James Freeman on sat 4 sep 10
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> If you elevate the word "artist" to an
> honorific, then it becomes classist and exclusionary, and people who migh=
=3D
t
> become artists are afraid of the word and the concept.
Vince...
Why would elevating the word "Artist" to an honorific cause it to be
exclusionary, classist, or oppressive? The existence of honorifics in
every other field do nothing of the sort, so why would the field of
art be any different?
The honorific of Prima Ballerina does not scare away the legions of
little kids enrolled in ballet classes. The honorific of Maestro or
Virtuoso does not scare away the legions of kids and adults trying to
learn an instrument. The honorific of Grand master does not scare
away the armies of aspiring karateka, or chess players. Quite the
opposite seems to be true. Those people are our idols! They make us
want to get in the game, not quit it. Tiger Woods' status as a
virtuoso served to encourage swarms of "wanna be" golfers, not to
dissuade them. The honorific of Nobel Laureate encourages budding
physicists to push ahead against the obstacles, not to recoil in fear.
Honorifics give us something to shoot for, even if we feel in our
heart that we will never quite make it. Honoring the best does not
discourage participation at any level, and in fact encourages the
quest for greatness. It shows us where the bar is set, rather than
allowing us to swim in deluded satisfaction in the shallow end of the
pool.
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
phil on sun 5 sep 10
Hi Fabianne,
That was really fun...
I even forwarded it to several friends.
Peace...
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fabienne McMillan"
> Here is some perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpDo_vs3Aip4
>
> lol
>
> Peace,
>
> Fabienne
>
> "We never touch people so lightly that we do not leave a trace." ~
> Peggy Tabor Millin
James Freeman on sun 5 sep 10
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Your comparisons above don't illustrate anything. In order for them to b=
=3D
e
> valid, we would have to be talking about the term "Master Artist" - in or=
=3D
der
> for it to compare with "Prima Ballerina," "Maestro," or "Virtuoso."
> According to your logic, you cannot call someone a musician unless they p=
=3D
lay
> great music, or you cannot call someone a dancer unless they can dance
> extremely well.
Not at all, Vince. I think you misunderstand me. I offer (Yes,
Steve, that means it's my opinion!) that the term Artist IS the
honorific, and I make no mention of any higher honor such as Master
Artist. Such a term, to me, would be akin to saying Prima Prima
Ballerina, or Super-Virtuoso.
It does not follow from my logic in any way that one cannot be a
"dancer" or "musician" unless they can so so very well. One can be a
dancer or musician all day long, no matter how crappy they are (I am a
particularly crappy dancer and musician myself), but one cannot be a
Prima Ballerina nor a Virtuoso nor a Maestro unless they can do those
things exceptionally well. Likewise, one can certainly be a "painter"
or a "sculptor" or a "potter" all day long, because no such
descriptive term carries with it a value judgment, as Prima Ballerina,
Maestro, Grand Master, nor Artist (in my weltanschauung) do. In
short, I equate descriptive terms such as dancer or musician with our
own descriptors such as painter or sculptor. I equate honorifics such
as Prima Ballerina or Maestro with our own honorific of Artist.
> Honorifics are exclusionary and classist, and they should
> be. They are something to strive for as one increases one's skills and
> command of the medium. The simple fact is that anyone who makes art is
> being an artist, because what else are they?
In my weltanschauung, anyone who paints a painting is a painter,
anyone who makes a sculpture is a sculptor, but not all paintings ans
sculptures are Art, so not all painters nor sculptors are Artists. I
accept that your world view differs from mine, and that you view all
paintings and sculptures (except for fawn paintings) as Art. I just
don't agree with that particular world view, and I do offer an
alternative which is entirely internally consistent. I do agree with
your statement that anyone who makes Art is an Artist, I just disagree
that every painting, sculpture, and pot is Art. I also disagree with
the idea that honorifics are exclusionary or classist, for all the
reasons I laid out in the post to which you are responding.
>
> But if someone is making
> art and you imply that they shouldn't consider themselves an artist until
> they are making really good art, you risk chasing them away from the whol=
=3D
e
> idea of making art,
I never made such an allegation. Again, I agree that everyone who
makes Art is an Artist. I do not agree that everyone who paints a
painting is an Artist, and I do not agree that every painting is Art.
I hope this clarifies my position.
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
Fabienne McMillan on sun 5 sep 10
Here is some perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpDo_vs3Aip4
lol
Peace,
Fabienne
"We never touch people so lightly that we do not leave a trace." ~
Peggy Tabor Millin
Vince Pitelka on sun 5 sep 10
I wrote:
> If you elevate the word "artist" to an
> honorific, then it becomes classist and exclusionary, and people who =3D
might
> become artists are afraid of the word and the concept.
James wrote:
Why would elevating the word "Artist" to an honorific cause it to be
exclusionary, classist, or oppressive? The existence of honorifics in
every other field do nothing of the sort, so why would the field of
art be any different?
The honorific of Prima Ballerina does not scare away the legions of
little kids enrolled in ballet classes. The honorific of Maestro or
Virtuoso does not scare away the legions of kids and adults trying to
learn an instrument. =3D20
James -=3D20
Your comparisons above don't illustrate anything. In order for them to =3D
be
valid, we would have to be talking about the term "Master Artist" - in =3D
order
for it to compare with "Prima Ballerina," "Maestro," or "Virtuoso."
According to your logic, you cannot call someone a musician unless they =3D
play
great music, or you cannot call someone a dancer unless they can dance
extremely well. Honorifics are exclusionary and classist, and they =3D
should
be. They are something to strive for as one increases one's skills and
command of the medium. The simple fact is that anyone who makes art is
being an artist, because what else are they? =3D20
When referring to an artist of great skill and accomplishment, it would
certainly be an honorific to call her/him a great artist or a master =3D
artist,
and that is certainly something to work towards. But if someone is =3D
making
art and you imply that they shouldn't consider themselves an artist =3D
until
they are making really good art, you risk chasing them away from the =3D
whole
idea of making art, which obviously would serve no one. The mere fact =3D
that
a person chooses to make art makes her/him a little special in =3D
comparison to
all the people who do not make art, and he/she deserves to consider
her/himself an artists and to be called an artist in recognition of the
involvement in making art. That's not an honorific - it is just =3D
recognition
of what they are doing.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
The honorific of Grand master does not scare
away the armies of aspiring karateka, or chess players. Quite the
opposite seems to be true. Those people are our idols! They make us
want to get in the game, not quit it. Tiger Woods' status as a
virtuoso served to encourage swarms of "wanna be" golfers, not to
dissuade them. The honorific of Nobel Laureate encourages budding
physicists to push ahead against the obstacles, not to recoil in fear.
Honorifics give us something to shoot for, even if we feel in our
heart that we will never quite make it. Honoring the best does not
discourage participation at any level, and in fact encourages the
quest for greatness. It shows us where the bar is set, rather than
allowing us to swim in deluded satisfaction in the shallow end of the
pool.
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
Mayssan Farra on mon 6 sep 10
Hello James:
I just noticed that you write Art and Artist. indeed these are honorific bu=
t us
little artists find art to be a good definer of what we do especially when =
we
cannot pigeon hole what we do as sculpture, pottery or cool stuff as you te=
rm
it. I do not introduce my self as the artist. I just point to my cool stuff=
and
say I made these. but most invariably the answer from the client is always =
oh
you're the artist (not the Artist :).
Mayssan Shora Farra
http://www.clayvillepottery.com
http://clayette.blogspot.com
----- Original Message ----
> From: James Freeman
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 11:35:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Clayart] Navel Gazing/ business cards/and Making Art
>
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote=
:
>
> > Your comparisons above don't illustrate anything. In order for them t=
o be
> > valid, we would have to be talking about the term "Master Artist" - in
order
> > for it to compare with "Prima Ballerina," "Maestro," or "Virtuoso."
> > According to your logic, you cannot call someone a musician unless the=
y
play
> > great music, or you cannot call someone a dancer unless they can dance
> > extremely well.
>
>
>
> Not at all, Vince. I think you misunderstand me. I offer (Yes,
> Steve, that means it's my opinion!) that the term Artist IS the
> honorific, and I make no mention of any higher honor such as Master
> Artist. Such a term, to me, would be akin to saying Prima Prima
> Ballerina, or Super-Virtuoso.
>
> It does not follow from my logic in any way that one cannot be a
> "dancer" or "musician" unless they can so so very well. One can be a
> dancer or musician all day long, no matter how crappy they are (I am a
> particularly crappy dancer and musician myself), but one cannot be a
> Prima Ballerina nor a Virtuoso nor a Maestro unless they can do those
> things exceptionally well. Likewise, one can certainly be a "painter"
> or a "sculptor" or a "potter" all day long, because no such
> descriptive term carries with it a value judgment, as Prima Ballerina,
> Maestro, Grand Master, nor Artist (in my weltanschauung) do. In
> short, I equate descriptive terms such as dancer or musician with our
> own descriptors such as painter or sculptor. I equate honorifics such
> as Prima Ballerina or Maestro with our own honorific of Artist.
>
>
>
> > Honorifics are exclusionary and classist, and they should
> > be. They are something to strive for as one increases one's skills an=
d
> > command of the medium. The simple fact is that anyone who makes art i=
s
> > being an artist, because what else are they?
>
>
>
> In my weltanschauung, anyone who paints a painting is a painter,
> anyone who makes a sculpture is a sculptor, but not all paintings ans
> sculptures are Art, so not all painters nor sculptors are Artists. I
> accept that your world view differs from mine, and that you view all
> paintings and sculptures (except for fawn paintings) as Art. I just
> don't agree with that particular world view, and I do offer an
> alternative which is entirely internally consistent. I do agree with
> your statement that anyone who makes Art is an Artist, I just disagree
> that every painting, sculpture, and pot is Art. I also disagree with
> the idea that honorifics are exclusionary or classist, for all the
> reasons I laid out in the post to which you are responding.
>
>
>
> >
> > But if someone is making
> > art and you imply that they shouldn't consider themselves an artist un=
til
> > they are making really good art, you risk chasing them away from the w=
hole
> > idea of making art,
>
>
> I never made such an allegation. Again, I agree that everyone who
> makes Art is an Artist. I do not agree that everyone who paints a
> painting is an Artist, and I do not agree that every painting is Art.
>
> I hope this clarifies my position.
>
> 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
>
James Freeman on mon 6 sep 10
Mayssan...
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I do realize that members of
the public often hand out the term "artist" (capitalized or not, as
you wish) quite freely. This could be because they truly find the
work to be Art (or art), out of simple politeness, or even merely as a
shorthand. And I tend to react just as you do, accepting the term
graciously, however it was meant. On those rare occasions when such
an assessment comes from someone whose own work and opinion I respect
and admire, however, I do view it as a great honor.
In my own writing, I try to use the capitalized terms (Art and Artist)
when I mean them in the sense of an honorific, or as a title, or as a
value judgment (much as others might use "great art" or "true
artist"), and to employ the lowercase version when I am using it in
the colloquial, throw away, shorthand sense. I do, however, strive to
not use the terms in a throw away sense if I can help it, preferring
better descriptors such as "painter" or "dancer" or "singer" where
they fit.
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 Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Mayssan Farra wrote:
> Hello James:
>
> I just noticed that you write Art and Artist. indeed these are honorific =
=3D
but us
> little artists find art to be a good definer of what we do especially whe=
=3D
n we
> cannot pigeon hole what we do as sculpture, pottery or cool stuff as you =
=3D
term
> it. I do not introduce my self as the artist. I just point to my cool stu=
=3D
ff and
> say I made these. but most invariably the answer from the client is alway=
=3D
s oh
> you're the artist (not the Artist :).
>
>
>
> Mayssan Shora Farra
Vince Pitelka on mon 6 sep 10
James Freeman wrote:
"It does not follow from my logic in any way that one cannot be a
"dancer" or "musician" unless they can so so very well. One can be a
dancer or musician all day long, no matter how crappy they are (I am a
particularly crappy dancer and musician myself), but one cannot be a
Prima Ballerina nor a Virtuoso nor a Maestro unless they can do those
things exceptionally well. Likewise, one can certainly be a "painter"
or a "sculptor" or a "potter" all day long, because no such
descriptive term carries with it a value judgment, as Prima Ballerina,
Maestro, Grand Master, nor Artist (in my weltanschauung) do. In
short, I equate descriptive terms such as dancer or musician with our
own descriptors such as painter or sculptor. I equate honorifics such
as Prima Ballerina or Maestro with our own honorific of Artist."
James -
If you just drop the damn capital letter, then the painter IS an artist, an=
d
the sculptor IS an artist, simply by saying that he/she is a painter or
sculptor. A dancer dances. A musician plays music. An artist makes art.
This whole honorific thing is just a bunch of BS and has nothing at all to
do with becoming an artist or making art. If you agree that everyone who
makes Art is an Artist, then certainly you must agree that everyone who
makes art is an artist.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
James Freeman on mon 6 sep 10
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> If you agree that everyone who
> makes Art is an Artist, then certainly you must agree that everyone who
> makes art is an artist.
Vince...
Sure, I agree completely with that, especially since they are the same
sentence. I just do not agree that every painting or sculpture is
art, nor Art, and therefore do not agree that every painter or
sculptor is an artist or Artist.
Please don't let my use of the capital letter confuse you as to my
position. I thought it would serve to clarify in what sense I was
employing the word, but it seems only to have obfuscated. I do not
differentiate the two in terms of absolute meaning, and employ the
lowercase version merely as a shorthand to indicate that I am using
the term in it's loose, colloquial sense (for whatever rhetorical
purpose may be at hand).
Yes, a dancer dances, but a prima ballerina dances particularly well,
and much better than the mass of dancers. Yes, a musician plays
music, but a virtuoso or a maestro plays particularly well, and much
better than the mass of musicians. Likewise, a painter paints and a
sculptor sculpts, but an artist does so particularly well, and much
better than the mass of painters or sculptors. (yes, Steve, this is my
opinion.)
If we don't equate "artist", capitalized or not, with prima ballerina
or maestro, then we are forced to invent more contrived terms to serve
that honorific purpose, terms like "great artist", or "meaningful art"
which you suggested, and are STILL forced to add a descriptor to
"artist", if used in a loose sense, such as painter or sculptor in
order to communicate any useful information. As I tried to
demonstrate in my previous post, the word "artist" does not function
particularly well as a descriptor.
Again, I'm not asking you to agree with my views at all, but merely to
recognize that they are sound, logical, internally consistent, and
useful, and are probably shared by a large number of the people, such
as myself, who tend to be dismissed as philistines or as ill-informed.
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
| |
|
