Vince Pitelka on tue 24 aug 10
John Post wrote:
"Next week if I were to ask my brand-spanking-new-to-school
kindergarten students to take a blank sheet of paper and make a piece
of art work I would get two things. The first thing I would get is
recognizable images of people, houses, cars, trees and animals and the
second thing I would get is one or two kids who either cry, or say
they don't know how to draw anything."
John -
My contention is that the recognizable images produced by those kids are
probably highly abstracted, and the kids who cry or say that they don't kno=
w
how to draw anything have already been traumatized by those well-meaning
parents, peers, or teachers who tell them that if they cannot render draw
realistically, then they are not artists. My hope is that every kid can be
encouraged to draw with absolutely no judgment of the level of realism, or
whether pictorial realism or abstraction are better. It sounds like you ar=
e
being very open-minded and encouraging with your students, but they are
getting the "realism is better" idea somewhere. You say it is peer
pressure, but that is only true if some of the kids think that pictorial
realism is better.
I am not sure how to deal with that. We certainly cannot control what is
happening at home. All we can do is just avoid stressing pictorial realism
in any way, and give the kids all the encouragement we can for whatever art
expressions they can muster. If they can possibly be led to a point where
they develop an interest in art very naturally and intuitively, then they
will do fine, and they will retain an interest in art. I just don't want t=
o
see anyone get in the way of that.
Every art experience at every age helps to lead to a better sense of
abstract composition. East Asian students often get a lot of art at the
K-12 level, with minimal emphasis on pictorial realism, and they frequently
develop a very advanced sense of abstract composition by the time they are
in high school. Every time I have worked with a student like that, I have
wished that all young students in North America could have the same
advantages.
I can easily see how assigning projects in non-objective abstraction with
elementary-school kids could really backfire, because it could teach them
that such work is contrived and non-intuitive, and I certainly would not be
in favor of that. If they are going to come to non-objective abstraction,
it should be on their own as a natural evolution. Again, I am in favor of
letting things evolve naturally and intuitively at the very early stages,
with no particular dogma or lobbying one way or the other (realism or
abstraction). Just let the kids make lots of art and things will sort
themselves out. I suppose it seems a little counter to your profession, but
I am against steering them in art one way or another at that age.
The "Weather Tower" is wonderful. What a great concept, and a fine image.
I think that we are a lot closer to agreeing on many of these things than w=
e
thought we were to begin with. I am sorry if I have been unclear about
basic issues in some of my posts.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Snail Scott on tue 24 aug 10
On Aug 24, 2010, at 2:46 PM, William & Susan Schran User wrote:
> I describe abstraction to my students as simplification of what is
> observed/what is real...
Rather than simplification, I prefer to describe it
as selection: using the elements that the artist
finds worthwhile and altering the rest as she sees
fit, which may involve simplification, complexity,
or indeed any form of modification.
-Snail
Johanna San Inocencio on tue 24 aug 10
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-2184641F=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1; format=3Dflowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As we have been discussing abstract art and
kids drawing, I have been preparing my lessons
for teaching art for his school year. One of the
things I usually do is review the standards
established by the state so I can make sure we
are "meeting the standards" (my least favorite
part of the job). Tennessee has a glossary of
art terms and this is how they define abstract art:
Artwork in which little or no attempt is made to
represent images realistically, and objects are
often simplified or distorted.
I find the focus of this definition somewhat
negative in tone. Maybe it's me. what do you
people think? How would you define abstract art
in simple terms?
--
Johanna
"A man is as free as he chooses to make himself,
never an atom freer."
The Raven, Lillith by George MacDonald
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-2184641F=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=3Dcert; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "Certification"
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3091 - Release Date: 08/24/10 01=
:=3D
34:00
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-2184641F=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D--
Snail Scott on tue 24 aug 10
On Aug 24, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Johanna San Inocencio wrote:
> ...How would you define abstract art
> in simple terms?
Representational art is that which shows a strong
similarity to the visible world, or depicts intangible
things in a realistic manner.
Abstraction refers to artworks in which the artist
makes choices about which aspects (if any) might
resemble the visible world, and which may be freely
altered to better serve the artist's purpose.
Non-representational (or non-objective) artworks
are those in which no resemblance to the visible
world is intended.
There is no clear line of demarcation between these
categories; each blends into the next. A specific work
of art may nor fall clearly into one category or another,
and may incorporate elements from any or all
categories.
-Snail
John Post on tue 24 aug 10
Here's how I define the following terms for my elementary school art
students...
Realistic - The goal of the artist is to create an image that is true
to nature, things look as they do in real life.
Abstract - The artist uses his or her imagination to purposefully
change parts of an art work so that they are not an exact copy of
reality. Abstract works of art often have recognizable imagery in them
Non-Objective Art - Art without any recognizable imagery. It is
composed of shapes, colors, lines, forms, patterns etc. (Prior to
learning the term non-objective, my students will tend to call this
type of art work "a design")
I teach little kids, so these definitions are purposefully simple.
Once I give the kids these definitions, I have a powerpoint
presentation that I show on the television monitor in my room. It has
images of art from each category presented in random order. I ask the
kids to look at the images and then tell the class which category they
think the various art works fit into best. When the kids do the
talking, they are doing the learning. Some art works don't fit neatly
into only one category, Listening to the rationale of why kids think
an art work fits in one category more than the other is often
illuminating.
Another interesting thing to teach kids is how to kind-of quickly date
art works of people based on color and style. I have another
powerpoint presentation that I put together that is full of
portraits. I point out that before the invention of the camera,
portraits were often painted on warm brown backgrounds which helped
create a sense of realistic flesh tones. With the invention of the
camera and paint in tubes, the way that portraits look visually
changed. If a painting has darker colors and looks like it was
painted on a brown canvas, it is probably more than 100 years old. If
the colors are bright and the canvas ground looks white or lighter it
is probably less than 100 years old. Stylistically, abstraction is
seen more in recent works of art, while realism is more predominant in
older works. I have portrait images from different time periods in
this slide show. Kids are asked to discuss their opinion about how old
art works in the slide show are based on what they see stylistically
and color wise.
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
http://www.johnpost.us
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Johanna San Inocencio wrote:
> Artwork in which little or no attempt is made to
> represent images realistically, and objects are
> often simplified or distorted.
>
> I find the focus of this definition somewhat
> negative in tone. Maybe it's me. what do you
> people think? How would you define abstract art
> in simple terms?
Johanna San Inocencio on tue 24 aug 10
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-7C707630=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1; format=3Dflowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Your definitions are more in line with how I
define realistic, abstract and non-objective. I
think it really bothered me was that was the
state of Tennessee standards glossary
definition, yet realistic and non-objective were
not even mentioned. I like your ideas because
they help the students to think critically
instead of parrot answers back.
Johanna
"A man is as free as he chooses to make himself,
never an atom freer."
The Raven, Lillith by George MacDonald
On 8/24/2010 10:41 AM, John Post wrote:
> Here's how I define the following terms for my
> elementary school art
> students...
>
> Realistic - The goal of the artist is to
> create an image that is true
> to nature, things look as they do in real life.
>
> Abstract - The artist uses his or her
> imagination to purposefully
> change parts of an art work so that they are
> not an exact copy of
> reality. Abstract works of art often have
> recognizable imagery in them
>
> Non-Objective Art - Art without any
> recognizable imagery. It is
> composed of shapes, colors, lines, forms,
> patterns etc. (Prior to
> learning the term non-objective, my students
> will tend to call this
> type of art work "a design")
>
> I teach little kids, so these definitions are
> purposefully simple.
> Once I give the kids these definitions, I have
> a powerpoint
> presentation that I show on the television
> monitor in my room. It has
> images of art from each category presented in
> random order. I ask the
> kids to look at the images and then tell the
> class which category they
> think the various art works fit into best.
> When the kids do the
> talking, they are doing the learning. Some
> art works don't fit neatly
> into only one category, Listening to the
> rationale of why kids think
> an art work fits in one category more than the
> other is often
> illuminating.
>
> Another interesting thing to teach kids is how
> to kind-of quickly date
> art works of people based on color and style.
> I have another
> powerpoint presentation that I put together
> that is full of
> portraits. I point out that before the
> invention of the camera,
> portraits were often painted on warm brown
> backgrounds which helped
> create a sense of realistic flesh tones. With
> the invention of the
> camera and paint in tubes, the way that
> portraits look visually
> changed. If a painting has darker colors and
> looks like it was
> painted on a brown canvas, it is probably more
> than 100 years old. If
> the colors are bright and the canvas ground
> looks white or lighter it
> is probably less than 100 years old.
> Stylistically, abstraction is
> seen more in recent works of art, while
> realism is more predominant in
> older works. I have portrait images from
> different time periods in
> this slide show. Kids are asked to discuss
> their opinion about how old
> art works in the slide show are based on what
> they see stylistically
> and color wise.
>
> John Post
> Sterling Heights, Michigan
>
> http://www.johnpost.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Johanna San
> Inocencio wrote:
>
>> Artwork in which little or no attempt is made to
>> represent images realistically, and objects are
>> often simplified or distorted.
>>
>> I find the focus of this definition somewhat
>> negative in tone. Maybe it's me. what do you
>> people think? How would you define abstract art
>> in simple terms?
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3091 - Release Date: 08/24/10 =
01:34:00
>
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-7C707630=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=3Dcert; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "Certification"
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3091 - Release Date: 08/24/10 01=
:=3D
34:00
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-7C707630=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D--
William & Susan Schran User on tue 24 aug 10
On 8/24/10 10:00 AM, "Johanna San Inocencio"
wrote:
> standards" (my least favorite
> part of the job). Tennessee has a glossary of
> art terms and this is how they define abstract art:
>
> Artwork in which little or no attempt is made to
> represent images realistically, and objects are
> often simplified or distorted.
>
> I find the focus of this definition somewhat
> negative in tone. Maybe it's me. what do you
> people think? How would you define abstract art
> in simple terms?
I describe abstraction to my students as simplification of what is
observed/what is real.
Think of it as the abstract of a written paper - a summary/the essence.
Same can be done with visual art - reduce down the only what is needed, wha=
t
is essential. Many artists certainly take the concept beyond this, often
involving elements as described above.
If the origin is not observed/from the real world, then we call it
non-objective.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
Vince Pitelka on tue 24 aug 10
I am going to try to respond to several posts that commented on my
contention that young kids tend to abstract and interpret their surrounding=
s
and feelings in their artwork. I'd like to thank everyone who has
contributed to this discussion thread, and I would like to apologize to Joh=
n
Post for saying that the educators he quoted are "full of shit," even thoug=
h
I do question their conclusions. I am very passionate about this subject
(young children and art), and I get pretty frustrated at the attitudes some
people have. I am sure that John is an excellent teacher, and that his
students benefit from his knowledge and commitment.
Throughout this discussion I have said that young children abstract and
interpret the things around them. That does not mean that they make
non-objective abstraction (although some do), nor does it imply that they
might eventually choose abstract art over realistic art. Herbert Read
refers to the "crisis of realism" that occurs some time around the age of
six or seven when well-meaning parents, peers, and teachers try to steer
children towards ever-more-realistic artwork as the logical goal of an
artist, instead of letting the kids choose their direction without implying
that realistic art is somehow better or more natural than abstract art. As
John Post explained so well, in abstract art, "the artist uses his or her
imagination to purposefully change parts of an art work so that they are no=
t
an exact copy of reality." That's pretty much what young kids do.
Also, it is very important to differentiate between "abstract" and
"abstracting." To say that a work of art is abstract is often to imply tha=
t
it has been radically changed from a representational image. But as John
wrote I his post, "Abstract works of art often have recognizable imagery in
them." If you look at cubist works by Picasso, Braque, Juan Gris, Fernand
Leger, or at Italian Futurist works by Umberto Boccioni and Giacomo Balla,
you will see the recognizable structure or elements, but will easily see th=
e
degree to which the work has been abstracted. In the case of the Futurists=
,
they were often trying to represent the excitement and speed of modern life=
,
and they did so very effectively through abstraction.
Almost all representational, pictorial art is abstracted from the original
subject matter to some degree, because doing exact copies of reality,
however impressive the level of skill might be, involves little creativity.
The way an artist comments on her/his subject is by altering and
interpreting the subject matter through abstraction, changing elements of
the original subject in order to make a particular point or carry a specifi=
c
message, and in that degree almost all art is abstracted to some degree.
I certainly cannot claim to have worked with even a small fraction of the
children John Post has taught, but I am not sure that is relevant, because
he has his own particular approach, and it seems to include the assumption
that kids want to create accurately realistic pictorial images, and will
naturally strive to make increasingly realistic images. I still think that
is a false assumption. I do not mean that as a criticism, but I have alway=
s
approached the circumstance of young kids making art with the expectation
that they will abstract reality to suit their own inclinations and intent,
and that is what I have observed. I give them a lot of credit for making
rational decisions in this regard, even at a very young age, and I still
believe that given the choice, many or most very young children will
continue to abstract and alter reality very freely as they get older unless
they get into a competitive situation where the expectation is pictorial
realism and/or where students are rewarded for increasingly realistic
images. Kids want to fit in, and in that situation they will almost always
try to draw realistically. Some have the natural inclination for rendering=
,
and they are rewarded and called artists, while the others are discouraged
and often abandon art-making permanently. This is the reason why there are
so few people in our culture who make art and/or think of themselves as
artists, as compared to tribal and East Asian cultures.
I have never claimed to be any sort of expert on this subject, but I have
making and teaching art and honing my powers of observation for a very long
time, and have watched a lot of young kids making art. As mentioned above,
I do tend to give young children a lot of credit for having their own
powerful powers of observation and the ability to interpret the imagery the=
y
see around them.
When I say "young children," I am referring to those between the ages of th=
e
first exposure to art-making where there is some level of decision-making
involved (probably around age 2) to the age of 5 or 6. I think that this i=
s
the critical period where a child can develop an enthusiasm for art and the
beginnings of an intuitive feeling for abstract composition that will serve
them well, no matter what kind of art they choose to do. Pictorial realism
is just one choice, and in so many cultures around the world where small
children are exposed to art-making much more than in our own, they rarely
choose to make ever-more-realistic art. Instead, they continue to alter an=
d
abstract reality to suit their own intent. At some point they might very
well decide that a high degree of pictorial realism will best serve their
intent, but I would love to see them make that decision without any
assumption that kids are going to prefer pure pictorial realism or that it
is necessarily a logical objective in art. I have not seen credible
evidence that supports those assumptions.
John, if your students tend to refer to non-objective abstraction as
"designs," it seems to indicates that someone has planted that notion in
them. How did they come to think of such images as "designs?" In art
foundation design classes we often stipulate that 2-D or 3-D work must be
non-objective, in order to get the students to focus on purely formal
compositional elements, concepts, and structure. If your students look at
paintings by Kandinsky or Miro and think of them as just "designs," then I
worry that they are missing out on a lot. There is no question that
abstract art and the concept of abstraction are widely misunderstood in our
culture, and I commend you and other educators who can explain them clearly=
.
The people who seem to like art but who dismiss abstraction or claim they d=
o
not understand it are missing out on much of the most wonderful art
worldwide.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on tue 24 aug 10
Johanna San Inocencio wrote that the State of Tennessee has a glossary of
art terms, and that it defines abstract art as:
"Artwork in which little or no attempt is made to represent images
realistically, and objects are often simplified or distorted."
Johanna -
I agree with you that this definition is negative in tone. If that is how
the Tennessee Art Education Association (I hope I have the name right) has
decided to define abstract artwork, and if this is at all indicative of how
the teaching of art is approached in other states, then it is little wonder
that so many young students attempt to do increasingly realistic art.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Johanna San Inocencio on tue 24 aug 10
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-25AF618E=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1; format=3Dflowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The wording comes from the Tennessee
Department of Education curriculum standards for
visual art. I have to make sure my lesson plans
meet the standards and objectives set by the
state. The Tennessee Art Education Association
doesn't set standards. They act more as support
and information to help teachers.
Johanna
"A man is as free as he chooses to make himself,
never an atom freer."
The Raven, Lillith by George MacDonald
On 8/24/2010 3:39 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Johanna San Inocencio wrote that the State of Tennessee has a glossary of
> art terms, and that it defines abstract art as:
>
> "Artwork in which little or no attempt is made to represent images
> realistically, and objects are often simplified or distorted."
>
> Johanna -
> I agree with you that this definition is negative in tone. If that is ho=
w
> the Tennessee Art Education Association (I hope I have the name right) ha=
s
> decided to define abstract artwork, and if this is at all indicative of h=
ow
> the teaching of art is approached in other states, then it is little wond=
er
> that so many young students attempt to do increasingly realistic art.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3092 - Release Date: 08/24/10 =
10:31:00
>
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-25AF618E=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=3Dcert; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "Certification"
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3092 - Release Date: 08/24/10 10=
:=3D
31:00
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-25AF618E=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D--
John Post on tue 24 aug 10
Vince,
Your apology is accepted.
As Phil would say, below and amid...
> Herbert Read
> refers to the "crisis of realism" that occurs some time around the
> age of
> six or seven when well-meaning parents, peers, and teachers try to
> steer
> children towards ever-more-realistic artwork as the logical goal of an
> artist, instead of letting the kids choose their direction without
> implying
> that realistic art is somehow better or more natural than abstract
> art.
I teach young kids because I prefer the loose, fresh, abstract marks
they make to the sometimes stilted quest for realism that happens
around the time kids move onto junior high. I think the art
elementary age kids make is full of life and I try my hardest to never
dampen their enthusiasm for art making. I never steer my students
towards realistic art, nor is it even a focus. Maybe a better term
for me to have used in this discussion is representational art.
Whenever a kid comes to my desk to show me an art work that he or she
has made completely on their own, the drawings are always of something
you can recognize.
Next week if I were to ask my brand-spanking-new-to-school
kindergarten students to take a blank sheet of paper and make a piece
of art work I would get two things. The first thing I would get is
recognizable images of people, houses, cars, trees and animals and the
second thing I would get is one or two kids who either cry, or say
they don't know how to draw anything. (download the new book compiled
by mel to find out how I deal with the cryers http://cl.ly/250O )
> I certainly cannot claim to have worked with even a small fraction
> of the
> children John Post has taught, but I am not sure that is relevant,
> because
> he has his own particular approach, and it seems to include the
> assumption
> that kids want to create accurately realistic pictorial images, and
> will
> naturally strive to make increasingly realistic images.
I don't think that realistic accuracy is their goal as much as making
recognizable imagery. If an elementary age kid is drawing a police
car, he or she wants both parents and peers to be able to tell it is a
police car and not mistake it for a taxi cab or zebra. What I see
happen is that kids recognize which of their peers can draw something
really well. They also notice who cracks the best jokes, who can run
the fastest or kick a ball the farthest. There's a lot of peer
pressure, status sorting and labeling that happens in schools. Kids
want to be the kid who can draw well and be the funniest, fastest,
kickingest kid there is. If a kid wants to be known as a good artist
in his or her class, then it follows that he or she will make drawings
with imagery that impresses kids in that class.
Most adults claim they can't draw and it starts when they see some of
their peers create drawings that they think are better than their own
drawings. Teachers don't push kids towards realism, kids become more
aware of the world around them and begin to notice art works
everywhere that are more realistic than they are able to achieve.
That is why I believe that kids in junior high and high school want to
learn specific art related skills, they want to learn to how to draw.
> When I say "young children," I am referring to those between the
> ages of the
> first exposure to art-making where there is some level of decision-
> making
> involved (probably around age 2) to the age of 5 or 6. I think that
> this is
> the critical period where a child can develop an enthusiasm for art
> and the
> beginnings of an intuitive feeling for abstract composition that
> will serve
> them well, no matter what kind of art they choose to do.
I have not seen kids demonstrate a sense of abstract composition at
that early age. This is probably where we part ways philosophically.
Here is a photo of my son making one of his first drawings. http://cl.ly/8=
0042231e85b94950158
He loved to make marks on paper with crayons. I see the images that
he made at this time as him learning how to make marks. First he made
scribbles, then more complex shapes. Eventually he started drawing
things and giving them names, this is mom, this is me, etc. I never
viewed his drawings as him interpreting or abstracting his environment
or feelings. If he wandered his way over to his easel, he would just
make some marks and scribbles on the paper we always kept set up there.
His most famous art work is one that he made when he was nine and is
titled "The Weather Tower" http://cl.ly/fe853dd64ff17e416b98
While some might call it abstract, I would call it representational
because I can recognize and name all of the imagery in it. When my
wife asked him about it, he told her that he had an idea to make a
drawing of a giant tower in the sky that made the weather.
> John, if your students tend to refer to non-objective abstraction as
> "designs," it seems to indicates that someone has planted that
> notion in
> them. How did they come to think of such images as "designs?"
Every year I get kids who have never held a pencil before they get to
kindergarten. When I said that some of my students refer to non-
objective art as designs, that is the term they use before they get
the lessons I mentioned in my previous posts. 25% of the students I
teach each year are new to the school. Over 40% of the families of my
students speak a different language at home. So even though a kid new
to our school might be in 4th grade, he or she won't have had any of
the lessons about abstraction and realism I taught in previous years.
In short, they won't have the working definitions in their head that
the students I have taught from kindergarten onwards.
I don't think anyone has to plant notions in kids' heads. The young
kids I teach are learning language and vocabulary in a wide variety of
areas. They are still taking spelling tests. This past June, the
entire counter top in my art room was covered in apple-sized chunks of
local clay that was drying out so the kids could process it. The
outside edges of the clay started to dry out and a student came in and
said "What's with all the stale clay?" The term "bone dry" wasn't in
her vocabulary and since my students are always working with moist
clay she just applied a term that was in her vocabulary to the clay on
the counter. I believe the term "design" is as close to non-objective
as a little kid without art training can come up with.
> In art
> foundation design classes we often stipulate that 2-D or 3-D work
> must be
> non-objective, in order to get the students to focus on purely formal
> compositional elements, concepts, and structure.
This is where I think many elementary art programs go astray. I teach
one or two lessons like this a year, but many elementary art programs
drill kids into the ground with this. I teach about composition and
the elements and principles of design during lessons that have
recognizable/representational imagery and don't try to teach them
separately. Teaching them as stand alone principles makes sense for
kids in junior high, high school and college. It can be introduced at
the elementary level, but should not be the primary focus as is often
the case here in the art programs I have seen in Michigan.
John
Deborah Thuman on wed 25 aug 10
Abstract art depicts ideas.
Representational art depicts people or things.
ACK!!!! Brain is working. Wonder if both could be put into one
piece???????? Must work on that.
Deb Thuman
http://debthumansblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=3D5888059
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Deb-Thumans-Art-Page/167529715986
Vince Pitelka on wed 25 aug 10
Deborah Thuman wrote:
"Abstract art depicts ideas. Representational art depicts people or things.=
"
Hi Deborah. I am curious as to where those quick-bullet definitions came
from. Both abstract and representational art can depict ideas, and both
abstract and representational art can depict people or things. We could sa=
y
that representational art emphasizes the accurate rendering of the subject,
while abstract art alters and interprets the subject in order to better
communicate a particular idea or intent. How's that?
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Dannon Rhudy on thu 26 aug 10
Vince said:
....curious as to where those quick-bullet definitions came
from.......... could say
that representational art emphasizes the accurate rendering of the subject,
while abstract art alters and interprets the subject in order to better
communicate a particular idea or intent. How's that?
- Vince
To "abstract" something from something else does not
necessarily mean to alter the abstraction. It only
means to take a portion of something, or to lift it
out. And it does not necessarily mean to "interpret"
either. And, it may have nothing to do with "idea".
Might just be fooling around.
Just saying.
regards
Dannon Rhudy
Lee Love on thu 26 aug 10
Representational art is not always rendered and it can have more
meaning than the obvious. Milton Avery does similar things within
his portraits, landscapes and still lives as abstractionist do, with
color and texture and shape, but without having to leave out elements
that make the work interesting to "the guy on the street."
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Kathy Forer on thu 26 aug 10
On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Dannon Rhudy wrote:
> To "abstract" something from something else does not
> necessarily mean to alter the abstraction. It only
> means to take a portion of something, or to lift it
> out. And it does not necessarily mean to "interpret"
> either. And, it may have nothing to do with "idea".
> Might just be fooling around.
Abstraction is a state of mind and way of working. It may refer to realisti=
c=3D
, imaginative or conceptual objects or be without reference at all, non-obj=
e=3D
ctive. =3D20
Abstract art isn't reductive or less. It is symbolic and imaginative. It ma=
y=3D
be unconcerned with the accretion of detail or rooted in it. It is a proce=
s=3D
sed response to inner or outer stimuli.=3D20
Non-objective art is without reference to any visual system or objective pl=
a=3D
ne. Its shapes and dimensions may have no visual correlation, even imaginat=
i=3D
ve. It is purely outside of reference to the real or imaginative world. The=
r=3D
e is no abstraction of landscape. No portrait study. No history or genre st=
u=3D
dy.=3D20
Kathy Forer
James Freeman on thu 26 aug 10
Deb, Dannon, Kathi, et alii...
I think that trying to pin down a set of definitions will prove about
as easy as nailing jello to a wall.
"Abstract art depicts ideas. Representational art depicts people or
things." , seems like a good starting point, but we quickly run into
trouble. What do we do with the surrealists? They were clearly
depicting ideas, but did so via realistically rendered people or
things. While the overall painting may not be representational of
anything concrete, the building blocks of the painting certainly are
representational. Where do you place a realistic train coming out of
a realistic fireplace, for instance?
As Dannon suggested, it seems that simplification is also not
necessarily a part of the equation, nor is the idea of accentuating
what the artist feels are the important formal aspects. One of my
favorite paintings is Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, #2. It
seems pretty clearly to be an abstract piece. While each individual
figure can be thought of as a simplification of a human form, the
figure is not really the subject of the painting. The subject, the
entire act of descending a staircase, is rendered in a phenomenally
complex way. Inspired by Muybridge, Duchamp takes what is in real
life a simple, continuous phenomenon, and renders it a way that is far
more complex by depicting the entire sequence at once. It is such a
complex piece that it was originally dismissed by a critic as "an
explosion in a shingle factory" or some such.
Kathi's idea regarding non-objective art seems compelling;
"Non-objective art is without reference to any visual system or
objective plane. Its shapes and dimensions may have no visual
correlation, even imaginative. It is purely outside of reference to
the real or imaginative world." It brings up a question, however.
Back in the olden days, when I was studying commercial art in high
school, we were given weekly sketchbook assignments. One assignment I
remember very clearly was to draw the smell of an orange. Another was
to draw the sound of a garbage disposal. I wonder where in the
objective-nonobjective spectrum these drawings would fit? A drawing
of the smell of an orange is clearly without reference to "any visual
system", but is it without reference to an "objective plane"? The
shapes in such a drawing do have a "visual correlation", though
clearly an imaginative one, and it does in fact reference the real or
imaginative world. The drawing of the smell of an orange therefore
seems to be neither fish nor fowl. It is not really objective, but
neither is it nonobjective. It is not truly representational, but
neither is it abstract. It would be abstract under the definition Deb
suggested, but then we have already shown that definition to be at
least incomplete. So, where are we?
Hmmm... I stand corrected. Nailing jello to a wall is easier. And
now my head hurts!
Just some food for thought.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Randall Moody on fri 27 aug 10
Abstract art is still representational. It is simply abstracting the
subject. Many confuse non-representational art with abstract art or they
assume that they are the same thing.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
Snail Scott on fri 27 aug 10
On Aug 26, 2010, at 9:44 PM, James Freeman wrote:
> Representational art depicts people or
> things." , seems like a good starting point, but we quickly run into
> trouble. What do we do with the surrealists? They were clearly
> depicting ideas, but did so via realistically rendered people or
> things...Where do you place a realistic train coming out of
> a realistic fireplace, for instance?
We are discussing visual style, not content, in
these definitions. Representational art isn't limited
to depicting real things, but to depicting them in a
real-looking way. If I paint a spaceship from the
Planet Zorg, I can do so representationally even
though there are no spaceships from Planet Zorg.
(They have only just invented the skateboard.)
When people depict non-tangible or imaginary
things, it can still be abstract or representational
in style.
Further, an artwork may contain aspects of all these
definitions at once. I can take representational
images and combine them in a collage to create
an abstract result, or use abstracted and realistic
elements together in one artwork.
> One assignment I
> remember very clearly was to draw the smell of an orange. Another was
> to draw the sound of a garbage disposal. I wonder where in the
> objective-nonobjective spectrum these drawings would fit?
I might call this abstract in some sense because
it is selecting what is deemed important for that
work of art (the smell), extracting just that aspect
from the totality of the thing. However, these terms
refer specifically to the APPEARANCE of the artwork
compared with the appearance of the reality.
It doesn't mean that a non-representational artwork
can have no point of contact with reality, it merely
describes its visible relationship to the visible world.
Nothing is said about ideas or meaning, nor any
references to the other physical senses.
So, I would call the 'smell of an orange' drawing
non-representational.
Appearance isn't the only relevant thing about an
artwork, but it's the limit of what these terms describe.
-Snail
Snail Scott on fri 27 aug 10
On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Randall Moody wrote:
> Many confuse non-representational art with abstract art or they
> assume that they are the same thing...
At the beginning of the 20th century, European-
derived art traditions could scarcely conceive of
an art which did not depict the real world at all.
(Decorative patterns and functional objects, which
might have served as examples of non-representation,
were not considered 'real art'.) So,as artists began to
work with less and less reference to the visible world,
but clearly within a 'fine art' lineage, the term 'abstract'
became stretched beyond all reasonable application.
Eventually, enough people saw the need for a new
term that 'non-representational' and 'non-objective'
were adopted to describe this type of art. Such art
had of course been in existence since the dawn of
time all over the world, but largely excluded from the
debates of academic fine art until it was re-created
from within by the Abstract Expressionists. (I have
to emphasize this every semester - yes, they are
called the Abstract Expressionists, but were neither
abstract nor expressionistic. It's just a name rooted in
an earlier era.)
There are still a lot of older books using the term
'abstract' to cover non-representation, and people
who learn from those books and perpetuate the usage.
New terms take time to adopt, even when they seem
like a good idea. Language is like that.
-Snail
James Freeman on fri 27 aug 10
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Snail Scott w=
=3D
rote:
> If I paint a spaceship from the
> Planet Zorg, I can do so representationally even
> though there are no spaceships from Planet Zorg.
> (They have only just invented the skateboard.)
Sorry to disagree with you, Snail, but I am pretty sure the Zorgians
DO have spaceships, and that a few of their race have infiltrated our
clayart list. It would explain a lot!
On the smell of an orange, my own interpretation was a drawing of a
sort of bouquet of smooth, thin, slightly undulating, somewhat
intertwined tube-like forms, each punctuated with a single long
needle-like spike protruding from the end. They were
"representational" of spiked tubes, though such tubes don't actually
exist (except on Zorg, where they grow like weeds). Had I painted a
squishy field of colors, meant perhaps to invoke the feeling of the
smell of the orange, I would have a much easier time calling it
nonrepresentational (visually). In the ready case, however, it seems
not so clear.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
James Freeman on fri 27 aug 10
Well, I actually found my old sketch book from sophomore year of high
school. What a blast from the past! Interesting drawing assignments.
Aside from the smell of an orange and the sound of a garbage
disposal, we also had to draw the smell of turpentine (it apparently
smells, at least to a 15 year old, like butt-shaped forms emitting
lightning), the sound of a balloon popping, what holds the sky up,
what is inside of a dandelion stem, what holds up the moon, and a
number of others that I cannot quite recall, but which resulted in
some rather odd drawings.
I posted the sketch of the smell of an orange, along with what holds
up the sky, to my flickr page
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio). Please cut me some
slack on the drawings, as I was probably 14 or 15! The drawings are
almost certainly not "non-representational", but I would be curious as
to whether they are abstract, or representational. In the sky drawing
the individual elements are clearly simplified to a tremendous extent,
but are they "abstract"? I'm not sure.
I also posted three drawings from a series I was working on as a side
project during my Freshman year of college. The three are all
related, and I put them in a purposeful order. Again, I would be
curious as to whether each of these are abstract, or representational.
This is not a trap. I believe I could make cogent arguments either
way, on all three of them.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Vince Pitelka on fri 27 aug 10
James Freeman wrote:
"Sorry to disagree with you, Snail, but I am pretty sure the Zorgians
DO have spaceships, and that a few of their race have infiltrated our
clayart list. It would explain a lot!"
Aaarrrrggghhhh! Just when our Zorgian sleeper cell becomes well establishe=
d
on Clayart, someone has to go and blow our cover. How are we to convert yo=
u
Earthling Clayart members to the Zorgian principles of righteous happiness
and exclamatory profligation if we have been revealed as slightly
undulating, somewhat intertwined tube-like forms, each punctuated with a
single long needle-like spike protruding from the end (I'm not sayin' which
end). Very few people have seen me in person, but now EVERYONE will
recognize me when I show up in the Clayart room in Tampa. Curses, foiled
again!!!! It is true that on Zorg we grow like weeds, but once we gain
control of all of your clay extruders, WE WILL DOMINATE EARTH AS WELL!!!
Mooooo-ha-ha-ha-ha (insert demented laughter).
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Snail Scott on fri 27 aug 10
On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Freeman wrote:
> On the smell of an orange, my own interpretation was a drawing of a
> sort of bouquet of smooth, thin, slightly undulating, somewhat
> intertwined tube-like forms, each punctuated with a single long
> needle-like spike protruding from the end. They were
> "representational" of spiked tubes, though such tubes don't actually
> exist (except on Zorg, where they grow like weeds). Had I painted a
> squishy field of colors, meant perhaps to invoke the feeling of the
> smell of the orange, I would have a much easier time calling it
> nonrepresentational (visually). In the ready case, however, it seems
> not so clear.
Yes, I see what you mean- using the techniques
of representation (shading and highlight, etc, to
create plausible depth and spatial relationships,
etc, but neither derived from the appearance of the
inspiration, nor purporting to depict a nonexistent
thing's hypothetical appearance.
I would call the drawing (as you posted on Flickr)
representational, as it uses the techniques that
are used top make anything look realistic, solid,
plausible, etc, even though the thing does not
exist in any visible form.
The two drawings you show below that (the B&W
pieces) I would call abstract but not highly abstract,
as there is a clear attempt to deviate from realistic
appearance, but a resemblance to the presumed
source is still quite evident.
Language is such a limited tool for describing visual
experience! It is a might handy tool for communication,
and clear consistent use of terms can offer useful
common ground from which to proceed. I suspect,
however, that we do no real service in trying to find
a suitable pigeonhole for everything. Art is too varied
and complex to lend itself readily to an either/or
set of descriptors. It is, perhaps, a starting point, from
which we can elaborate on the suitability of each
term to the true state of the artwork being described.
-Snail
Robert Harris on fri 27 aug 10
With the mention of "western" art it occurred to me that Islamic art,
with it's prohibition upon figurative representation would be an
interesting corollary to examine.
Despite this prohibition I would not call the resulting art "abstract"
because it is so d...ed geometrical. It's all about patterns (which in
some ways are recognizable and therefore "rendering").
Does this then support the proposition that "abstract" art is not
really an inborn trait?
Thoughts please!
R
phil on fri 27 aug 10
Yes...
But the Smorg-Ass-Borgians, though semi-robotic, ( and yes, they look funny=
,
those big 'Cabooses' and so on ) are renoun for their Hospitality, and good
lay-outs of Food...even on long flights from Galaxy to Galaxy.
No one ever seems to remember their Space Ships, but, the Corned Beef on Ry=
e
and Russian Dressing? The Potato Salad? Apricot Pie? Wow, really good!
They abduct people to study them, and no one wants to leave!
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Freeman"
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Snail Scott
wrote:
> If I paint a spaceship from the
> Planet Zorg, I can do so representationally even
> though there are no spaceships from Planet Zorg.
> (They have only just invented the skateboard.)
Sorry to disagree with you, Snail, but I am pretty sure the Zorgians
DO have spaceships, and that a few of their race have infiltrated our
clayart list. It would explain a lot!
On the smell of an orange, my own interpretation was a drawing of a
sort of bouquet of smooth, thin, slightly undulating, somewhat
intertwined tube-like forms, each punctuated with a single long
needle-like spike protruding from the end. They were
"representational" of spiked tubes, though such tubes don't actually
exist (except on Zorg, where they grow like weeds). Had I painted a
squishy field of colors, meant perhaps to invoke the feeling of the
smell of the orange, I would have a much easier time calling it
nonrepresentational (visually). In the ready case, however, it seems
not so clear.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3097 - Release Date: 08/26/10
23:34:00
James Freeman on fri 27 aug 10
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Snail Scott wr=
=3D
ote:
>
> Language is such a limited tool for describing visual
> experience! It is a might handy tool for communication,
> and clear consistent use of terms can offer useful
> common ground from which to proceed. I suspect,
> however, that we do no real service in trying to find
> a suitable pigeonhole for everything. Art is too varied
> and complex to lend itself readily to an either/or
> set of descriptors. It is, perhaps, a starting point, from
> which we can elaborate on the suitability of each
> term to the true state of the artwork being described.
>
> -Snail
>
Yes!!!
That paragraph is pure gold, and needs no elaboration. If we think
about these words, perhaps we will better understand from whence a lot
of our problems arise.
All the best.
,,,James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Lee Love on fri 27 aug 10
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Robert Harris wr=
=3D
ote:
> Does this then support the proposition that "abstract" art is not
> really an inborn trait?
Non-representational, in this case, is imposed.
In Indian art, originally, the Buddha was not depicted
figuratively. Often, empty footprints were used to represent him.
It changed with Ghandara culture introduced by the Greeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art
If you look at the oldest paintings
http://tinyurl.com/Lascaux-cave-paintings
or the oldest clay we know of http://tinyurl.com/venus-figures
Both included figurative depictions. It must be innate to human beings.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Johanna San Inocencio on sun 29 aug 10
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-46E008AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1; format=3Dflowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sounds like somebody is ready for the semester
to start...
Johanna
"A man is as free as he chooses to make himself,
never an atom freer."
The Raven, Lillith by George MacDonald
On 8/27/2010 7:21 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> James Freeman wrote:
> "Sorry to disagree with you, Snail, but I am pretty sure the Zorgians
> DO have spaceships, and that a few of their race have infiltrated our
> clayart list. It would explain a lot!"
>
> Aaarrrrggghhhh! Just when our Zorgian sleeper cell becomes well establis=
hed
> on Clayart, someone has to go and blow our cover. How are we to convert =
you
> Earthling Clayart members to the Zorgian principles of righteous happines=
s
> and exclamatory profligation if we have been revealed as slightly
> undulating, somewhat intertwined tube-like forms, each punctuated with a
> single long needle-like spike protruding from the end (I'm not sayin' whi=
ch
> end). Very few people have seen me in person, but now EVERYONE will
> recognize me when I show up in the Clayart room in Tampa. Curses, foiled
> again!!!! It is true that on Zorg we grow like weeds, but once we gain
> control of all of your clay extruders, WE WILL DOMINATE EARTH AS WELL!!!
> Mooooo-ha-ha-ha-ha (insert demented laughter).
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3097 - Release Date: 08/27/10 =
01:34:00
>
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-46E008AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=3Dcert; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "Certification"
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3100 - Release Date: 08/29/10 01=
:=3D
34:00
--=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-46E008AD=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D--
Elizabeth Priddy on sun 29 aug 10
And you would have gotten away with it, too! If it weren't for all these m=
=3D
eddling kids!!!!=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A- ePriddy=3D0A=3D0AElizabeth Priddy=3D0ABeau=
fort, NC - U=3D
SA=3D0A=3D0Ahttp://www.elizabethpriddy.com=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A--- On Fri, 8/27/1=
0, Vince P=3D
itelka wrote:=3D0A=3D0A> From: Vince Pitelka a@DT=3D
CCOM.NET>=3D0A> Subject: Re: defining abstract art=3D0A> To: Clayart@LSV.CE=
RAMI=3D
CS.ORG=3D0A> Date: Friday, August 27, 2010, 8:21 PM=3D0A> James Freeman wro=
te:=3D
=3D0A> "Sorry to disagree with you, Snail, but I am pretty sure=3D0A> the Z=
orgi=3D
ans=3D0A> DO have spaceships, and that a few of their race have=3D0A> infil=
trat=3D
ed our=3D0A> clayart list.=3DA0 It would explain a lot!"=3D0A> =3D0A> Aaarr=
rrggghhh=3D
h!=3DA0 Just when our Zorgian sleeper cell=3D0A> becomes well established=
=3D0A> o=3D
n Clayart, someone has to go and blow our cover.=3DA0 How=3D0A> are we to c=
onve=3D
rt you=3D0A> Earthling Clayart members to the Zorgian principles of=3D0A> r=
ight=3D
eous happiness=3D0A> and exclamatory profligation if we have been revealed =
as=3D
=3D0A> slightly=3D0A> undulating, somewhat intertwined tube-like forms, eac=
h=3D0A=3D
> punctuated with a=3D0A> single long needle-like spike protruding from the=
e=3D
nd (I'm=3D0A> not sayin' which=3D0A> end). Very few people have seen me in =
pers=3D
on, but now=3D0A> EVERYONE will=3D0A> recognize me when I show up in the Cl=
ayar=3D
t room in=3D0A> Tampa.=3DA0 Curses, foiled=3D0A> again!!!!=3DA0 It is true =
that on =3D
Zorg we grow like weeds,=3D0A> but once we gain=3D0A> control of all of you=
r cl=3D
ay extruders, WE WILL DOMINATE=3D0A> EARTH AS WELL!!!=3D0A> Mooooo-ha-ha-ha=
-ha =3D
(insert demented laughter).=3D0A> =3D0A> Vince Pitelka=3D0A> Appalachian Ce=
nter f=3D
or Craft=3D0A> Tennessee Tech University=3D0A> vpitelka@dtccom.net;=3D0A> w=
pitelk=3D
a@tntech.edu=3D0A> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka=3D0A> =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
| |
|
