Elizabeth Priddy on tue 31 aug 10
If I went to my doctor for treatment and he said, "Just call me Joe, I am g=
oing to give you these pills and treat you for your ailment, but I am reall=
y uncomfortable with the name "Doctor", and it makes me feel kind of embarr=
assed and I am not even really sure what that means..."
I would run, not walk, away. And that guy gets to make the whole world cal=
l him "Dr." Joe, whether he is their personal physician or not, after only =
8 years of school and 2 interning, less than that if you go to the Bahamas =
to get the paper.
If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist, then you ce=
rtainly do not deserve the title. This insistence that the title be perpet=
ually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take the time to "=
figure it out", rather than you being like every other person who goes to w=
ork in the morning and has work to do? Now THAT is prima donna arrogant bu=
llshit.
If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with confid=
ence, like every other professional in the world would do once they achieve=
the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a legit occupation.=
...what the hell is wrong with this picture?
And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new field of e=
ndeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art.
As Charlie Brown said, "Good Grief!"
Stop gazing at your navel and get to work.
- ePriddy
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
jonathan byler on tue 31 aug 10
We do not live in germany.
Unlike over there, I get to call myself what I want, and put it on my
business card to boot. and you can take it or leave it. tautological
problem or not, doesn't really matter.
On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:01 PM, James Freeman wrote:
> Hi, Vince, Elizabeth...
>
> Don't worry, I am not going to argue with you. I will say this only
> once, then I promise to shut up.
>
> No, it's not a no-brainer at all. In fact, what you and Elizabeth
> postulate is a complete tautology. "I make art, therefore I am an
> artist, and since I am an artist, what I make is art." It is
> attempting to lift oneself up by one's bootstraps; it is completely
> circular reasoning. At best, such an idea makes one only an ipse
> dixit artist, which doesn't seem to count for much.
>
> One cannot simply declare oneself a doctor, for instance, just because
> one has studied drugs or anatomy or some other facet of the trade, nor
> even if such person has correctly diagnosed diseases or conditions.
> One is only a doctor when an official licensing board says so, not
> when one says so oneself. Likewise a plumber; you are not a plumber
> just because you know the subject, nor even because you plumbed your
> own house. You are a plumber only when the official licensing board
> says you are. Heck, you cannot even claim to be a pet groomer based
> on your own say so. So why is "artist" so much lower on the food
> chain than any other profession? Why can anyone claim to be an artist
> based only on their own say so?
>
> The position I offered is not based on lack of confidence. It is not
> based on making everyone you meet perpetually confer such title. It
> is not based on timidity nor tiptoeing. It is not based on lack of
> pride. It is certainly not based on "prima donna arrogant bullshit".
> Quite the contrary, in fact.
>
> If you leave it for others to decide for themselves whether or not
> your work is Art, and whether or not you are an Artist, then you don't
> deserve the title? With all due respect, I think one would be hard
> pressed to back such a statement in any logical way. It's for others
> to decide if your work is good art or bad art, but it's not OK for
> them to decide that it's not art at all? Who decided that their only
> choices are good art or bad art? This is a Hobson's choice, or
> perhaps more correctly a "catch 22". It is not a free choice in any
> regard.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Vince Pitelka
> wrote:
>> Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
>> "If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist,
>> then you
>> certainly do not deserve the title. This insistence that the title
>> be
>> perpetually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take
>> the time
>> to "figure it out", rather than you being like every other person
>> who goes
>> to work in the morning and has work to do? Now THAT is prima donna
>> arrogant
>> bullshit.
>> If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with
>> confidence, like every other professional in the world would do
>> once they
>> achieve the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a
>> legit
>> occupation....what the hell is wrong with this picture?
>> And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new
>> field of
>> endeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art."
>>
>> Elizabeth -
>> Thank you for saying this so directly and succinctly. I agree
>> wholeheartedly. Anyone who makes art, even if they are not sure it
>> is good
>> art, should be very proud and confident about calling her/himself
>> an artist.
>> Anyone who makes pots should be proud and confident about calling
>> her/himself a potter. To tiptoe around these titles with such
>> hesitation
>> and uncertainty completely bewilders me. If you make art, you are an
>> artist. It is for others to determine whether or not your art is
>> good, but
>> the simple fact is that if you make art, you are an artist, and if
>> you make
>> pots, you are a potter. Isn't this pretty much a no-brainer?
>> - Vince
>>
>> Vince Pitelka
>> Appalachian Center for Craft
>> Tennessee Tech University
>> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
>> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>>
Robert Harris on tue 31 aug 10
I'm not sure your analogy is particularly good. The point about being
a Dr is that it is a title conferred by an institution that is
independently accredited. No-one who is not credentialled should be
(and in some states legally?) allowed to call themselves Dr.
"Artist" is none of these things - and may be (and should be?) self-bestowe=
d.
R
Vince Pitelka on tue 31 aug 10
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
"If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist, then you
certainly do not deserve the title. This insistence that the title be
perpetually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take the tim=
e
to "figure it out", rather than you being like every other person who goes
to work in the morning and has work to do? Now THAT is prima donna arrogan=
t
bullshit.
If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with
confidence, like every other professional in the world would do once they
achieve the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a legit
occupation....what the hell is wrong with this picture?
And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new field of
endeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art."
Elizabeth -
Thank you for saying this so directly and succinctly. I agree
wholeheartedly. Anyone who makes art, even if they are not sure it is good
art, should be very proud and confident about calling her/himself an artist=
.
Anyone who makes pots should be proud and confident about calling
her/himself a potter. To tiptoe around these titles with such hesitation
and uncertainty completely bewilders me. If you make art, you are an
artist. It is for others to determine whether or not your art is good, but
the simple fact is that if you make art, you are an artist, and if you make
pots, you are a potter. Isn't this pretty much a no-brainer?
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
James Freeman on tue 31 aug 10
Hi, Vince, Elizabeth...
Don't worry, I am not going to argue with you. I will say this only
once, then I promise to shut up.
No, it's not a no-brainer at all. In fact, what you and Elizabeth
postulate is a complete tautology. "I make art, therefore I am an
artist, and since I am an artist, what I make is art." It is
attempting to lift oneself up by one's bootstraps; it is completely
circular reasoning. At best, such an idea makes one only an ipse
dixit artist, which doesn't seem to count for much.
One cannot simply declare oneself a doctor, for instance, just because
one has studied drugs or anatomy or some other facet of the trade, nor
even if such person has correctly diagnosed diseases or conditions.
One is only a doctor when an official licensing board says so, not
when one says so oneself. Likewise a plumber; you are not a plumber
just because you know the subject, nor even because you plumbed your
own house. You are a plumber only when the official licensing board
says you are. Heck, you cannot even claim to be a pet groomer based
on your own say so. So why is "artist" so much lower on the food
chain than any other profession? Why can anyone claim to be an artist
based only on their own say so?
The position I offered is not based on lack of confidence. It is not
based on making everyone you meet perpetually confer such title. It
is not based on timidity nor tiptoeing. It is not based on lack of
pride. It is certainly not based on "prima donna arrogant bullshit".
Quite the contrary, in fact.
If you leave it for others to decide for themselves whether or not
your work is Art, and whether or not you are an Artist, then you don't
deserve the title? With all due respect, I think one would be hard
pressed to back such a statement in any logical way. It's for others
to decide if your work is good art or bad art, but it's not OK for
them to decide that it's not art at all? Who decided that their only
choices are good art or bad art? This is a Hobson's choice, or
perhaps more correctly a "catch 22". It is not a free choice in any
regard.
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
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> "If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist, then you
> certainly do not deserve the title. =3DA0This insistence that the title b=
e
> perpetually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take the t=
=3D
ime
> to "figure it out", rather than you being like every other person who goe=
=3D
s
> to work in the morning and has work to do? =3DA0Now THAT is prima donna a=
rr=3D
ogant
> bullshit.
> If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with
> confidence, like every other professional in the world would do once they
> achieve the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a legit
> occupation....what the hell is wrong with this picture?
> And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new field of
> endeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art."
>
> Elizabeth -
> Thank you for saying this so directly and succinctly. =3DA0I agree
> wholeheartedly. =3DA0Anyone who makes art, even if they are not sure it i=
s =3D
good
> art, should be very proud and confident about calling her/himself an arti=
=3D
st.
> Anyone who makes pots should be proud and confident about calling
> her/himself a potter. =3DA0To tiptoe around these titles with such hesita=
ti=3D
on
> and uncertainty completely bewilders me. =3DA0If you make art, you are an
> artist. =3DA0It is for others to determine whether or not your art is goo=
d,=3D
but
> the simple fact is that if you make art, you are an artist, and if you ma=
=3D
ke
> pots, you are a potter. =3DA0Isn't this pretty much a no-brainer?
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
C Sullivan on wed 1 sep 10
Naw James, in my opinion, you are way off base.
Elizabeth and Vince are right on target. Obviously, if you go to the local
community center, take a pottery class and make one pot, you are not a
potter. You are dabbling in the arts.
However, if you put in 8 to 17 hour days, 6 days a week for years creating
pottery; you are then -- a potter. Regardless of the quality of your work.
It is what you do.
It is not a statement of "title", but rather a definition of what you do.
Chae
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM, James Freeman m
> wrote:
> Hi, Vince, Elizabeth...
>
> Don't worry, I am not going to argue with you. I will say this only
> once, then I promise to shut up.
>
> No, it's not a no-brainer at all. In fact, what you and Elizabeth
> postulate is a complete tautology. "I make art, therefore I am an
> artist, and since I am an artist, what I make is art." It is
> attempting to lift oneself up by one's bootstraps; it is completely
> circular reasoning. At best, such an idea makes one only an ipse
> dixit artist, which doesn't seem to count for much.
>
> One cannot simply declare oneself a doctor, for instance, just because
> one has studied drugs or anatomy or some other facet of the trade, nor
> even if such person has correctly diagnosed diseases or conditions.
> One is only a doctor when an official licensing board says so, not
> when one says so oneself. Likewise a plumber; you are not a plumber
> just because you know the subject, nor even because you plumbed your
> own house. You are a plumber only when the official licensing board
> says you are. Heck, you cannot even claim to be a pet groomer based
> on your own say so. So why is "artist" so much lower on the food
> chain than any other profession? Why can anyone claim to be an artist
> based only on their own say so?
>
> The position I offered is not based on lack of confidence. It is not
> based on making everyone you meet perpetually confer such title. It
> is not based on timidity nor tiptoeing. It is not based on lack of
> pride. It is certainly not based on "prima donna arrogant bullshit".
> Quite the contrary, in fact.
>
> If you leave it for others to decide for themselves whether or not
> your work is Art, and whether or not you are an Artist, then you don't
> deserve the title? With all due respect, I think one would be hard
> pressed to back such a statement in any logical way. It's for others
> to decide if your work is good art or bad art, but it's not OK for
> them to decide that it's not art at all? Who decided that their only
> choices are good art or bad art? This is a Hobson's choice, or
> perhaps more correctly a "catch 22". It is not a free choice in any
> regard.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Vince Pitelka
> wrote:
> > Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> > "If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist, then y=
ou
> > certainly do not deserve the title. This insistence that the title be
> > perpetually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take the
> time
> > to "figure it out", rather than you being like every other person who
> goes
> > to work in the morning and has work to do? Now THAT is prima donna
> arrogant
> > bullshit.
> > If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with
> > confidence, like every other professional in the world would do once th=
ey
> > achieve the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a legit
> > occupation....what the hell is wrong with this picture?
> > And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new field =
of
> > endeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art."
> >
> > Elizabeth -
> > Thank you for saying this so directly and succinctly. I agree
> > wholeheartedly. Anyone who makes art, even if they are not sure it is
> good
> > art, should be very proud and confident about calling her/himself an
> artist.
> > Anyone who makes pots should be proud and confident about calling
> > her/himself a potter. To tiptoe around these titles with such hesitati=
on
> > and uncertainty completely bewilders me. If you make art, you are an
> > artist. It is for others to determine whether or not your art is good,
> but
> > the simple fact is that if you make art, you are an artist, and if you
> make
> > pots, you are a potter. Isn't this pretty much a no-brainer?
> > - Vince
> >
> > Vince Pitelka
> > Appalachian Center for Craft
> > Tennessee Tech University
> > vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> > http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
> >
>
Elizabeth Priddy on wed 1 sep 10
Thanks, Vince!
- ePriddy
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
gayle bair on wed 1 sep 10
Elizabeth and Vince,
As I wrote to Elizabeth I always groan when someone brings up this =3D
thread and have tried to restrain myself from responding to avoid the =3D
firefights I experienced in the past.
Now both of you have done it simply and eloquently. Thank you!=3D20
BTW my business card says "functional art in clay".=3D20
So for the record I am a potter who puts her art on her pottery.
Gayle Bair=3D20
Bainbridge Island WA
Tucson AZ
gayle@claybair.com
www.claybair.com
On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> "If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist, then =3D
you
> certainly do not deserve the title. This insistence that the title be
> perpetually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take =3D
the time
> to "figure it out", rather than you being like every other person who =3D
goes
> to work in the morning and has work to do? Now THAT is prima donna =3D
arrogant
> bullshit.
> If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with
> confidence, like every other professional in the world would do once =3D
they
> achieve the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a legit
> occupation....what the hell is wrong with this picture?
> And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new field =
=3D
of
> endeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art."
>=3D20
> Elizabeth -
> Thank you for saying this so directly and succinctly. I agree
> wholeheartedly. Anyone who makes art, even if they are not sure it is =
=3D
good
> art, should be very proud and confident about calling her/himself an =3D
artist.
> Anyone who makes pots should be proud and confident about calling
> her/himself a potter. To tiptoe around these titles with such =3D
hesitation
> and uncertainty completely bewilders me. If you make art, you are an
> artist. It is for others to determine whether or not your art is =3D
good, but
> the simple fact is that if you make art, you are an artist, and if you =
=3D
make
> pots, you are a potter. Isn't this pretty much a no-brainer?
> - Vince
>=3D20
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Chris Campbell on wed 1 sep 10
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
"If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist, then you
certainly do not deserve the title. This insistence that the title be
perpetually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take the tim=
e
to "figure it out", rather than you being like every other person who goes
to work in the morning and has work to do? Now THAT is prima donna arrogant
bullshit.
If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with
confidence, like every other professional in the world would do once they
achieve the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a legit
occupation....what the hell is wrong with this picture?
And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new field of
endeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art."
Vince wrote:
Thank you for saying this so directly and succinctly. I agree
wholeheartedly. Anyone who makes art, even if they are not sure it is good
art, should be very proud and confident about calling her/himself an artist=
.
Anyone who makes pots should be proud and confident about calling
her/himself a potter. To tiptoe around these titles with such hesitation
and uncertainty completely bewilders me. If you make art, you are an
artist. It is for others to determine whether or not your art is good, but
the simple fact is that if you make art, you are an artist, and if you make
pots, you are a potter. Isn't this pretty much a no-brainer?
- Vince
The only stumbling block for me lies in comparing it to professions
where being what you say you are is vital.
So don't bring in doctors, lawyers, plumbers and electricians ...
if they are fakes I could die, my house could be flooded or I could be
electrocuted.
However, if I am a fake or you hate my art ... so what??
No harm, no foul ... except to a well battered ego.
Even my passport says my occupation is artist ... but the only
thing that says about me or my art is that I take it seriously.
Chris Campbell - in North Carolina
Chris Campbell Pottery LLC
Designs in Colored Porcelain
www.ccpottery.com
SEATTLE WORKSHOP
COLORED CLAY EXPLORATIONS
APRIL 14 - 18, 2011
The Ranch Center for Arts & Crafts
Snohomish, WA 1-360-568-7709
www.artattheranch.com
James Freeman on wed 1 sep 10
Hi, Elizabeth...
Sorry if I misinterpreted that you were of the same mindset re: bona
fides. I am cheered to learn that you do not so believe.
Again, please understand that I am not sitting around wondering, and
cannot fathom what would have given you that idea. Far from it, in
fact. I simply make what I want to make, because I want to make it.
I am a VERY confident and proud "maker of cool stuff", and I
confidently put it forth at exhibitions for the acceptance or
rejection of jurors and the public, who can decide for themselves
whether it is good or bad, art or crap. I do not know why you keep
reading insecurity into my position. I assure you, tain't so! In
fact, one could argue that it takes far more security to allow the
viewer to decide for himself whether or not the work is art or whether
I am an artist, than it takes to simply print it on a business card
"'cause I say so". It is insistence on the title, on the implied
honor, that to me smacks of insecurity.
And no, I guess I just don't understand your point about the doctor
who doesn't like the title. Are you implying that the only reason a
person can be uncomfortable with a title is because he or she is
incompetent? I know a number of people who have titles, but choose
not to use them for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with
competence or lack thereof.
Well, this is about the best I can do to explain my position given the
serious limitations of email as a communicative medium. I am not
trying to sway your opinion on whether or not the word artist is a
simple descriptor, as you and a few others seem to be saying, or
whether it is an honorific, as I maintain. It seems clear, however,
that whether descriptor or honorific, if "artist" is an ipse dixit,
then it is without meaning or value.
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
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wro=
=3D
te:
> James,
>
> I didn't say anything about the bona fides of whether you are or are not =
=3D
a potter or garbage man simply because you make art or garbage. =3DA0Your a=
rg=3D
ument on that is with Vince.
>
> My statement was simply that if you are sitting around wondering about wh=
=3D
ether you are something or not, the wondering about it decides it. =3DA0Unt=
il=3D
you convince yourself you are something, no doctorate or conferred degree =
=3D
can grant that status. =3DA0Ownership of credibility has to start in your o=
wn=3D
mind. =3DA0Backing up your assertion is another story.
>
> Whether someone has done something for five minutes and decided that they=
=3D
are now an expert is an issue of "are you delusional?" and that is a diffe=
=3D
rent debate.
>
> Sorry to parse what is might be, but I only said as much as I said. =3DA0=
Ar=3D
guing against things I did not say, like the idea that one can declare ones=
=3D
elf a doctor, is just not appropriate.
>
> Wouldn't you agree to what I actually said, though, that if you went to a=
=3D
doctor and they were uncomfortable calling themself a doctor, that you wou=
=3D
ld decline their services? =3DA0I would. =3DA0And anyone that can't self-id=
enti=3D
fy as an artist is not making things I want to have. =3DA0I don't even want=
t=3D
hat insecurity juju in my house, and the objects people make bring a little=
=3D
of them with it.
>
John Post on wed 1 sep 10
I am in total agreement with everything Elizabeth and James said.
Both arguments are well crafted and well reasoned.
John Post
Sterling Heights, Michigan
http://www.johnpost.us
Elizabeth Priddy on wed 1 sep 10
James,
I didn't say anything about the bona fides of whether you are or are not a =
potter or garbage man simply because you make art or garbage. Your argumen=
t on that is with Vince.
My statement was simply that if you are sitting around wondering about whet=
her you are something or not, the wondering about it decides it. Until you=
convince yourself you are something, no doctorate or conferred degree can =
grant that status. Ownership of credibility has to start in your own mind.=
Backing up your assertion is another story.
Whether someone has done something for five minutes and decided that they a=
re now an expert is an issue of "are you delusional?" and that is a differe=
nt debate.
Sorry to parse what is might be, but I only said as much as I said. Arguin=
g against things I did not say, like the idea that one can declare oneself =
a doctor, is just not appropriate.
Wouldn't you agree to what I actually said, though, that if you went to a d=
octor and they were uncomfortable calling themself a doctor, that you would=
decline their services? I would. And anyone that can't self-identify as =
an artist is not making things I want to have. I don't even want that inse=
curity juju in my house, and the objects people make bring a little of them=
with it.
- ePriddy
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
Vince Pitelka on thu 2 sep 10
James Freeman wrote:
"It is insistence on the title, on the implied honor, that to me smacks of
insecurity."
Hi James -
Where's the implied honor? Do you see the general public going around
honoring people who call themselves artists? It is not "insistence on the
title," and there is no implied honor. You make art, therefore you are an
artist. You are an artist, therefore you make art. There is no circular
logic there, because both are statements of truth, and neither statement
requires the other for justification. It smacks far more of insecurity to
refuse to call yourself an artist or to call the work you make art when it
is pretty clear from all evidence that you are an artist making art.
It is up to the public to decide whether or not you are a good artist and
whether you make good art, but you do make and exhibit art, and that makes
you an artist. You can deny it all you want, but as I see it all that does
is bring up questions about whether you really understand what it means to
be an artist or to make art. I don't know. I have not heard an explanation
from you that makes much sense regarding you're role in the making and
exhibiting art. It seems pretty clear that you are an artist making art,
regardless of what you choose to call yourself.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
phil on thu 2 sep 10
Also...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DqoIvd3zzu4Y&feature=3Drelated
And...best of all maybe -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DFVq0HdiM-Ok
James Freeman on thu 2 sep 10
Thank you, sir. I am honored.
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
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> James Freeman wrote:
> "It is insistence on the title, on the implied honor, that to me smacks o=
=3D
f
> insecurity."
>
> Hi James -
> Where's the implied honor? =3DA0Do you see the general public going aroun=
d
> honoring people who call themselves artists? =3DA0It is not "insistence o=
n =3D
the
> title," and there is no implied honor. =3DA0You make art, therefore you a=
re=3D
an
> artist. =3DA0You are an artist, therefore you make art. =3DA0There is no =
circ=3D
ular
> logic there, because both are statements of truth, and neither statement
> requires the other for justification. =3DA0It smacks far more of insecuri=
ty=3D
to
> refuse to call yourself an artist or to call the work you make art when i=
=3D
t
> is pretty clear from all evidence that you are an artist making art.
>
> It is up to the public to decide whether or not you are a good artist and
> whether you make good art, but you do make and exhibit art, and that make=
=3D
s
> you an artist. =3DA0You can deny it all you want, but as I see it all tha=
t =3D
does
> is bring up questions about whether you really understand what it means t=
=3D
o
> be an artist or to make art. =3DA0I don't know. I have not heard an expla=
na=3D
tion
> from you that makes much sense regarding you're role in the making and
> exhibiting art. =3DA0It seems pretty clear that you are an artist making =
ar=3D
t,
> regardless of what you choose to call yourself.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
phil on thu 2 sep 10
Lol...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D4YBxeDN4tbk
Rodney Roe on fri 3 sep 10
Just staying with doctor analogy for a moment, the term is ambiguous becaus=
e
it is an honorific, not a description, but it is often used as a substitute
for physician. People still are confused by saying one is a physician. I
was always asked what kind of doctor are you. They wanted to know what I
did. Saying I was a pathologist often created a blank look. When I starte=
d
to describe my daily activities the reaction was anywhere from fascinating
to Ewwww, to "like Quincy".
So, saying you are an artist is sort of ambiguous. What medium? Is it
functional? In the opinion of many I am not a potter. I'm a
retired physician who dabbles in clay. I can't argue with that.
I like the suggestion of "I make functional art with clay."
Rodney
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:19 AM, gayle bair wrote:
> Elizabeth and Vince,
>
> As I wrote to Elizabeth I always groan when someone brings up this thread
> and have tried to restrain myself from responding to avoid the firefights=
I
> experienced in the past.
> Now both of you have done it simply and eloquently. Thank you!
>
> BTW my business card says "functional art in clay".
> So for the record I am a potter who puts her art on her pottery.
>
> Gayle Bair
> Bainbridge Island WA
> Tucson AZ
> gayle@claybair.com
> www.claybair.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>
> > Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> > "If you cannot refer to yourself as a doctor, potter, or artist, then y=
ou
> > certainly do not deserve the title. This insistence that the title be
> > perpetually conferred on you by everyone you meet, making them take the
> time
> > to "figure it out", rather than you being like every other person who
> goes
> > to work in the morning and has work to do? Now THAT is prima donna
> arrogant
> > bullshit.
> > If you can't put it on a business card and hand it out proudly, with
> > confidence, like every other professional in the world would do once th=
ey
> > achieve the skill level and time in to be a working adult with a legit
> > occupation....what the hell is wrong with this picture?
> > And if you don't think it is a legitimate occupation, find a new field =
of
> > endeavor, because you don't respect the craft or the art."
> >
> > Elizabeth -
> > Thank you for saying this so directly and succinctly. I agree
> > wholeheartedly. Anyone who makes art, even if they are not sure it is
> good
> > art, should be very proud and confident about calling her/himself an
> artist.
> > Anyone who makes pots should be proud and confident about calling
> > her/himself a potter. To tiptoe around these titles with such hesitati=
on
> > and uncertainty completely bewilders me. If you make art, you are an
> > artist. It is for others to determine whether or not your art is good,
> but
> > the simple fact is that if you make art, you are an artist, and if you
> make
> > pots, you are a potter. Isn't this pretty much a no-brainer?
> > - Vince
> >
> > Vince Pitelka
> > Appalachian Center for Craft
> > Tennessee Tech University
> > vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> > http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
paul gerhold on fri 3 sep 10
Vince and All,
If you make art then you are an artist. Impossible to dispute that
statement. The problem comes in when you try to define what is and what is
not art. The reason that the public does not honor people that call
themselves artists is that anyone can and usually does call themselves an
artist when in fact they are not actually makers of art.
So what happens is that the public decides that to be an artist you have to
be commercially successful and make a large amount of money. The slightly
more knowledgeable people seem to consider you an artist if you are in the
big galleries or exhibitions.
Paul
phil on fri 3 sep 10
Hi Randal,
How would one distinguish 'Art' from 'Decoration'?
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Moody"
> You misunderstand. I am not saying all things that create "art" are human=
.
> I
> am saying that the term has become so expansive as to be the equivalent o=
f
> stating you are human. I would also argue that art must have intention an=
d
> thus what the animals are creating is not art but rather decoration.
Larry Kruzan on fri 3 sep 10
How about - I am, therefore I pot.
To me, NOTHING else matters. If somebody wants to call me an artist, fine.
If someone wants to call me a crafter (I'll cringe) but shrug and say ok. I=
f
someone says they can buy better stuff at Walmart, I'll throw them out of m=
y
shop - because they are my pots that I made. That I made using the best
materials, equipment and the highest skill I could muster.
Why?? Because I take pride in my work, not in me. Sorry, I'm just not that
self absorbed - if you are, enjoy. I have work to do.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15790)
http://www.pctools.com/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
steve graber on fri 3 sep 10
sounds like everyone is dancing around the idea that while they make pots o=
=3D
r =3D0Aart, they don't do it as well as THAT OTHER guy!=3DA0 they feel humb=
led =3D
by some =3D0Areally good work they=3DA0haven't=3DA0achieved yet.=3DA0 so th=
ey can't=3D
see themselves in =3D0ATHAT category.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Ait's only a titl=
e.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D
=3D0Ai've met some really exceptional engineers yet still call myself one b=
ec=3D
ause =3D0Athat's what i do.=3DA0 i know the areas i'm good or bad at and te=
ll p=3D
eople so.=3DA0 when =3D0Apeople ask me to design a certain kind of widget, =
i te=3D
ll them i can or "i'm not =3D0Athat kind of engineer" and refer them to one=
i=3D
think is who they need to work =3D0Awith.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0Ait's only a =
title.=3DA0 =3D
=3D0A=3D0Awe like to classify things.=3DA0 that's human.=3DA0 =3D0A=3DA0Ste=
ve Graber, G=3D
raber's Pottery, Inc=3D0AClaremont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve Tool - for=
awe=3D
some texture on pots! =3D0Awww.graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery.com =
=3D
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Clay's website=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.com/blogs=
/ =3D0A=3D0A=3D
=3D0A=3D0A----- Original Message ----=3D0A> From: paul gerhold @DISHM=3D
AIL.NET>=3D0A> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=3D0A> Sent: Fri, September 3, 2=
010 =3D
5:21:56 AM=3D0A> Subject: Re: navel gazing or business cards=3D0A> =3D0A> V=
ince a=3D
nd All,=3D0A> =3D0A> If you make art then you are an artist.=3DA0 Impossibl=
e to d=3D
ispute that=3D0A> statement.=3DA0 The problem comes in when you try to defi=
ne w=3D
hat is and what is=3D0A> not art.=3DA0 The reason that the public does not =
hono=3D
r people that call=3D0A> themselves artists is that anyone can and usually =
do=3D
es call themselves an=3D0A> artist when in fact they are not actually maker=
s =3D
of art.=3D0A> =3D0A> So what happens is that the public decides that to be =
an a=3D
rtist you have to=3D0A> be commercially successful and make a large amount =
of=3D
money.=3DA0 The slightly=3D0A> more knowledgeable people seem to consider =
you =3D
an artist if you are in the=3D0A> big galleries or exhibitions.=3D0A> =3D0A=
> Paul=3D
=3D0A> =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Randall Moody on fri 3 sep 10
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:21 AM, paul gerhold wrot=
e:
> Vince and All,
>
> If you make art then you are an artist. Impossible to dispute that
> statement.
>
Okay, so if everything is art and if you make art you are an artist then
saying that you are an artist is the same as saying you are human. I love
extrapolation.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
Lee Love on fri 3 sep 10
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Rodney Roe wrote:
.
> I like the suggestion of "I make functional art with clay."
Rodney,
You make a good point. A craftman rarely says, "I'm a
craftsman" when he is asked what he does. He usually says
specifically in what materials he works in, and sometimes the use and
technique. When I am asked for a description of what I do, I answer
"Studio potter. I make functional work for daily use."
--
=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
Bob Seele on fri 3 sep 10
On Sep 3, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
Okay, so if everything is art and if you make art you are an artist then
saying that you are an artist is the same as saying you are human. I
love
extrapolation.
I have seen art by apes or gorillas.
Fetch a fair amount $$$$.
Are they also humans ?
bs
Vince Pitelka on fri 3 sep 10
Randall Moody wrote:
"Okay, so if everything is art and if you make art you are an artist then
saying that you are an artist is the same as saying you are human. I love
extrapolation."
Hi Randall -
There's little gain in trivializing something this important. If someone
claims that they are making art, then technically they would be considered
an artist, and only the public and the test of time can determine whether o=
r
not those things are true, and more importantly, whether or not their art i=
s
any good. Your statement above seems to be your attempt to diminish an
otherwise worthwhile discussion, and I wonder why you would do that?
Extrapolation is fun, but not so much when it extends into the realm of the
ridiculous.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Randall Moody on fri 3 sep 10
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Randall Moody wrote:
> "Okay, so if everything is art and if you make art you are an artist then
> saying that you are an artist is the same as saying you are human. I love
> extrapolation."
>
> Hi Randall -
> There's little gain in trivializing something this important. If someone
> claims that they are making art, then technically they would be considere=
d
> an artist, and only the public and the test of time can determine whether
> or
> not those things are true, and more importantly, whether or not their art
> is
> any good. Your statement above seems to be your attempt to diminish an
> otherwise worthwhile discussion, and I wonder why you would do that?
>
> Extrapolation is fun, but not so much when it extends into the realm of t=
he
> ridiculous.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Which is where the expansion of the terms art and artist have ended. My
point is that unless we establish parameters we allow the dilution of what
we are and what we do. My point is to trivialize the point of view that all
is art in an attempt to apply more intellectual rigor to the field.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
Robert Harris on fri 3 sep 10
Personally I think that while Randal may be over extrapolating, his
fundamental point, that all (well most) humans are artists is
absolutely true.
Everyone I know takes pride in something creative that they do well.
Whether this is baking the best cookies (frankly no different than the
experimentation that goes into making a superb glaze) or going out and
taking wonderful pictures of nature I beleive that this is art. There
is a reason we have expressions like "an artist in the kitchen".
I think that your dismissal of Randall's point implies a certain
pomposity over what can be called art. It precisely this attitude that
makes people want to call themselves "potters" or "makers of cool
things" and not artists.
Until some well known artists (and more important the galleries that
represent them) can be a little more humble then there will be many
fine makers of art who do not wish to be tarred with the same brush.
Robert
Randall Moody on fri 3 sep 10
You misunderstand. I am not saying all things that create "art" are human. =
I
am saying that the term has become so expansive as to be the equivalent of
stating you are human. I would also argue that art must have intention and
thus what the animals are creating is not art but rather decoration.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Bob Seele wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
>
> Okay, so if everything is art and if you make art you are an artist then
> saying that you are an artist is the same as saying you are human. I love
> extrapolation.
>
>
> I have seen art by apes or gorillas.
> Fetch a fair amount $$$$.
> Are they also humans ?
>
> bs
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
Vince Pitelka on fri 3 sep 10
Robert Harris wrote:
"I think that your dismissal of Randall's point implies a certain pomposity
over what can be called art. It precisely this attitude that makes people
want to call themselves "potters" or "makers of cool things" and not
artists. Until some well known artists (and more important the galleries
that represent them) can be a little more humble then there will be many
fine makers of art who do not wish to be tarred with the same brush."
Robert -
I wasn't sure what post you were responding to until I realized that you
sent your response to me personally as well, which I appreciate. But I am
baffled by your response. Did you read my post? My whole contention is
exactly the opposite - that the terms "art" and "artist" are not at all
exclusive, and can be rightfully claimed by anyone making art, with no
qualitative judgment at all. Regarding well-known artists, you could say
the same about well-known doctors, well-known lawyers, well-known
politicians, well-known performers. Some are pompous asses, and some are
accessible and respectful. The fact that some artists are pompous jerks ha=
s
little to do with the public perception of artists, which is instead fueled
by our public school system and national press and their poor attention to
artists and the arts.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on fri 3 sep 10
Randall Moody wrote:
"Which is where the expansion of the terms art and artist have ended. My
point is that unless we establish parameters we allow the dilution of what
we are and what we do. My point is to trivialize the point of view that all
is art in an attempt to apply more intellectual rigor to the field."
Randall -
Oh god, don't do that. Intellectual rigor more often than not subverts and
confuses art. Ancient and tribal cultures made some of the world's great
art driven by tradition, emotion, and spirituality, without ever the
interference of intellectual rigor. The great examples of folk art and
"outsider art" belong right up there next to the Mona Lisa and
Michelangelo's David. Neither is better or more sophisticated than the
other, and too often, intellectual examination and explanation just confuse
the matter.
My point is that we can easily discuss and perhaps agree on what is good ar=
t
and great art, but you cannot define what art is in specific terms without
limiting what art can be. To define art is to limit it, which is ultimatel=
y
to destroy it. The only sensible course is to allow anyone so inclined to
call her/himself an artist, and to call the product of their endeavors art,
and then let time and the public sort out the good art/artists form the bad=
.
It happened with Marcel Duchamp's "readymades," and it has happened a
thousand times since with creations that some people thought were not worth=
y
of the term "art." That system has worked fine, and will continue to do so=
.
People who try to decide what is good art right now often end up looking
foolish in retrospect, when time and experience usually illuminate the true
artists and the charlatans.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Randall Moody on sat 4 sep 10
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Randall Moody wrote:
> "Which is where the expansion of the terms art and artist have ended. My
> point is that unless we establish parameters we allow the dilution of wha=
t
> we are and what we do. My point is to trivialize the point of view that a=
ll
> is art in an attempt to apply more intellectual rigor to the field."
>
> Randall -
> Oh god, don't do that. Intellectual rigor more often than not subverts a=
nd
> confuses art. Ancient and tribal cultures made some of the world's great
> art driven by tradition, emotion, and spirituality, without ever the
> interference of intellectual rigor. The great examples of folk art and
> "outsider art" belong right up there next to the Mona Lisa and
> Michelangelo's David. Neither is better or more sophisticated than the
> other, and too often, intellectual examination and explanation just confu=
se
> the matter.
>
> My point is that we can easily discuss and perhaps agree on what is good
> art
> and great art, but you cannot define what art is in specific terms withou=
t
> limiting what art can be. To define art is to limit it, which is
> ultimately
> to destroy it. The only sensible course is to allow anyone so inclined t=
o
> call her/himself an artist, and to call the product of their endeavors ar=
t,
> and then let time and the public sort out the good art/artists form the
> bad.
> It happened with Marcel Duchamp's "readymades," and it has happened a
> thousand times since with creations that some people thought were not
> worthy
> of the term "art." That system has worked fine, and will continue to do
> so.
> People who try to decide what is good art right now often end up looking
> foolish in retrospect, when time and experience usually illuminate the tr=
ue
> artists and the charlatans.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
But to not define what art is makes it so expansive as to make the term
meaningless. It is akin to the aspect of holistic medicine (I forget the
term) in which the cure is diluted to the point that nothing of the cure
exists in the dilution. Also, in defining what is art and who is an artist
in such broad terms your "charlatans" are no less and artist than your "tru=
e
artists". That is the problem that I have with the concept of "everything i=
s
art" and "everyone who makes are is an artist".
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
paul gerhold on sat 4 sep 10
Vince'
How exactly do you know that ancient and tribal cultures did not have any
intellectual rigor! Seems like a rather rash judgment based on the old
romantic notion about primative peoples. Probably had just as much
intellectual rigor for their culture as we do for ours.
"To define art is to limit it and eventually destroy it" So all writing an=
d
discussion about art is destructive? Really Vince, you need to give up th=
e
use of broad and thoughtless generalizations if you want to promote
intelligent discussion.
And to go back to my original post what I thought I was saying is that if
you cannot define and thus limit art then the term art and also artist
eventually becomes meaningless.
Paul
KATHI LESUEUR on sat 4 sep 10
On Sep 4, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
>=3D20
>=3D20
> But to not define what art is makes it so expansive as to make the =3D
term
> meaningless. It is akin to the aspect of holistic medicine (I forget =3D
the
> term) in which the cure is diluted to the point that nothing of the =3D
cure
> exists in the dilution. Also, in defining what is art and who is an =3D
artist
> in such broad terms your "charlatans" are no less and artist than your =
=3D
"true
> artists". That is the problem that I have with the concept of =3D
"everything is
> art" and "everyone who makes are is an artist".
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
> http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
I've tried to stay out of this discussion since there is no real right =3D
answer. But, Randall, it is impossible to define art. People have been =3D
trying to do it for centuries. Probably there were discussions about =3D
what is art when cavemen were painting on caves. Monet and Renoir were =3D
told by the Academy that they were not artists. Their paintings were not =
=3D
art. The Academy defined what was art. Yet today their work is revered =3D
and in collections all over the world. I'm sure that Grandma Moses was =3D
told she wasn't an artist and her paintings were not art. Yet, in the =3D
end she also was held in high esteem. Norman Rockwell. Is that art he =3D
painted or just illustration? Artists are people who make art. There are =
=3D
good ones, bad ones, and those in between. And, everyone has a different =
=3D
idea of which is which. To think that you or anyone else can make the =3D
decision as to who is an artist and what is art is just arrogant and =3D
absurd. You can't and you don't have the right to. As is often said, who =
=3D
made you king (or anyone else for that matter).
Kathi
>=3D20
Randall Moody on sat 4 sep 10
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Randall -
> There is nothing meaningless about art, ever, whether it is good or bad.
> You cannot define what art is without limiting what it can be. Do you
> understand that any argument with that statement is pointless? It is a
> reality, a simple truth. It has been proven over and over again through
> the
> entire history of art.
>
>
When have I ever said that there is anything meaningless about art. You can
also expand the term "art" to the point where it is meaningless. You realiz=
e
that you are not the arbiter of what is meaningless in context of this, or
any for that matter, discussion.
> Leaving art undefined does not in any way make the term meaningless.
> Instead, it opens it up to unlimited possibility. That is the only way
> that
> art can exist. As soon as it is limited by a specific definition, you ha=
ve
> killed it. In immediate terms it may be difficult to separate the
> charlatans from the true artists, but that is not a problem, because as I
> have repeated several times, the public and the test of time will winnow
> them out. That has always worked very well.
> - Vince
>
>
The point is that the people that are saying that everything is art are in
fact defining what is art i.e. "everything". That is not leaving art
undefined. You also limit the definition in labeling certain people
"charlatans" and others "true artists". So you are just as guilty of
attempting to define or limit art as those that are arguing against the
"everything is art" position.
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
Lee Love on sat 4 sep 10
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 9:17 PM, James Freeman
wrote:
> One could even argue that it is precisely these attempts to define and
> limit art that cause the radicals and nonconformists to burst forth in
> new directions, kind of like trying to squeeze and limit a handful of
> jello (second jello analogy in a week!).
Often, technology assists the liberal mind. The camera
freed painters from rendering as tea ceremony helped potters
rediscover unrendered pots.
--
=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
Randall Moody on sat 4 sep 10
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:02 AM, KATHI LESUEUR w=
rote:
> On Sep 4, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > But to not define what art is makes it so expansive as to make the term
> > meaningless. It is akin to the aspect of holistic medicine (I forget th=
e
> > term) in which the cure is diluted to the point that nothing of the cur=
e
> > exists in the dilution. Also, in defining what is art and who is an
> artist
> > in such broad terms your "charlatans" are no less and artist than your
> "true
> > artists". That is the problem that I have with the concept of "everythi=
ng
> is
> > art" and "everyone who makes are is an artist".
> > --
> > Randall in Atlanta
> > http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
>
> I've tried to stay out of this discussion since there is no real right
> answer. But, Randall, it is impossible to define art. People have been
> trying to do it for centuries. Probably there were discussions about what=
is
> art when cavemen were painting on caves. Monet and Renoir were told by th=
e
> Academy that they were not artists. Their paintings were not art. The
> Academy defined what was art. Yet today their work is revered and in
> collections all over the world. I'm sure that Grandma Moses was told she
> wasn't an artist and her paintings were not art. Yet, in the end she also
> was held in high esteem. Norman Rockwell. Is that art he painted or just
> illustration? Artists are people who make art. There are good ones, bad
> ones, and those in between. And, everyone has a different idea of which i=
s
> which. To think that you or anyone else can make the decision as to who i=
s
> an artist and what is art is just arrogant and absurd. You can't and yo=
u
> don't have the right to. As is often said, who made you king (or anyone e=
lse
> for that matter).
>
> Kathi
>
>
> >
>
Has anyone noticed that at no point in my posts have I attempted to define
what is art nor have I said who is or isn't an artist? I personally think
that it would be easier to define what isn't art than what is.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
C Sullivan on sat 4 sep 10
Extrapolation is a fine word. So let's carry the discussion a wee bit
further . . . . .
Art is the act of creating.
I read someplace in one of the "lost" gospels, that God picked up a hunk of
clay, blew life into it, and created man.
I've been trying to do the same ever since.
The soldier is an artist: creating the Art of War.
The doctor creates the Art of Medicine
The lawyer: the Art of Litigation
The artist? If he's lucky, creates items of beauty which touch another's
soul.
When Randall says: "But to not define what art is makes it so expansive as
to make the term
meaningless.", I would argue that the terminology: "art" -- is meaningless!
It's like real estate: the asking price of a house is meaningless, unless
there are buyers willing to pay that particular price.
In our souls, we are all artists. Or to paraphrase Larry Kruzan: I am.
Therefore, i create.
We do not need to define ourselves as artists. The world will do that for
us.
They see our creations and label us: "Oh! You are an artist!"
Chae
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Randall Moody wrote:
> "Okay, so if everything is art and if you make art you are an artist then
> saying that you are an artist is the same as saying you are human. I love
> extrapolation."
>
> Hi Randall -
> There's little gain in trivializing something this important. If someone
> claims that they are making art, then technically they would be considere=
d
> an artist, and only the public and the test of time can determine whether
> or
> not those things are true, and more importantly, whether or not their art
> is
> any good. Your statement above seems to be your attempt to diminish an
> otherwise worthwhile discussion, and I wonder why you would do that?
>
> Extrapolation is fun, but not so much when it extends into the realm of t=
he
> ridiculous.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Vince Pitelka on sat 4 sep 10
Randall Moody wrote:
"But to not define what art is makes it so expansive as to make the term
meaningless. It is akin to the aspect of holistic medicine (I forget the
term) in which the cure is diluted to the point that nothing of the cure
exists in the dilution. Also, in defining what is art and who is an artist
in such broad terms your "charlatans" are no less and artist than your "tru=
e
artists". That is the problem that I have with the concept of "everything i=
s
art" and "everyone who makes are is an artist".
Randall -
There is nothing meaningless about art, ever, whether it is good or bad.
You cannot define what art is without limiting what it can be. Do you
understand that any argument with that statement is pointless? It is a
reality, a simple truth. It has been proven over and over again through th=
e
entire history of art.
Leaving art undefined does not in any way make the term meaningless.
Instead, it opens it up to unlimited possibility. That is the only way tha=
t
art can exist. As soon as it is limited by a specific definition, you have
killed it. In immediate terms it may be difficult to separate the
charlatans from the true artists, but that is not a problem, because as I
have repeated several times, the public and the test of time will winnow
them out. That has always worked very well.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on sat 4 sep 10
Paul Gerhold wrote:
"How exactly do you know that ancient and tribal cultures did not have any
intellectual rigor! Seems like a rather rash judgment based on the old
romantic notion about primative peoples. Probably had just as much
intellectual rigor for their culture as we do for ours."
Paul -
You are stating the obvious, and it is irrelevant. Of course every culture
has had critical dialogue about their art, but not in the same terms, and i=
n
the case of ancient and tribal cultures, probably far more practical and
direct. We tend to overly intellectualize the whole conversation, and it
gets into the realm of intellectual masturbation and serves no one.
I wrote:
"To define art is to limit it and eventually destroy it"
And you responded:
"So all writing and discussion about art is destructive? Really Vince, yo=
u
need to give up the use of broad and thoughtless generalizations if you wan=
t
to promote intelligent discussion."
Oh for christ's sake Paul don't be ridiculous. There is no gain in
completely misinterpreting what I say. Why would you do that??? To say "T=
o
define art is to limit it and eventually destroy it" is a truth that has
been proven over and over through human history. It has nothing to do with
your contention above. Did I say that you cannot talk about art and discus=
s
art? Of course I didn't, nor did I imply that in any way.
You wrote:
"And to go back to my original post what I thought I was saying is that i=
f
you cannot define and thus limit art then the term art and also artist
eventually becomes meaningless."
Exactly the opposite is true. If you define and thus limit art, you have
killed it. As long as you leave it un-defined and un-limited, then you
leave things open to every possibility of artistic expression, and that is
the only way that art can survive.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on sat 4 sep 10
Chae Sullivan wrote:
The artist? If he's lucky, creates items of beauty which touch another's
soul.
Hi Chae -
I would say that one of the primary problems in understanding and
appreciation art is the expectation of beauty. Artists are under no
obligation to create something beautiful. They are obliged to create
something experientially significant. If we experience some sort of strong
response to the work, then it is successful, even if it just pisses us off
or strongly alienates us. The contemporary world is filled with beauty,
ugliness, happiness, and horror. Artists can comment on all of that. That i=
s
what they are obliged to do, whether or not they realize it.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Randall Moody on sat 4 sep 10
I would say that your "Art is the act of creating" is a bit weak. If you
extrapolate that out then the product is not art only the act of creating i=
t
is. My cat takes in cat food and its body creates something different out o=
f
it. Using your definition my cat is making art and is an artist. You are
also saying that the "world" will label us artists. That means that at some
point in the process there is a general consensus, be it conscious or
unconscious, as to what is or isn't art and who did or did not become an
artist.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, C Sullivan wrote:
> Extrapolation is a fine word. So let's carry the discussion a wee bit
> further . . . . .
>
> Art is the act of creating.
>
> I read someplace in one of the "lost" gospels, that God picked up a hunk =
of
> clay, blew life into it, and created man.
> I've been trying to do the same ever since.
>
> The soldier is an artist: creating the Art of War.
> The doctor creates the Art of Medicine
> The lawyer: the Art of Litigation
> The artist? If he's lucky, creates items of beauty which touch another's
> soul.
> When Randall says: "But to not define what art is makes it so expansive a=
s
> to make the term
> meaningless.", I would argue that the terminology: "art" -- is meaningles=
s!
> It's like real estate: the asking price of a house is meaningless, unles=
s
> there are buyers willing to pay that particular price.
> In our souls, we are all artists. Or to paraphrase Larry Kruzan: I am.
> Therefore, i create.
> We do not need to define ourselves as artists. The world will do that fo=
r
> us.
> They see our creations and label us: "Oh! You are an artist!"
> Chae
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote=
:
>
> > Randall Moody wrote:
> > "Okay, so if everything is art and if you make art you are an artist th=
en
> > saying that you are an artist is the same as saying you are human. I lo=
ve
> > extrapolation."
> >
> > Hi Randall -
> > There's little gain in trivializing something this important. If someo=
ne
> > claims that they are making art, then technically they would be
> considered
> > an artist, and only the public and the test of time can determine wheth=
er
> > or
> > not those things are true, and more importantly, whether or not their a=
rt
> > is
> > any good. Your statement above seems to be your attempt to diminish an
> > otherwise worthwhile discussion, and I wonder why you would do that?
> >
> > Extrapolation is fun, but not so much when it extends into the realm of
> the
> > ridiculous.
> > - Vince
> >
> > Vince Pitelka
> > Appalachian Center for Craft
> > Tennessee Tech University
> > vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> > http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
> >
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
James Freeman on sat 4 sep 10
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> To say "To define art is to limit it and eventually destroy it" is a trut=
=3D
h that has
> been proven over and over through human history.
Hi, Vince...
I would offer that quite the opposite has been proved. Throughout
history, art has indeed been defined (church, guilds, academies,
influential critics, state bureaucracies, et cetera), yet in all cases
it has continued to grow and exist unabated.
One could even argue that it is precisely these attempts to define and
limit art that cause the radicals and nonconformists to burst forth in
new directions, kind of like trying to squeeze and limit a handful of
jello (second jello analogy in a week!).
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 sun 5 sep 10
I wrote;
"To define art is to limit it and eventually destroy it" is a truth that ha=
s
been proven over and over through human history."
James Freeman wrote:
"I would offer that quite the opposite has been proved. Throughout history=
,
art has indeed been defined (church, guilds, academies, influential critics=
,
state bureaucracies, et cetera), yet in all cases it has continued to grow
and exist unabated.
One could even argue that it is precisely these attempts to define and limi=
t
art that cause the radicals and nonconformists to burst forth in new
directions, kind of like trying to squeeze and limit a handful of jello
(second jello analogy in a week!)."
Hi James -
I appreciate these comments. I think that there are situations where art
has been defined and limited to the degree where any sort of originality ha=
s
been destroyed, and in that case one could question whether the product is
really art, or simply craftsmen following the official mandate of what art
must be. In that situation, one could argue that art has been destroyed.
Within a close system, it could be argued that to limit art is to eventuall=
y
destroy it. But as you point out, it is certainly true that in the larger
context, the people who have tried to define and limit what art have simply
fueled true artists to break free from the definitions and limitations. Th=
e
minute you try to define what art is, the more adventurous and original
artists are going to resent and reject the definitions.
I like the concept of "the leapfrogging of artistic styles and movements."
A group of innovative artists breaks free from convention and starts a new
direction or movement in art. At first, they are marginalized and excluded
by the current established artists, who believe that their own art
represents the best examples of what art is - what is acceptable in art.
With time, the previously established artists fade into obscurity or pass
away, and the majority of those young rebels who had been the avant garde
become the establishment, believing that their work represents the true and
right direction in art. As soon as that happens, a new wave of young
artists, seeing the currently accepted or established directions in art as
stale and conservative, break free and find new ways of making art, and so
it goes, over and over again. Same thing happens in most
professional/academic fields.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on sun 5 sep 10
Randall Moody wrote:
=3D93The point is that the people that are saying that everything is art =
=3D
are in
fact defining what is art i.e. "everything". That is not leaving art
undefined. You also limit the definition in labeling certain people
"charlatans" and others "true artists".=3DA0 So you are just as guilty of
attempting to define or limit art as those that are arguing against the
"everything is art" position.=3D94
Randall -=3D20
It would be great if we could keep this on some sort of level of reason =3D
and
rationality. Your statement above is so completely bizarre. I have not
limited art or defined art in any way, or labeled anyone as anything,
because of course in using the terms "true artists" and "charlatan" I =3D
was
speaking hypothetically, and I said very clearly that time and the =3D
public
make those judgments. You are obviously capable of intelligent rational
discussion, so I can't understand why you would even post something like
this. It would be so great if people on Clayart would refrain from
responding to a discussion thread unless they actually have something
worthwhile to contribute. Usually you do. =3D20
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
C Sullivan on sun 5 sep 10
Mornin' Vince
You are right.
That should have read: The artist, if he's lucky, creates items which touc=
h
another's soul.
Chae
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Chae Sullivan wrote:
> The artist? If he's lucky, creates items of beauty which touch another's
> soul.
>
> Hi Chae -
> I would say that one of the primary problems in understanding and
> appreciation art is the expectation of beauty. Artists are under no
> obligation to create something beautiful. They are obliged to create
> something experientially significant. If we experience some sort of stro=
ng
> response to the work, then it is successful, even if it just pisses us of=
f
> or strongly alienates us. The contemporary world is filled with beauty,
> ugliness, happiness, and horror. Artists can comment on all of that. That
> is
> what they are obliged to do, whether or not they realize it.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Kathy Forer on sun 5 sep 10
On Sep 5, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> I like the concept of "the leapfrogging of artistic styles and movements.=
"=3D
> A group of innovative artists breaks free from convention and starts a ne=
w=3D
> direction or movement in art. At first, they are marginalized and exclud=
e=3D
d
> by the current established artists, who believe that their own art
> represents the best examples of what art is - what is acceptable in art.
> With time, the previously established artists fade into obscurity or pass
> away, and the majority of those young rebels who had been the avant garde
> become the establishment, believing that their work represents the true a=
n=3D
d
> right direction in art. As soon as that happens, a new wave of young
> artists, seeing the currently accepted or established directions in art a=
s=3D
> stale and conservative, break free and find new ways of making art, and s=
o=3D
> it goes, over and over again. Same thing happens in most
> professional/academic fields.
In "Art and Reality: Ways of the Creative Process" (1958) the wonderful Bri=
t=3D
ish humorist and writer, Joyce Cary, speaks of these different approaches -=
-=3D
The rebel who breaks with tradition is often the one steeped in it most de=
e=3D
ply. And the seemingly more conformist traditionalist often pushes the enve=
l=3D
ope farthest from within. -- using examples from visual arts, literature an=
d=3D
music.=3D20
* ASIN: B0007DVLUI
Kathy Forer
www.kforer.com
Vince Pitelka on sun 5 sep 10
Randall Moody wrote:
What exactly about my statement is bizarre or not rational? You are unaware
that you are arguing against yourself. Your assertion that time will tell
the charlatans from the true artists is showing that there is in fact a
definition of who is a "true artist" and who is a "charlatan". Once you
realize that by placing one group into the "charlatan' realm and another
into the "true artist" realm you have for all intents and purposes defined
or limited what is and is not art and what is and who is and is not an
artist. This is a rational, logical reasoned statement and really not all
that difficult a concept to wrap your head around. You may not accept the
validity of my argument but that does not mean that the argument is any les=
s
valid or worthwhile than any other.
Sorry Randall, but that's no better. I have said that anyone can call
themselves an artist, and that time and the public will eventually determin=
e
who the true artists are - which ones do artwork that has lasting value.
There is no definition of who the true artists are, and I never implied tha=
t
there was. Time and the public sort that out on a case-by-case basis. You
are the one that is seeking disagreement and inconsistency where there is
none, and I wish you would stop it. It is not accomplishing anything.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Randall Moody on sun 5 sep 10
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Randall Moody wrote:
> =3D93The point is that the people that are saying that everything is art =
ar=3D
e in
> fact defining what is art i.e. "everything". That is not leaving art
> undefined. You also limit the definition in labeling certain people
> "charlatans" and others "true artists". So you are just as guilty of
> attempting to define or limit art as those that are arguing against the
> "everything is art" position.=3D94
>
> Randall -
> It would be great if we could keep this on some sort of level of reason a=
=3D
nd
> rationality. Your statement above is so completely bizarre. I have not
> limited art or defined art in any way, or labeled anyone as anything,
> because of course in using the terms "true artists" and "charlatan" I was
> speaking hypothetically, and I said very clearly that time and the public
> make those judgments. You are obviously capable of intelligent rational
> discussion, so I can't understand why you would even post something like
> this. It would be so great if people on Clayart would refrain from
> responding to a discussion thread unless they actually have something
> worthwhile to contribute. Usually you do.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
What exactly about my statement is bizarre or not rational? You are unaware
that you are arguing against yourself. Your assertion that time will tell
the charlatans from the true artists is showing that there is in fact a
definition of who is a "true artist" and who is a "charlatan". Once you
realize that by placing one group into the "charlatan' realm and another
into the "true artist" realm you have for all intents and purposes defined
or limited what is and is not art and what is and who is and is not an
artist. This is a rational, logical reasoned statement and really not all
that difficult a concept to wrap your head around. You may not accept the
validity of my argument but that does not mean that the argument is any les=
=3D
s
valid or worthwhile than any other.
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
James Freeman on sun 5 sep 10
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> But as you point out, it is certainly true that in the larger
> context, the people who have tried to define and limit what art have simp=
=3D
ly
> fueled true artists to break free from the definitions and limitations. =
=3D
The
> minute you try to define what art is, the more adventurous and original
> artists are going to resent and reject the definitions.
Well, what you are calling "true artists" and "adventurous and
original artists", I called "radicals and nonconformists" (so not
necessarily Artists at all), but I think this is as close as you and I
will ever come to an agreement on this. A red letter day!
> I like the concept of "the leapfrogging of artistic styles and movements.=
=3D
"
> A group of innovative artists breaks free from convention and starts a ne=
=3D
w
> direction or movement in art. At first, they are marginalized and exclud=
=3D
ed
> by the current established artists, who believe that their own art
> represents the best examples of what art is - what is acceptable in art.
> With time, the previously established artists fade into obscurity or pass
> away, and the majority of those young rebels who had been the avant garde
> become the establishment, believing that their work represents the true a=
=3D
nd
> right direction in art. As soon as that happens, a new wave of young
> artists, seeing the currently accepted or established directions in art a=
=3D
s
> stale and conservative, break free and find new ways of making art, and s=
=3D
o
> it goes, over and over again. Same thing happens in most
> professional/academic fields.
In a past life, when I was a Wall Street securities analyst, I wrote a
paper called A Generational Theory of Investing, a major premise being
that each generation views the stock of the company that their father
worked for as a "dog" (Wall St. slang for a stodgy, slow company,
lacking in innovation, lacking in prospects for growth, and possibly
slowly dieing), the company they work for as a "blue chip" (a high
quality investment), and the company their children work for as
"speculative" (a crap shoot, as in "what were you smoking when you
bought that stock?). For example, your grandfather worked for
Consolidated Lint, your father works for General Motors, and you took
a job with a pie-in-the-sky upstart company called Intel. To your
father, Consolidated Lint is a dog, General Motors is a blue chip, and
Intel is speculative. Fast forward to today; General Motors, which
was your father's blue chip, is now a dog, Intel, where you work, and
which was speculative, is now a blue chip, and
Compu-Global-Hyper-Mega-Net, where your kid just took a job, is
speculative. Sounds like the same story you just laid out.
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
Rimas VisGirda on mon 6 sep 10
Vince wrote:
...and that time and the public will eventually determine
who the true artists are - which ones do artwork that has lasting value.
Vince, I'm not sure the public has anything to do with it... -Rimas
phil on mon 6 sep 10
Hi Vince,
Just for fun...
Would you - or anyone else who may wish to - kindly elect some specific
example of 'Art', to which we may all refer easily, and, explain or share
what
'meaning' you believe it may have? And or to whom?
And explain to me how all these attributions or epiphanies or experiences o=
f
'meaning' which are imagined to occur in apprehending 'Art',
are
a unique and defining provence of 'Art' not found anywhere
else in human endevors or Artefacts or conditions of Life or perceptions?
This seems to be where I am getting hung up in following the drift with thi=
s
thing.
I have known quite a few 'Artists', and none of them ever appeared or
indicated any of it had any 'meaning' to them at all.
Rather, or other than, they were looking for gimicks of theme, style, or
other presentation superficially, one way or another, to sell
paintings/manipulated photographs, or whatever, requiring the least possibl=
e
care or effort or craft or learning, in making.
I missed out on mingling in the inspired cliques or social sets or inspired
demi-mondes where all this 'meaning' is understood to be welling and gushin=
g
and spilling out to succour Humanity, I guess.
Walking through Galleries of contemporary 'Art', I myself experience no
more, and possibly a good deal less meaning, than if I were merely waiting
for a Bus on a Street Corner noting passer's by, wind lolling to-go-cups,
occasional passing Cars, and whatever else.
So, I am puzzled...
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
<<<<>>>>
> There is nothing meaningless about art, ever, whether it is good or bad.
> You cannot define what art is without limiting what it can be. Do you
> understand that any argument with that statement is pointless? It is a
> reality, a simple truth. It has been proven over and over again through
> the
> entire history of art.
> Leaving art undefined does not in any way make the term meaningless.
> Instead, it opens it up to unlimited possibility. That is the only way
> that
> art can exist. As soon as it is limited by a specific definition, you
> have
> killed it. In immediate terms it may be difficult to separate the
> charlatans from the true artists, but that is not a problem, because as I
> have repeated several times, the public and the test of time will winnow
> them out. That has always worked very well.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
Rimas VisGirda on mon 6 sep 10
Hi Vince=3D0A=3D0A--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Vince Pitelka w=
rote=3D
:=3D0A> Hi Rimas. That's an interesting=3D0A> point.=3DA0 I guess I am usin=
g "the=3D
public" in a rather=3D0A> loose sense.=3DA0 I believe that the response fr=
om=3D
=3D0A> viewers/art-aficionados/buyers=3D0A=3D0AYes, I can agree with that b=
ut tha=3D
t's maybe the "viewing public," "the public" is all inclusive and includes =
=3D
the Walmart shoppers (some of who are in the viewing public). I would guess=
=3D
that about 90% of "the pubic" have (has?) no clue...=3D0A=3D0A> has a grea=
t de=3D
al to do with=3D0A> the long-term perception of art, in terms of the "buzz"=
=3D
=3D0A> surrounding the work when it is created or later on.=3DA0=3D0A> That=
's wha=3D
t I meant by "the public," as compared to the=3D0A> gallery owners, museum =
di=3D
rectors, critics, and=3D0A> academics.=3DA0 Those groups do play a part, bu=
t I =3D
refuse=3D0A> to be so cynical or pessimistic as to give them primary=3D0A> =
resp=3D
onsibility for determining the long-term legitimacy of=3D0A> an artist's wo=
rk=3D
.=3D0A=3D0AThere I disagree, museum directors, curators, critics, and acade=
mics=3D
I feel have the greater part of validating something as art. I exclude gal=
=3D
lery owners as they have a vested commercial interest. And the opinions of =
=3D
your viewing public have a greater impact on gallery owners due to their ve=
=3D
sted interests... not art museums and art historians. I think critics try t=
=3D
o gauge art in a contemporary milieu which can affect an artists inclusion =
=3D
in the set of "proven" artists. But it's the curators and directors that de=
=3D
termine an artists longevity...=3D0A=3D0A-Rimas=3D0A=3D0A> Maybe I am being=
naive i=3D
n that=3D0A> regard. =3D0A> - Vince=3D0A> =3DA0 =3D0A> Vince Pitelka=3D0A> =
Professor of=3D
Art=3D0A> Head, Clay Area=3D0A> Appalachian Center for Craft=3D0A> Tenness=
ee Tec=3D
h University=3D0A> 1560 Craft Center Drive=3D0A> Smithville, TN 37166=3D0A>=
615/5=3D
97-6801 x111=3D0A> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/index.htm=3D0A> http://w=
ww.t=3D
ntech.edu/craftcenter/=3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> =3D0A> -----Original Message----=
-=3D0A> Fr=3D
om: Rimas VisGirda [mailto:rtv1942@yahoo.com]=3D0A> Sent: Mon 9/6/2010 9:01=
A=3D
M=3D0A> To: Vince Pitelka=3D0A> Cc: clayart post=3D0A> Subject: Re: navel g=
azing =3D
or business cards=3D0A> =3D0A> Vince wrote:=3D0A> ...and that time and the=
publi=3D
c will eventually determine=3D0A> who the true artists are - which ones do =
ar=3D
twork that has=3D0A> lasting value.=3D0A> =3D0A> Vince, I'm not sure the pu=
blic h=3D
as anything to do with=3D0A> it... -Rimas=3D0A> =3D0A>
| |
|
