JCullen845 on tue 30 dec 97
Just to add my 2 cents...I've been reading Betty Edwards - Drawing on the
Right Side of the Brain. She writes: A writer needs words, a musician needs
notes, an artists needs visual preceptions, and all need knowledge of the
techniques of their crafts. Of course this won't satisfy everyone, nothing
does. But it's something to consider. From the same book...A creative person
is one who can process in new ways the information directly at hand.
Happy New Year and New Thoughts.
CULLEN
Dan Wilson on thu 11 jun 98
Art has evolved from the representational to the conceptual. "Today, more
than ever, art is a product of the mind." So if you're still doing those
little objects for collectors and other consumptives you are probably a
"crafter". "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Artspeak is an
artform. A cavity or hollow space as in "Cele" and a put on as in "don".
Like little qingci bowls...
Dan Wilson "His work, although state of the art, went largely un-noticed."
carrie jacobson on thu 11 jun 98
I think the difference may be found in dimensions of ability and vision: An
artist also needs to be an expert on the craft involved in making his art.
The craftsperson need not be an expert on art.
Carrie
Carrie Jacobson
Pawcatuck, CT
mailto:jacobson@brainiac.com
Theresa L. Jones on fri 12 jun 98
Just came across this reading Tony Hillerman's A Thief of Time:
(the characters are looking at Anasazi pottery listed in an auction catalog)
"Heard of Nelson's all my life," Thatcher said. "Thought they were just a
London outfit. Just auctioned art, materpieces, the Mona Lisa, things like
that."
"This is art," Leaphorn said. (he was referencing the pottery if that is not
clear from this snippet)
"A painting is art," Thatcher said. "What kind of nut pays fourteen grand
for a pot?" He tossed the catalog back on the bed.....
It just seemed so timely to this discussion I decided I had to include it.
Theresa L. Jones
tljones@flash.net
Robert Yellin on fri 12 jun 98
I have a very interesting book by Robert Davidson- a Haida Indian
woodcarver-
in the book he says, "We have no word for art. We have no word for
religion.
There is no need to seperate these concepts away from real life. How you
live is
an art and how you go about it is an religion."
This craft-art thing might be thought of in a similiar light- there is
no need
to seperate the two and in any case it's all a matter of perception-
sometimes
words block that seeing. Words can be such a nuisance sometimes.
This discussion, although stimulating, is a verbal merry-go-round.
From rainy Japan,
Robert Yellin
Ron Wright on fri 12 jun 98
Art? Craft? I thought it was all inventory.
Ron Wright
3 Dogs Pottery - Chicago
http://www.concentric.net/~wrright
Dan Wilson wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> Art has evolved from the representational to the conceptual. "Today, more
> than ever, art is a product of the mind." So if you're still doing those
> little objects for collectors and other consumptives you are probably a
> "crafter". "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Artspeak is an
> artform. A cavity or hollow space as in "Cele" and a put on as in "don".
> Like little qingci bowls...
>
> Dan Wilson "His work, although state of the art, went largely un-noticed."
Dan Wilson on sun 14 jun 98
Ron you speak the plain truth. It is all inventory isn't? From toothpicks
to information...
Dan Wilson
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Art? Craft? I thought it was all inventory.
>
>Ron Wright
>3 Dogs Pottery - Chicago
>http://www.concentric.net/~wrright
>
Riff Fenton on sun 14 jun 98
I think (IMHO of course) that the paramount problem in drawing
a distinction between art and craft is that no one has articulated
an agreeable definition of art to begin with. I mean, how can
you determine how "A" differs from "B" if you don't agree to what
"A" is in the first place?
I have been struggling with the "what is art?" question for a long
time now, and the conclusions that I have drawn are not the least
bit popular with the art community.
Basic to my thinking is that for the last 100 years or so we have
been expanding the definition of art so much that the word has been
rendered meaningless. I do believe that art is definable, and that
much of what is considered art today simply falls outside that
definition. (It ain't necessarily bad, it just ain't art.)
Signed on the front or signed on the bottom, made with "heart" or
with malice, nothing I do will make the bowl I throw
this afternoon a work of art. And I'm really not hurt by the fact
that my bowl, no matter how nice, will not be considered as important
as Van Eyck's "Ghent Alterpiece", or Goya's "Execution of Madrid
Citizens, May 3, 1808". THOSE are works of art. The bowl I throw this
afternoon will always be a bowl.
I do, however, believe that within the context of pottery there
thrives a distinct aesthetic, seperate from art. We should be working
on that.
Riff, in Saguache, Colorado...enjoying the bird din.
riff@bbs.slv.org
Jay S. Gertz on mon 15 jun 98
Why is it important to label yourself or what you create by those
labels? If you are doing what you love to do, is that not in itself
sufficient? No matter what medium a person is working in, their
particular act of creation transcends meaningless labels. If what you
call yourself or your work is more important than that spirituality of
transforming a lump of clay into something beyond mere mud, or canvas
and pigments into something more than material, perhaps you are
neither.
jay
gertz
William Moody on tue 16 jun 98
Riff Fenton wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I have been struggling with the "what is art?" question for a long
> time now, and the conclusions that I have drawn are not the least
> bit popular with the art community.
> Basic to my thinking is that for the last 100 years or so we have
> been expanding the definition of art so much that the word has been
> rendered meaningless. I do believe that art is definable, and that
> much of what is considered art today simply falls outside that
> definition. (It ain't necessarily bad, it just ain't art.)
>
> that my bowl, no matter how nice, will not be considered as important
> as Van Eyck's "Ghent Alterpiece", or Goya's "Execution of Madrid
> Citizens, May 3, 1808". THOSE are works of art. The bowl I throw this
> afternoon will always be a bowl.
>
During a discussion with an architectural student, a semi-retired PhD. in
education and a sculptor/ex-ballet dancer we came to the conclusion that
everything has the potential to be art but not everything was art. I have a
feeling that 'art' is much like the word 'aloha' it has very different and
sometimes very vague meanings. Maybe that is what I will term my MFA thesis
"Art means Aloha"
As to comparing your bowl to Goya's 3rd of May. You will notice that most of
the pieces considered High art of a contemporary nature are pivotal in not
only style but execution and message. Possibly most importantly message.
Michael McDowell on tue 16 jun 98
Riff in Colorado and David in Texas, I want to take you both on here. Riff,
you say you've been thinking about the issue "what is art?" for a very long
time now. It's a shame you couldn't share any of the process of that thought
with us in your last post, only a few out of context dictums that leave your
opinions unassailably your opinions. You mention two paintings out of all
the history of human endeavor that you recognize as "art", but you are mute
on what it is that so qualifies them. You complain that over the last
hundred years the definition of art has become too broad to be of any use. I
disagree, and would like to broaden it further, but surely YOUR definition,
two paintings, is too narrow to be of any practical value. Rather than
dispute what I think you may be getting at, let me ask that you clarify your
position a little further. What do you say makes an object "art", and is all
art of equal significance?
David, not often do I find myself in disagreement with you, but I have to
ask. Why do you have to denigrate what others do and present as "art" simply
because you might do the same activity without giving conscious thought to
the artfullness of your actions? I believe that art is a natural human
function which people are constantly exercising to one degree or another in
their daily lives.
Going about the premeditated creation of objects of art is an abstraction
from or extension of the basic art process. Debates such as this one, over
what IS art, are an even further abstraction, but the underlying process is
still going on.
In some very fundamental ways, I think that the examples you gave of stacked
clay bags and fired mud dauber nests presented as art, go right to the heart
of the issue. Why not give yourself credit, David, instead of witholding it
from these other artists?
Michael McDowell
Whatcom County, WA USA
http://www2.memes.com/mmpots
mmpots@memes.com
Paul Lewing on tue 16 jun 98
Jay S. Gertz wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Why is it important to label yourself or what you create by those
> labels? If you are doing what you love to do, is that not in itself
> sufficient? No matter what medium a person is working in, their
> particular act of creation transcends meaningless labels. If what you
> call yourself or your work is more important than that spirituality of
> transforming a lump of clay into something beyond mere mud, or canvas
> and pigments into something more than material, perhaps you are
> neither.
> jay
> gertz
Exactly, Jay,
Who cares? Who would ever change one atom of what they make because
someone called it art or didn't call it art? This whole subject makes
me tired. It's for critics and art historians to debate, not artists.
Someone once said that art criticism is to artists what ornithology is
to birds. The birds can't read it, and wouldn't care if they could.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Michael McDowell on tue 16 jun 98
Jay Gertz asks:
"Why is it important to label yourself or what you create by those
labels? If you are doing what you love to do, is that not in itself
sufficient?"
Actually I don't think Jay is asking for answers to these questions. From
the tone of what he writes I think it's safe to say he's actually making a
couple of statements disguised as questions. He's saying that it's not
important to label ourselves or what we do, and that just doing what we love
to do should be sufficient. Although I appreciate the sentiment, which is
perhaps appropriate for a hobbyist, I cannot agree with the implied
statements, so I'll try to answer the questions.
As a professional working in clay, it is not enough that I am doing what I
love to do. It is important to me to communicate through my medium to
others. That requires me to find an audience for my work that is willing to
adopt my frame of reference, and regard my work as significant. If I fail in
this I will not be able to obtain the prices that I need to finance the time
my work requires. So it is important to me what "labels" are applied to me
and my work because these labels are indicative of the regard I and my work
are accorded in society.
Now it is true that I am doing what I love to do. And if society fails to
regard my work as significant I'll still continue to do it on some level.
But the more valued what I do is by others, the less time I will have to
spend at other pursuits attempting to finance my preoccupation with clay. Do
you have a problem with that Jay?
Michael McDowell
Whatcom County, WA USA
http://www2.memes.com/mmpots
mmpots@memes.com
Sandra K. Tesar on wed 17 jun 98
Ellen Dissanayake, author of "What is Art For?", "Homo
Aestheticus:Where Art Comes From a and Why", is a writer and educator who
looks at the role of art in human society from a biobehavioral
standpoint, suggesting that art is a biological necessity in human
existence. An article " The Pleasure of Meaning and Making" was
published the American Craft magazine in the April/May 1995 issue and
was an abridgement from a talk Dissanayake delivered Oct. 15, 1994, at
the Great Lakes Regional Symposium on Craft at the Detroit Institute of
Arts.
This article speaks in eloquent yet sensible terms and is a must read for
anyone seriously pondering the above debate. Western minds do have a
tendency to isolate factors and miss the wholistic overviews that make
art of an act, a pitcher, a drawing, a moment where life and the human
experience comes together. Without intending to fuel debate or anger
pontificants...this writer puts a spin on craft as art as life as craft
as being.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra on Keel Mountain
sashart@juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Cindy on wed 17 jun 98
Jay,
Why is it important to label yourself? I have to laugh at this. People want
labels, even need labels, you know. I kind of thought I had gotten around
this by just letting people call it as they see it, then this weekend I had
to explain to a cadre of confused judges whether my work was art or craft.
Geez. They needed a category. We finally went with sculpture since the
pieces I entered were carved. Unfortunately, that put me up against the
best artists at the show. Oh well.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels
Custer, SD
USA http://blackhills-info.com/a/cindys/menu.htm
Jay S. Gertz on wed 17 jun 98
Michael McDowell wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Jay Gertz asks:
>
> "Why is it important to label yourself or what you create by those
> labels? If you are doing what you love to do, is that not in itself
> sufficient?"
>
> Actually I don't think Jay is asking for answers to these questions. From
> the tone of what he writes I think it's safe to say he's actually making a
> couple of statements disguised as questions. He's saying that it's not
> important to label ourselves or what we do, and that just doing what we love
> to do should be sufficient. Although I appreciate the sentiment, which is
> perhaps appropriate for a hobbyist, I cannot agree with the implied
> statements, so I'll try to answer the questions.
>
> As a professional working in clay, it is not enough that I am doing what I
> love to do. It is important to me to communicate through my medium to
> others. That requires me to find an audience for my work that is willing to
> adopt my frame of reference, and regard my work as significant. If I fail in
> this I will not be able to obtain the prices that I need to finance the time
> my work requires. So it is important to me what "labels" are applied to me
> and my work because these labels are indicative of the regard I and my work
> are accorded in society.
>
> Now it is true that I am doing what I love to do. And if society fails to
> regard my work as significant I'll still continue to do it on some level.
> But the more valued what I do is by others, the less time I will have to
> spend at other pursuits attempting to finance my preoccupation with clay. Do
> you have a problem with that Jay?
>
> Michael McDowell
> Whatcom County, WA USA
> http://www2.memes.com/mmpots
> mmpots@memes.com
Michael,
Good morning! I understand what you are saying, but what is actually more
important to you financing your love of clay OR communicating. If you, God
forbid, could no longer make money at your claywork, would you continue to
pursue that creative endeavour as communication? I'm sure there are a great
number of us on this list, and out in the "world," who bristled at your term
"hobbyist." I work in a library as a cataloger,and have been doing so for 23
years, but my real love is clay. I consider myself an artist, not a librarian. I
know there are many waiters and waitresses in NYC who are dancers and artists or
actors. They communicate through their love of dance or the arts, not through
waiting tables. (But perhaps there is some transcendence, some communication
there as well.) Those of us that are artists, are artists no matter what we
"do". Thanks, Jay S. Gertz
Karin Hurt on sun 8 sep 02
Amen!
Karin
www.laughingbearpottery.com
mel jacobson on sun 8 sep 02
my most often quoted concept is:
be proud of being a crafts person.
skill, understanding, commitment.
and, you stand with generations of preceding
crafts persons. we have models to guide us.
and that makes us stronger.
not very difficult things to be proud of.
my constant argument with "artists"
is:
you get up each day, and your foremost thought
is, "how can i be different today"?
i prefer to wake and think, "how can i improve my
skill and understanding today"?
and today, i may do art too.
i can flip/flop.
in our modern world, we have to keep spreading
the word, not in a defensive way....but, in an
active, proud way.
mel
From:
Minnetonka, Minnesota, U.S.A.
web site: my.pclink.com/~melpots
or try: http://www.pclink.com/melpots
Mayssan Farra on mon 9 sep 02
Dear Mel:
When I wake up in the morning the question is not (how
can I be different?) but rather (how can i execute
that idea?)
Best regards,
Mayssan,
who calls herself a potter nonetheless
=====
Mayssan Shora Farra
http://www.clayvillepottery.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
pammyam on mon 9 sep 02
Dear mel,
I was jumping to the conclusion that you meant "artists" only want to be
perceived as "different" and I was wondering "by whom?--themselves, others,
both?" I don't imagine that you intend to paint "artists" as being so
superficial. On the other hand, you might not mean it as superficial at all
and might mean it as a deep-seated need or something. Then I thought that
maybe you meant something different altogether and that "artists" wanted
something new to happen or just some change to occur each day.
Then I thought I had no idea what you really meant.
I certainly don't know what other artists think everyday when they wake up.
I would wager that we all differ in our waking decisions and wonderings.
Speaking for
myself, I start out with different things on different days. I can't recall
waking
up wanting to "be different." I sometimes think about what I would like to
do,
have to do, can do, or must do on that day. In the midst of all of that I
try to figure out how to get around to making some sort of work regardless
of how
mundane it might prove to be. I might just want work that is viable and/or
that I have at least learned something from in the making. If it's
something different, it's a miracle. I am certainly not thinking about
whether or not
I am going to "be different," or how I am going to "be" at all, other than
hopefully healthy and/or productive. Sometimes I wonder what I can do to
make my work better than it has been. Sometimes I just think about how to
sell something so I can buy some more paper or take another class so that I
can be better. But maybe that is trying to be different, even if not solely
for the fact of being different.
I am a pottery dilettante and make pots sporadically. I obviously do not
know first hand the full extent of being a potter. I know that it requires
more than I give it and that's why I'm not really a potter. One of my
closest friends is a full time potter and I like to think that I have at
least some
insights about what it's like and that I'm not totally ignorant of the
committment
that is required. I think that I need the same sort of attention to "skill,
understanding, commitment," knowledge, and perseverance, to make good
prints, paintings and
drawings as I need to be a good crafts person. I really don't know how to
separate the "artist" from the "crafts person" personally. The materials
and some of the processes are quite different, but I don't see that the
emotional and mental requirements are necessarily so different.
Isn't "how can i improve my skill and understanding today?" essentially an
effort to do something differently if not actually to "be different"? If I
am splitting hairs, it is not with the intention of being difficult, and
maybe
I have missed your point entirely.
Regards,
Pam
mel wrote:
> my most often quoted concept is:
>
> be proud of being a crafts person.
> skill, understanding, commitment.
> and, you stand with generations of preceding
> crafts persons. we have models to guide us.
> and that makes us stronger.
>
> not very difficult things to be proud of.
>
> my constant argument with "artists"
> is:
>
> you get up each day, and your foremost thought
> is, "how can i be different today"?
>
> i prefer to wake and think, "how can i improve my
> skill and understanding today"?
> and today, i may do art too.
> i can flip/flop.
>
> in our modern world, we have to keep spreading
> the word, not in a defensive way....but, in an
> active, proud way.
> mel
>
claybair on tue 10 sep 02
Acckk....... my brain hurts.......
I'm going into the studio.
Gayle Bair
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pammyam
Dear mel,
I was jumping to the conclusion that you meant "artists" only want to be
perceived as "different" and I was wondering "by whom?--themselves, others,
both?" I don't imagine that you intend to paint "artists" as being so
superficial. On the other hand, you might not mean it as superficial at all
and might mean it as a deep-seated need or something. Then I thought that
maybe you meant something different altogether and that "artists" wanted
something new to happen or just some change to occur each day.
Then I thought I had no idea what you really meant.
I certainly don't know what other artists think everyday when they wake up.
I would wager that we all differ in our waking decisions and wonderings.
Speaking for
myself, I start out with different things on different days. I can't recall
waking
up wanting to "be different." I sometimes think about what I would like to
do,
have to do, can do, or must do on that day. In the midst of all of that I
try to figure out how to get around to making some sort of work regardless
of how
mundane it might prove to be. I might just want work that is viable and/or
that I have at least learned something from in the making. If it's
something different, it's a miracle. I am certainly not thinking about
whether or not
I am going to "be different," or how I am going to "be" at all, other than
hopefully healthy and/or productive. Sometimes I wonder what I can do to
make my work better than it has been. Sometimes I just think about how to
sell something so I can buy some more paper or take another class so that I
can be better. But maybe that is trying to be different, even if not solely
for the fact of being different.
I am a pottery dilettante and make pots sporadically. I obviously do not
know first hand the full extent of being a potter. I know that it requires
more than I give it and that's why I'm not really a potter. One of my
closest friends is a full time potter and I like to think that I have at
least some
insights about what it's like and that I'm not totally ignorant of the
committment
that is required. I think that I need the same sort of attention to "skill,
understanding, commitment," knowledge, and perseverance, to make good
prints, paintings and
drawings as I need to be a good crafts person. I really don't know how to
separate the "artist" from the "crafts person" personally. The materials
and some of the processes are quite different, but I don't see that the
emotional and mental requirements are necessarily so different.
Isn't "how can i improve my skill and understanding today?" essentially an
effort to do something differently if not actually to "be different"? If I
am splitting hairs, it is not with the intention of being difficult, and
maybe
I have missed your point entirely.
Regards,
Pam
mel wrote:
> my most often quoted concept is:
>
> be proud of being a crafts person.
> skill, understanding, commitment.
> and, you stand with generations of preceding
> crafts persons. we have models to guide us.
> and that makes us stronger.
>
> not very difficult things to be proud of.
>
> my constant argument with "artists"
> is:
>
> you get up each day, and your foremost thought
> is, "how can i be different today"?
>
> i prefer to wake and think, "how can i improve my
> skill and understanding today"?
> and today, i may do art too.
> i can flip/flop.
>
> in our modern world, we have to keep spreading
> the word, not in a defensive way....but, in an
> active, proud way.
> mel
Khaimraj Seepersad on tue 10 sep 02
Good Day to All,
To - Pam,Bruce and Pam,
I am a Fine Artist - I took the job description from an
Oxford Dictionary.
Every day I get up and I say,hmm,I have to correct
this area or a new painting to start.
As I have said before I am not a Potter [ don't make
my living by it ],but as in my painting,I just try to do
my best.
However,I must confess,before coming onto the
Internet,I never saw so many discussions on Art versus
Craft.It is sad.
My hope is that with time some of my work may be
Universal enough in it's content to merit being saved
for the future,but Oil painting is not as durable as
Pottery.
To boost this I am going to fuse Vitreous Porcelain
Enamels with painting as Stubbs did before me with
the aid of Wedgwood.So Pottery and Fine Art will
become as one.
As to the ART part,I will let History decide that,I just
enjoy Painting and Potting,and will always try to do
my best.
Khaimraj
* Yes, Bruce,Labels do suck.I have never had so
many people try to pigeon hole or label me as much
as people on the Internet.
AND because I enjoy all parts of Oil Painting,
nothing is a chore,nor a deterrent to creativity [ I
hand mull my own paints etc.,clean my own clays.]
The latest title is that I am a - Purist.
What the He.. is that ?
I specifically went to study in Florence, to learn the
Craft of Oil Painting - duh ??????
I enjoy all aspects of the craft - it's not a statement !!
_________________________________
Bruce wrote -
Never called myself an artist...ever.ok...
I tried it on for size once or twice..
but it didn't fit.I think it is an embarrassing term.
An outdated and loaded stereotype.
On introduction was asked.... are you a potter?
My friend insisted I was..
I could only smile and say...sometimes.
Labels suck.
snip>
Bruce
Snip>
"I think that I need the same sort of attention to "skill,
understanding, commitment," knowledge, and perseverance, to make good
prints, paintings and
drawings as I need to be a good crafts person. I really don't know how to
separate the "artist" from the "crafts person" personally. The materials
and some of the processes are quite different, but I don't see that the
emotional and mental requirements are necessarily so different.
Isn't "how can i improve my skill and understanding today?" essentially an
effort to do something differently if not actually to "be different"? If I
am splitting hairs, it is not with the intention of being difficult,
andmaybe
I have missed your point entirely.
Regards,Pam
Mel wrote -
snip >
> my constant argument with "artists"> is:>
> you get up each day, and your foremost thought
> is, "how can i be different today"?>
> i prefer to wake and think, "how can i improve my
> skill and understanding today"?> and today, i may do art too.
> i can flip/flop.>
> in our modern world, we have to keep spreading
> the word, not in a defensive way....but, in an> active, proud way.>
mel>
corey on tue 10 sep 02
What I have been taught and found to be true is this: Art and Craft are
intertwined, and this is the reason that it is hard to separate the two.
Art is creating things to express meanings, feeling, emotions but not always
with good craftsmanship (sometimes seemingly, without any). On the other
hand Craft is the act or work of creating or making something. It is the
trade, the guild held wisdom, the knowledge, the expertise of what you do.
In all art there is craft and a Craftsperson (to some degree or another).
However while most crafts have a degree of art in them (some more, some
less), craft can be devoid of any art whatsoever. However hair splitting on
this issue always seems to be a redundant waste of usable time for the
Artist and the Craftsperson. Just my two cents worth.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On
Behalf Of Khaimraj Seepersad
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:24 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: art vs. craft
Good Day to All,
To - Pam,Bruce and Pam,
I am a Fine Artist - I took the job description from an
Oxford Dictionary.
Every day I get up and I say,hmm,I have to correct
this area or a new painting to start.
As I have said before I am not a Potter [ don't make
my living by it ],but as in my painting,I just try to do
my best.
However,I must confess,before coming onto the
Internet,I never saw so many discussions on Art versus
Craft.It is sad.
My hope is that with time some of my work may be
Universal enough in it's content to merit being saved
for the future,but Oil painting is not as durable as
Pottery.
To boost this I am going to fuse Vitreous Porcelain
Enamels with painting as Stubbs did before me with
the aid of Wedgwood.So Pottery and Fine Art will
become as one.
As to the ART part,I will let History decide that,I just
enjoy Painting and Potting,and will always try to do
my best.
Khaimraj
* Yes, Bruce,Labels do suck.I have never had so
many people try to pigeon hole or label me as much
as people on the Internet.
AND because I enjoy all parts of Oil Painting,
nothing is a chore,nor a deterrent to creativity [ I
hand mull my own paints etc.,clean my own clays.]
The latest title is that I am a - Purist.
What the He.. is that ?
I specifically went to study in Florence, to learn the
Craft of Oil Painting - duh ??????
I enjoy all aspects of the craft - it's not a statement !!
_________________________________
Bruce wrote -
Never called myself an artist...ever.ok...
I tried it on for size once or twice..
but it didn't fit.I think it is an embarrassing term.
An outdated and loaded stereotype.
On introduction was asked.... are you a potter?
My friend insisted I was..
I could only smile and say...sometimes.
Labels suck.
snip>
Bruce
Snip>
"I think that I need the same sort of attention to "skill,
understanding, commitment," knowledge, and perseverance, to make good
prints, paintings and
drawings as I need to be a good crafts person. I really don't know how to
separate the "artist" from the "crafts person" personally. The materials
and some of the processes are quite different, but I don't see that the
emotional and mental requirements are necessarily so different.
Isn't "how can i improve my skill and understanding today?" essentially an
effort to do something differently if not actually to "be different"? If I
am splitting hairs, it is not with the intention of being difficult,
andmaybe
I have missed your point entirely.
Regards,Pam
Mel wrote -
snip >
> my constant argument with "artists"> is:>
> you get up each day, and your foremost thought
> is, "how can i be different today"?>
> i prefer to wake and think, "how can i improve my
> skill and understanding today"?> and today, i may do art too.
> i can flip/flop.>
> in our modern world, we have to keep spreading
> the word, not in a defensive way....but, in an> active, proud way.>
mel>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
