is getting to be silly and petty=2C whether good or bad is for you=
to judge but I am an artist.> > Mayssan Shora Farra> http://www.clayvillep=
ottery.com> http://clayette.blogspot.com> > > > ----- Original Message ----=
> From: "pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET" > To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS=
.ORG> Sent: Friday=2C October 31=2C 2008 7:18:21 AM> Subject: Re: Master Po=
tter / Artist> > Hi Vince=2C James=2C Tom=2C all...> > > > Probably we'd al=
l be better off if the word 'Art' were abandoned> entirely...and=2C instead=
=2C for people to say 'A Painting'...'A> Sculpture'...'An Installation'...'=
A Drawing' or whatever=2C since the term> seems to be un-necessary in the f=
irst place=2C and=2C gets> even worse=2C after that...which is to say=2C it=
indicates nothing anymore=2C> other than to be leading=2C and=2C one is> b=
etter off seeing the thing-in-question for one's self anyway=2C to decide> =
whatever one may about it=2C intinfitely more-so than to have others refer =
to> it as 'Art'.> > > > > > Phil> l v> > > ----- Original Message -----> Fr=
om: "Vince Pitelka"> > >=20
_________________________________________________________________
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger=A0
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=3Den-us&sourc=
e=3Dwlmailtagline=
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on mon 10 nov 08
The summary elucidation of where things are, as far as the consensus, as far
as I can tell -
What is Art?
"Art" - Anything produced by an Artist when made, offered or apprehended in
an Art
context.
"Artist" - Anyone who produces Art...particularly if in an 'Art context'.
'Art context' - any situation in which an Artist makes or exhibits Art.
How simple!
Lol...
Phil
l v
| |
|
