Wes Rolley on sun 4 apr 10
I just got around to watching Linda's video clip of Tobin's blast pots.
It raises a serious question for me regarding what some might call the
democratization of art.
In the clip, he is very specific about not re-adjusting the form of the
piece... since his whole point is to translate the explosion into form.
At that point, I would have asked whether or not he is ever selective
about which piece he might show. When the entire point is to "translate
the explosion into form" then all pieces are of equal value and, as a
result, none are given more aesthetic value than any other. Selection
for exhibition would violate that premise.
For sake of this argument, let me assume that he would make no
selection. That would rightfully be considered a democratization of
art. Each individual piece has equal value with every other.
But then, is not a KMART coffee mug the equal of a Ron Myers mug? I
mean if we have abandoned aesthetic judgment, why bother making things
by hand other than to fulfill the curiosity of the maker. I doubt if
there is a serious scientific exploration underway regarding the
properties of the clay, or of the firecracker. So, what makes this more
than play?
I hope that I am wrong, that Steve would open the kiln with hammer in
his hand, willing to sacrifice those pieces that did not meet his
aesthetic standard. I won't presume to know his intent or practice, not
having been there.
--
"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
Lee Love on sun 4 apr 10
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Wes Rolley wrote:
> I just got around to watching Linda's video clip of Tobin's blast pots.
> It raises a serious question for me regarding what some might call the
> democratization of art.
Emperor's new clothes?!?!
When I watched it, I thought of Yoko Ono's smashed vase and Clayton
Baily's raku spinners.
I blew things up as a kid in Detroit. We did it as
"science", not art.
Next step, is "the artiste'" eating clay and firing his own crap. =
=3D
;^)
Makes you happy to be a potter and not and artist....
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
jonathan byler on tue 6 apr 10
the show of this work was actually pretty good... regardless of the =3D20
methods used to make it. I didn't even realize what I was looking at =3D20=
=3D
until a few days later I see this video...
On Apr 4, 2010, at 9:10 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> Emperor's new clothes?!?!
>
> When I watched it, I thought of Yoko Ono's smashed vase and Clayton
> Baily's raku spinners.
>
> I blew things up as a kid in Detroit. We did it as
> "science", not art.
>
> Next step, is "the artiste'" eating clay and firing his own =3D20
> crap. ;^)
>
> Makes you happy to be a potter and not and artist....
>
> --
> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
>
> =3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. =3D
Feel
> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Snail Scott on tue 6 apr 10
On Apr 4, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Wes Rolley wrote:
> I just got around to watching Linda's video clip of Tobin's blast
> pots.
> It raises a serious question for me regarding what some might call the
> democratization of art.
>
> In the clip, he is very specific about not re-adjusting the form of
> the
> piece... since his whole point is to translate the explosion into
> form.
> At that point, I would have asked whether or not he is ever selective
> about which piece he might show. When the entire point is to
> "translate
> the explosion into form" then all pieces are of equal value and, as a
> result, none are given more aesthetic value than any other. Selection
> for exhibition would violate that premise.
He definitely does not show all of them, not
by a long shot. And although he leaves the
marks of the explosion untouched, the finishing
he does (glazing, etc) is done with as much
selectivity and skill as any artist-potter could
aspire to. Even the very small ones are quite
thoughtfully finished to enhance the results.
I also thought, after watching the video, that it
was just a dramatic gimmick. Nope. Until i saw
the actual finished objects in person, I had no
idea of their sheer visceral power, and their
stunning presence as visual/physical objects.
He says he has done over 10,000 such clay
explosions in the process of refining his
technique, and I would not be surprised if this
is true. He may not mess with the end results
of the process, but the process itself - setting
up all the parameters of the explosive event -
shows a high level of control and fine-tuning
refined through those many iterations. The
result may be uncontrolled, but it is far from
random.
'Translating the explosion into form' may be
the primary intent behind this particular body
of work, but it's not the only one. It looks a bit
like an episode of 'Jackass' on the video, but
it is neither spontaneous nor stupid, and the
results are definitely not all equal.
I have been an admirer of his metal sculpture
for some years, and only realized that he did
claywork fairly recently. I looked forward to
visiting his studio, but was awed by the breadth
and scale of his explorations, his commitment
to developing each body of work, and the
focus, intelligence, and effort that he puts into
his work.
I am still slightly stunned by the experience,
and I hope I will not recover soon.
-Snail
Lee Love on wed 7 apr 10
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:14 PM, jonathan byler wrote:
> the show of this work was actually pretty good... =3DA0regardless of the =
me=3D
thods
> used to make it. =3DA0I didn't even realize what I was looking at until a=
f=3D
ew
> days later I see this video...
It's great there are so many aspects of clay. Something for
everyone. You don't have to like everything.
But I really do respect teachers and you'd have to have myopic
blinders not to realize that there are some really great artists in
studio arts programs for clay.. I am guessing, unlike art, the
pottery teachers' personal work does not suffer as much.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Wes Rolley on thu 8 apr 10
Snail,
Thank you for the reassurance that not everyone has gone off the deep
end. I am always bothered when someone substitutes the idea of the
process for the impact of the finished work. That confusion is not
limited to ceramic art, but might even explain the difference in the
impact of seeing a Jackson Pollack vs. seeing a similarly made work by
Sam Francis.
In that extent, while Linda's clip made clear aspects of the process, it
failed to deliver the essential information for the appreciation of the
work.
Wes
Posted by: "Snail Scott" claywork@FLYING-SNAIL.COM
20Linda%20Stauffer%27s%20video%20clip>
Tue Apr 6, 2010 10:10 am (PDT)
> He definitely does not show all of them, not
> by a long shot. And although he leaves the
> marks of the explosion untouched, the finishing
> he does (glazing, etc) is done with as much
> selectivity and skill as any artist-potter could
> aspire to. Even the very small ones are quite
> thoughtfully finished to enhance the results.
>
> I also thought, after watching the video, that it
> was just a dramatic gimmick. Nope. Until i saw
> the actual finished objects in person, I had no
> idea of their sheer visceral power, and their
> stunning presence as visual/physical objects.
>
> He says he has done over 10,000 such clay
> explosions in the process of refining his
> technique, and I would not be surprised if this
> is true. He may not mess with the end results
> of the process, but the process itself - setting
> up all the parameters of the explosive event -
> shows a high level of control and fine-tuning
> refined through those many iterations. The
> result may be uncontrolled, but it is far from
> random.
>
> 'Translating the explosion into form' may be
> the primary intent behind this particular body
> of work, but it's not the only one. It looks a bit
> like an episode of 'Jackass' on the video, but
> it is neither spontaneous nor stupid, and the
> results are definitely not all equal.
>
> I have been an admirer of his metal sculpture
> for some years, and only realized that he did
> claywork fairly recently. I looked forward to
> visiting his studio, but was awed by the breadth
> and scale of his explorations, his commitment
> to developing each body of work, and the
> focus, intelligence, and effort that he puts into
> his work.
>
> I am still slightly stunned by the experience,
> and I hope I will not recover soon.
>
> -Snail
--
"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
marta matray on fri 9 apr 10
thank you snail,=3D20
your post about steve tobin's work is worth to repeat:=3D20
marta
Posted by: "Snail Scott" claywork@FLYING-SNAIL.CO=3D20
> He definitely does not show all of them, not
> by a long shot. And although he leaves the
> marks of the explosion untouched, the finishing
> he does (glazing, etc) is done with as much
> selectivity and skill as any artist-potter could
> aspire to. Even the very small ones are quite
> thoughtfully finished to enhance the results.
>
> I also thought, after watching the video, that it
> was just a dramatic gimmick. Nope. Until i saw
> the actual finished objects in person, I had no
> idea of their sheer visceral power, and their
> stunning presence as visual/physical objects.
>
> He says he has done over 10,000 such clay
> explosions in the process of refining his
> technique, and I would not be surprised if this
> is true. He may not mess with the end results
> of the process, but the process itself - setting
> up all the parameters of the explosive event -
> shows a high level of control and fine-tuning
> refined through those many iterations. The
> result may be uncontrolled, but it is far from
> random.
>
> 'Translating the explosion into form' may be
> the primary intent behind this particular body
> of work, but it's not the only one. It looks a bit
> like an episode of 'Jackass' on the video, but
> it is neither spontaneous nor stupid, and the
> results are definitely not all equal.
>
> I have been an admirer of his metal sculpture
> for some years, and only realized that he did
> claywork fairly recently. I looked forward to
> visiting his studio, but was awed by the breadth
> and scale of his explorations, his commitment
> to developing each body of work, and the
> focus, intelligence, and effort that he puts into
> his work.
>
> I am still slightly stunned by the experience,
> and I hope I will not recover soon.
>
> -Snail
--
| |
|
