Kelly Savino on thu 5 nov 09
Mel wrote:
>the new educational phrase we all see is: `be whatever you want
>to be.` boy, is that bullshit. i want to be the starting offensive center
>for the chicago bears. `NOT`. or, i want to be the lead dancer
>in the london ballet. `not`.
But mel also wrote:
>we learn to our strengths. our natural abilities and then we grow
>and develop those skills over time. those with natural gifts will
>rise to the skill. if your natural abilities are never tapped, you live
>a life of hell. it is why so many of you love clay...it is a part of your
>dna...skill and problem solving...alone.
So mel... what about the huge number of kids who are discouraged from being=
artists, or pursuing their natural abilities from the start? (directly, by=
parents/teachers, or just by a culture that values financial success above=
art?) The kid who would have been a dancer, but his dad said "that's for s=
issies!" and signed him up for football? The kids with natural gifts that =
weren't valued, or funded at school, or offered as a possibility? What abo=
ut the kids who loved clay, or paint, but their well meaning parents wanted=
them to have a steady income and health insurance?
If you really wanted to play for the Chicago Bears when you were a kid, had=
some support to pursue it, and worked your ass off to do it, you might hav=
e had a shot. Tiger Woods wasn't born golfing but he put in the time and de=
veloped the skills. The impossibility in your example is the part where we =
look back and want what we never made happen.
I mean, yeah, I'm not seeing you in a tutu... but I have to wonder how many=
young people got the message loud and clear that art is for wealthy dilett=
antes, beatniks, or social misfits, crazy one eared people, not folks who g=
et real jobs and raise families and pursue the American dream. MY parents l=
oved and encouraged me but my dad really only cared about my grades in math=
, english and science... beccause "EVERYBODY gets an A in art."
So at its best, THAT's what the grown-ups mean by "be whatever you want to =
be". Or try, anyway, and find out for yourself if you can do it. It should=
n't mean I'm going to give you an A for sincerity, or applaud your caterwau=
ling if you are an awful singer, or publish your ghastly poetry, or rave ov=
er the pot I could pound a nail with... on the contrary, the people who ha=
ve taken my work seriously are the ones who have told me where it was faili=
ng, and helped me find the resources (internal, or external) to improve it.=
Even when it hurt. (Hi Diana!)
I read the Play Book by Nils Lou. We see eye to eye on a lot of basic ideas=
, and I enjoyed the challenges he posed. You and I have gone around about p=
lay over the years, and I hate to repeat my same old stuff... but I think t=
he problem is less that we dismiss art making as "play" -- and more that we=
dismiss play as trivial.
Look at our favorite baby predators: puppies and kittens. Their play is hun=
ting practice, fighting practice, mating practice, social positioning pract=
ice.
Children's play is life practice... training eyes, hands, minds; pretending=
and mimicking, developing skills, learning to observe and guess, working o=
ut fears and emotions, practicing to be a grown up.
After 9-11 my little ones built tall towers with lego blocks and put superh=
eroes on top to knock down airplanes, so the good guys could win and we wou=
ld be safe. Kids work stuff out with play, learn to feel powerful and not a=
fraid... but most importantly, they are PROBLEM SOLVING. (My favorite part =
of studio work -- problem solving, thinking around corners, creating a prob=
lem for myself so I can solve it... painting myself into some conceptual co=
rner so I can figure a way out. Like the cat batting the sock across the ru=
g so he can chase it...)
Play isn't stupid, play is sacred. Adults forget that.
I do understand a grown man's annoyance when his life's work is considered =
"playing in the mud" -- but our culture devalues, "disnifies", and dismisse=
s much of childhood life anyway. You can tell by the crap they sell to feed=
kids, the movies made for them, the books, or the awful, trivial music (wi=
th some shining exceptions in each category, of course.)
Maybe it's easier for me, as a woman, to adjust my level of giveashit about=
how society values my contributions. Some of the most rewarding, significa=
nt things I have given my life to -- like making a home, staying home with =
babies, raising and homeschooling three kids, making things grow in the gar=
den -- were commonly referred to as "not having a job". Those are also jobs=
traditionally left to slaves, servants or other "lessers". I tried to care=
whether everybody "gets it" but I just can't. I get it, my family gets it,=
others who share my values get it.
So now if people think my pottery is my cute hobby, or assume I make hobby =
shop yard gnomes like Aunt Betty, well, OK. Today I ate leftovers for lunch=
while driving from clay job 1 to clay job 2, had dinner standing in the ki=
tchen with my car running, between clay job 2 and clay job 3, and dragged m=
y butt home from there at 10pm to load my own kilns (after loading one at t=
he college and two at the guild.) All my clothes are clay clothes, my hands=
are ragged, my back needs a good soak in the tub, but the bills will get p=
aid and I helped a lot of people make better pots today. I don't care if pe=
ople love Madonna more than me. I don't need a BMW or a brass band or a sta=
tue in the park.
I'd settle for a night off, though. When I do get an evening at home, we p=
lay some more. Family game night burns no calories, earns no money, gets no=
homework done, but it makes us all laugh and "see" each other again, gets =
the teenagers to talk to us, and makes a family out of five otherwise overs=
cheduled, work-driven people.
As for grades... the bar has been lowered for so long and from such a young=
age that I don't see a turn-around. When I taught in the English departmen=
t, long ago, when we gave kids grades they deserved we kept getting notes f=
rom higher ups about "retention" -- best to keep them writing tuition check=
s, even if they never should have passed sixth grade. It's probably why a c=
ollege diplomacy is such a worthless bit of currency these days in a job hu=
nt.
Both my boys are in school this year, after a decade of self-guided learnin=
g and no grades: for the first time they see how little it takes to get an =
A. They'll learn to play the game, head for college, hopefully keep a good=
work ethic and do more than required... and yes, I tell them they can be w=
hatever they want to be... if they work damn hard at it, and have a little =
talent, and a little luck.
Yours
Kelly in Ohio
dog tired
http://www.primalpotter.com (website)
http://primalmommy.wordpress.com (blog)
http://www.primalpotter.etsy.com (store)
mel jacobson on thu 5 nov 09
the reason i have argued with nils about `art and play` is the
public perception that we as artists are children, and we play, never
work. no difficult problem solving in art, it is just play.
it is easy when you just have to `let go`...have fun, games and
cookies.
the new educational phrase we all see is: `be whatever you want
to be.` boy, is that bullshit. i want to be the starting offensive cente=
r
for the chicago bears. `NOT`. or, i want to be the lead dancer
in the london ballet. `not`.
we learn to our strengths. our natural abilities and then we grow
and develop those skills over time. those with natural gifts will
rise to the skill. if your natural abilities are never tapped, you live
a life of hell. it is why so many of you love clay...it is a part of your
dna...skill and problem solving...alone.
we, as artists, have very special god given talents, the ability to see
and perceive. hand eye coordination, kinesthetic talents that many
do not have a clue about. our ability to see and know thousands of
hues and shades of color are natural in many ways.
it may not
be to the hundreds of people coming out of tower buildings doing
law, business or money. they don't even think about it.
or, the great line `my wife does all the decoration in our home`.
(one of the great sexist lines in our society.) why would your
wife be better? dna? it is a shucked off concept, to others that
have `talent.` hmmm.
this same perception holds true in schools. art is fun, games not
to be taken seriously. it is the easy A. that must be fought against,
never given into. we praise children with natural talent, and hold
them up as examples of skill, natural ability and talent. the soloist
at church, the kid that plays lead trumpet, that little kid that plays
the violin. the kid that can draw. the one that has that great hand
eye coordination. but, we throw them out now. only the kid that
gets straight A for reading writing and math is considered talented.
they may be total dolts. nothing to offer the next generation.
think of the great names of the last generation of talented people.
scientists, creative people, musicians, writers...names on our lips.
now it is silly hollywood types, tv personalities, sex symbols.
athletes. smut.
we don't even know that a person like stravinski was alive. but, many
listen to whoopy goldberg as a great thinker. or, madonna.
the higher we keep the standards of art and craft the better it will be
for all of us. skilled work, with creative thought, extreme problem solvin=
g
that has merit. not hype, not bull. we still have museum shows
with twenty garbage cans. my god, get over it. will we ever have a major
museum show with fine pots? not very often. junk. metaphor. verbal
art.
i can't tell you how many people come to my studio and say...`god, it is
great to see real art. skill and craftsmanship...something i can give as
a gift i am proud to give.` `the world of art is insane.` i can only agre=
e
with them.
so, the easy, given for good feeling grade is slap in the face of
every student that
takes an art class. it just moves the perception forward. `man, was
that easy,
nothing to do but show up, man, my honor points just shot up...`
the lazy art teacher that lets this go on and on and on, should be kicked o=
ut
forever. `the clay will teach you, i am going to be at coffee.`
i could use the 2x4 on every one of them.
pride of talent, no matter the age of the artist. work, skill, perception
of art and the completion of fine talented work is the answer.
then stand up and be counted as a member of this society. never
apologize for being an artist/crafts person. never apologize.
mel
from: minnetonka, mn
website: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
clayart link: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
new book: http://www.21stcenturykilns.com
gayle bair on thu 5 nov 09
Thanks Mel,
Your posting made a lightbulb go on.....
I realized that I haven't heard the comment "Oh isn't that cute!" for
quite a long time.
That was a nails down a chalkboard comment that made me cringe!
I'd pretend to not hear it because I knew if I acknowledged it the
offending and other customers would be racing out of my booth.
I just kept plugging away and actually hadn't fully realized my work
evolved beyond the possibility of that description.
On the other hand nowadays I'd counter with a dissertation on the
design, construction, firing and maybe throw in the
marketing, bookkeeping and all other hats I have to wear.
It is better to educate customers than make them mad!
That said I still have my east coast snappy one liner skills ... I
just keep them under control for shows!;-)
Gayle Bair - still plugging away!
Bainbridge Island WA
Tucson AZ
gayle@claybair.com
www.claybair.com
On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:41 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> the reason i have argued with nils about `art and play` is the
> public perception that we as artists are children, and we play, never
> work. no difficult problem solving in art, it is just play.
Wes Rolley on fri 6 nov 09
Two comments came to mind as I was reading Snail's post on this subject.
One comes from my wife who graduated from the Japan Women's Art
University in Tokyo. All through college, she kept looking at her
teacher's work and trying to find out what was good about it. That was
some 50 years ago. By now, I've seen that teacher's work and neither of
us can figure out what anyone considered it good. But all through
school, students looked at that, tried to imitate that and become models
of the teacher.
Of course, by the time she retired, she had already moved her favorite
acolyte into the position to take her chair... a student whose work was
not even as good.
The lack of encouragement to potentially good students that Kelly
worried about came from bad teachers. If they themselves do not know
what is good or not, how can the provide an honest critique.
The second thought was from my boss when I was a low level manager in
the corporate world. He was truly concerned about the welfare of all in
our office. However, his interpretation of being concerned was to
truthfully tell someone that they would never be successful in their
current job and then to help them find a better fit for what they
truthfully could do well, in or out of the company.
He was a good manager and made me a better one. We need good teachers
who can put themselves into the role of student and treat students with
honesty.
--
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then =
you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
Wes Rolley
17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024
Snail Scott on fri 6 nov 09
On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Kelly Savino wrote:
> ... what about the huge number of kids who are discouraged from being
> artists, or pursuing their natural abilities from the start?
Some people just need encouragement at some
point, to follow their proper course. It's great when
they get it. But...
I also see a lot of students who are art majors
"because I'm bad at math", or "because it's fun".
They get a lot of encouragement from people who
say "Follow your dream", and from teachers who
need to keep enrollment up or lose their own
livelihood, but those students are seldom getting
a needed dose of reality.
They have a great time in art school, where they
can have fun and get good grades at the same time
(because bad grades cause enrollment to drop).
Everywhere they turn are teachers with ideas for
projects, deadlines set at specified and reasonable
intervals, comfortable facilities, and everything is
aligned for their success.
Then they graduate, and no one is there to set a
work schedule, tell when whether the work is good
or not, or act as their cheerleader. They've got to do
it for themselves. And most don't. They don't want it
badly enough to deal with all the crap and apathy
that the real world will hand them, so they get a job
with a paycheck. And they are happier for it.
Orland and Bayless (in 'Art and Fear') cite a statistic
that suggests 95% of art students have quit making
art within 5 years of graduation. That says to me that
maybe there's too much encouragement going around,
not too little. Or maybe it's the wrong sort, to the wrong
people.
Everyone can make art. Not everyone can make good
art. And even fewer are capable of being a full-time
artist, making good art day in and day out, going to
the studio to work even when things aren't going well,
because they have to. Not just because the rent is due -
those people will go get a real job in short order. Not
because some caring, interested person like a teacher
expects it of them, or because it's fun (it won't be fun
every day), but because they can't be happy or at peace
or even sane unless they do. No other motivation will
keep them at it for long in the face of life's obstacles.
It's a wonderful thing to make art when you feel like it,
because it's fun, or because it makes people around
you happy, or makes you feel rewarded and proud.
Everybody should do it now and then. But 'when you feel
like it' will not serve for a professional artist. Not everyone
ought to be a professional artist, and it's not really a matter
of talent. Commitment; a willingness to work without
outside approval or supervision, a need to work toward
high standards, and sheer cussed determination to
keep at it - those are the true essential qualities in an
artist who wants to do it as a living, and as a lifestyle.
It's a shame when someone has a real ability and calling
to be an artist but doesn't, for a wide range of possible
reasons. They are surely ill-served by anyone who fails
to help them when they need it, though some of them will
find their own way, in their own time. But we also do no
service by giving false encouragement to those whose
proper path lies elsewhere, proselytizing only because
it is the true path for us.
I'll teach anyone who wants to learn, and I don't
require that everybody be a future professional. But
it's a disservice to make it easy. If those future artists
can't make their work in the face of a few obstacles
like social disapproval, poverty, or life's distractions,
they haven't got a snowball's chance of keeping it up
in the real world after graduation. Better they should
figure that out in time to change their major to something
else, and just take some art courses for the fun of it.
I've known a lot of very talented people who gave up
art because they just didn't love it more than the other
things they ended up doing. And I know quite a few of
marginal ability who just stuck with it and made it work
in spite of everything..
Training can be taught. Aptitude helps, but there are
a lot of different aptitudes that contribute to that vague
mushy concept called 'artistic talent'. Skill can be
learned. But not desire.
I'm supposed to encourage students to become art
majors, but what I want to say is this: "Can you imagine
being happy in some other line of work? Are you
undecided whether to choose art or some other career?
Then pick that other one. You don't have to stop making
art, but don't become a professional artist. Because if
you can imagine being satisfied with something else,
you'll think about it every time things get rough, and
you'll wish you'd done that other thing instead. So do
it. But, if you can't stand the idea of being anywhere but
the studio, and you are frustrated and unhappy whenever
you are elsewhere, and if the desire to make art is not a
choice but a bone-deep compulsion, then welcome
aboard; you've got what it takes."
-Snail
Bonnie Hellman on fri 6 nov 09
I think there is another way of looking at being an art major. If you are
attending a liberal arts college, where you will take courses in a lot of
subjects in order to graduate, and you choose to be an art major (whether
specifically ceramics or another field of art), maybe this is just a choice
of major, not a choice of career.
If you look at the number of college graduates who work in the field of
their degree, I'd bet the number is even lower than the 5% quoted in Art an=
d
Fear.
If you choose to attend, and are accepted at an art school, then perhaps yo=
u
are making the career choice right out of high school. I would guess
there are very few of us who end up earning our living in the way we though=
t
we would in high school.
Certainly not me.
Bonnie
Bonnie D. Hellman
Ouray, CO
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Snail Scott
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 11:30 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: art the A and public perception/story
On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Kelly Savino wrote:
> ... what about the huge number of kids who are discouraged from being
> artists, or pursuing their natural abilities from the start?
Some people just need encouragement at some
point, to follow their proper course. It's great when
they get it. But...
I also see a lot of students who are art majors
"because I'm bad at math", or "because it's fun".
They get a lot of encouragement from people who
say "Follow your dream", and from teachers who
need to keep enrollment up or lose their own
livelihood, but those students are seldom getting
a needed dose of reality.
They have a great time in art school, where they
can have fun and get good grades at the same time
(because bad grades cause enrollment to drop).
Everywhere they turn are teachers with ideas for
projects, deadlines set at specified and reasonable
intervals, comfortable facilities, and everything is
aligned for their success.
Then they graduate, and no one is there to set a
work schedule, tell when whether the work is good
or not, or act as their cheerleader. They've got to do
it for themselves. And most don't. They don't want it
badly enough to deal with all the crap and apathy
that the real world will hand them, so they get a job
with a paycheck. And they are happier for it.
Orland and Bayless (in 'Art and Fear') cite a statistic
that suggests 95% of art students have quit making
art within 5 years of graduation. That says to me that
maybe there's too much encouragement going around,
not too little. Or maybe it's the wrong sort, to the wrong
people.
Everyone can make art. Not everyone can make good
art. And even fewer are capable of being a full-time
artist, making good art day in and day out, going to
the studio to work even when things aren't going well,
because they have to. Not just because the rent is due -
those people will go get a real job in short order. Not
because some caring, interested person like a teacher
expects it of them, or because it's fun (it won't be fun
every day), but because they can't be happy or at peace
or even sane unless they do. No other motivation will
keep them at it for long in the face of life's obstacles.
It's a wonderful thing to make art when you feel like it,
because it's fun, or because it makes people around
you happy, or makes you feel rewarded and proud.
Everybody should do it now and then. But 'when you feel
like it' will not serve for a professional artist. Not everyone
ought to be a professional artist, and it's not really a matter
of talent. Commitment; a willingness to work without
outside approval or supervision, a need to work toward
high standards, and sheer cussed determination to
keep at it - those are the true essential qualities in an
artist who wants to do it as a living, and as a lifestyle.
It's a shame when someone has a real ability and calling
to be an artist but doesn't, for a wide range of possible
reasons. They are surely ill-served by anyone who fails
to help them when they need it, though some of them will
find their own way, in their own time. But we also do no
service by giving false encouragement to those whose
proper path lies elsewhere, proselytizing only because
it is the true path for us.
I'll teach anyone who wants to learn, and I don't
require that everybody be a future professional. But
it's a disservice to make it easy. If those future artists
can't make their work in the face of a few obstacles
like social disapproval, poverty, or life's distractions,
they haven't got a snowball's chance of keeping it up
in the real world after graduation. Better they should
figure that out in time to change their major to something
else, and just take some art courses for the fun of it.
I've known a lot of very talented people who gave up
art because they just didn't love it more than the other
things they ended up doing. And I know quite a few of
marginal ability who just stuck with it and made it work
in spite of everything..
Training can be taught. Aptitude helps, but there are
a lot of different aptitudes that contribute to that vague
mushy concept called 'artistic talent'. Skill can be
learned. But not desire.
I'm supposed to encourage students to become art
majors, but what I want to say is this: "Can you imagine
being happy in some other line of work? Are you
undecided whether to choose art or some other career?
Then pick that other one. You don't have to stop making
art, but don't become a professional artist. Because if
you can imagine being satisfied with something else,
you'll think about it every time things get rough, and
you'll wish you'd done that other thing instead. So do
it. But, if you can't stand the idea of being anywhere but
the studio, and you are frustrated and unhappy whenever
you are elsewhere, and if the desire to make art is not a
choice but a bone-deep compulsion, then welcome
aboard; you've got what it takes."
-Snail
Lis Allison on fri 6 nov 09
On Friday 06 November 2009, Snail Scott wrote:
>
> Orland and Bayless (in 'Art and Fear') cite a statistic
> that suggests 95% of art students have quit making
> art within 5 years of graduation.
One of my profs at the U of Calgary, John Hall, used to say that the
purpose of an art education was to create educated buyers.
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
www.Pine-Ridge-Studio.blogspot.com
| |
|
