Karin Givon on sat 20 aug 11
There must be something that can be said about these guys, merrily
splodging up teeth with images we would just as soon be shut of;
something extremely sarcastic and yet very funny, thereby putting
these lunatics in their place and also into proper perspective. What
an incredible waste of time, and how funny! Silly! Who cares? And why
is it art? Once can only suppose that this application of stain to
porcelain is art ( and clayart at that! YIKES!) because just about
anything is art, sez the great unwashed public or maybe that's the
overly washed private (sector). I'm not sure if it's a step above or
a step below George Orr pots. Saints presarve us!
And thank you James. I needed a Saturday laugh.
And I rather like the rooster. I just can't think where in one's
mouth it might peek out and not look like slightly used food.
So what's next?
Karin
The Dancing Dragon Pottery.net
Karin Givon on sun 21 aug 11
Yah, I confess, I just really don't like Geo. Orr pots...sorry. I
understand that this attitude is not PC but it's just how I feel.
And yah, I also know that they are not even remotely akin, and I bet
I've said enough.
Karin
On Aug 21, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
Karin, I am not sure what you are saying about George Orr pots. Are you
saying that they are even remotely akin to this insipid tooth art?
If one accepts the concept that everything is or can be art then one
opens
oneself up to having to accept schlock such as this as artistically
as valid
as anything by da Vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso etc .
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Karin Givon
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: tooth "art"
There must be something that can be said about these guys, merrily
splodging
up teeth with images we would just as soon be shut of; something
extremely
sarcastic and yet very funny, thereby putting these lunatics in
their place
and also into proper perspective. What an incredible waste of time,
and how
funny! Silly! Who cares? And why is it art? Once can only suppose
that this
application of stain to porcelain is art ( and clayart at that! YIKES!)
because just about anything is art, sez the great unwashed public or
maybe
that's the overly washed private (sector). I'm not sure if it's a
step above
or a step below George Orr pots. Saints presarve us!
And thank you James. I needed a Saturday laugh.
And I rather like the rooster. I just can't think where in one's
mouth it
might peek out and not look like slightly used food.
So what's next?
Karin
The Dancing Dragon Pottery.net
paul gerhold on sun 21 aug 11
Next will probably be people having bad drawings punctured into their skin
and tnen calling it ART.
On Saturday, August 20, 2011, Karin Givon wrote:
> There must be something that can be said about these guys, merrily
> splodging up teeth with images we would just as soon be shut of;
> something extremely sarcastic and yet very funny, thereby putting
> these lunatics in their place and also into proper perspective. What
> an incredible waste of time, and how funny! Silly! Who cares? And why
> is it art? Once can only suppose that this application of stain to
> porcelain is art ( and clayart at that! YIKES!) because just about
> anything is art, sez the great unwashed public or maybe that's the
> overly washed private (sector). I'm not sure if it's a step above or
> a step below George Orr pots. Saints presarve us!
> And thank you James. I needed a Saturday laugh.
> And I rather like the rooster. I just can't think where in one's
> mouth it might peek out and not look like slightly used food.
> So what's next?
> Karin
> The Dancing Dragon Pottery.net
>
Randall Moody on sun 21 aug 11
Karin, I am not sure what you are saying about George Orr pots. Are you
saying that they are even remotely akin to this insipid tooth art?
If one accepts the concept that everything is or can be art then one opens
oneself up to having to accept schlock such as this as artistically as vali=
d
as anything by da Vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso etc .
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Karin Givon
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: tooth "art"
There must be something that can be said about these guys, merrily splodgin=
g
up teeth with images we would just as soon be shut of; something extremely
sarcastic and yet very funny, thereby putting these lunatics in their plac=
e
and also into proper perspective. What an incredible waste of time, and how
funny! Silly! Who cares? And why is it art? Once can only suppose that thi=
s
application of stain to porcelain is art ( and clayart at that! YIKES!)
because just about anything is art, sez the great unwashed public or maybe
that's the overly washed private (sector). I'm not sure if it's a step abov=
e
or a step below George Orr pots. Saints presarve us!
And thank you James. I needed a Saturday laugh.
And I rather like the rooster. I just can't think where in one's mouth it
might peek out and not look like slightly used food.
So what's next?
Karin
The Dancing Dragon Pottery.net
Kathy Forer on sun 21 aug 11
On Aug 20, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Karin Givon wrote:
> And I rather like the rooster. I just can't think where in one's
> mouth it might peek out and not look like slightly used food.
The pictures at the top of the site show mouths of clean, shiny white =3D
leading me to think these are meant for display not wearing.=3D20
pdp1 on mon 22 aug 11
Too thart...Ohrp ots...how one thing leads to another...and quickly,
sometimes.
Hi Karin,
Indeed 'PC' has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.
But, what might ( have to do with some of this ) is...
Why do you dislike George Ohr Pots? ( All of them? Only certain ones?
Or..? )
Or, what is there about them, or him, or you, which has it so?
Can you expand on this so it may be understood?
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
> Karin Givon wrote:
> "Yah, I confess, I just really don't like Geo. Orr pots...sorry. I
> understand that this attitude is not PC but it's just how I feel."
>
> Hi Karin -
> Of course "PC" has nothing to do with it. And of course no one is oblige=
d
> to like any certain work. But one of the central credos of art
> appreciation
> is "Appreciating art has little to do with whether or not you like the
> work." I don't mean to imply that you fit into the following category,
> but
> I have always been baffled by people who's appreciation of art is so
> limited
> that they stand in front of a painting in a museum and judge it based on
> whether or not they would be willing to hang it over their sofa. That's =
a
> pretty narrow horizon. In George Orr's case, he made a lot of beautiful
> pots and he made a lot of ugly pots, but what is more important is that h=
e
> was a brilliant thrower and glaze experimenter 50 years ahead of his time=
,
> and a fearless and an outrageous character, willing to try anything. It
> is
> people like that who are capable of significantly altering and advancing
> both the aesthetics and technology of an artform. It is hard to say to
> what
> degree George Orr did that in his own time, because he was so adventurous
> and outrageous, but looking back at him now, it is difficult to imagine
> not
> giving him credit for his courage and his accomplishments. And it does
> seem
> strange to categorically say "I don't like Geo. Orr pots," for the simple
> reason that there was such variety in his work.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
Vince Pitelka on mon 22 aug 11
Karin Givon wrote:
"Yah, I confess, I just really don't like Geo. Orr pots...sorry. I
understand that this attitude is not PC but it's just how I feel."
Hi Karin -
Of course "PC" has nothing to do with it. And of course no one is obliged
to like any certain work. But one of the central credos of art appreciatio=
n
is "Appreciating art has little to do with whether or not you like the
work." I don't mean to imply that you fit into the following category, but
I have always been baffled by people who's appreciation of art is so limite=
d
that they stand in front of a painting in a museum and judge it based on
whether or not they would be willing to hang it over their sofa. That's a
pretty narrow horizon. In George Orr's case, he made a lot of beautiful
pots and he made a lot of ugly pots, but what is more important is that he
was a brilliant thrower and glaze experimenter 50 years ahead of his time,
and a fearless and an outrageous character, willing to try anything. It is
people like that who are capable of significantly altering and advancing
both the aesthetics and technology of an artform. It is hard to say to wha=
t
degree George Orr did that in his own time, because he was so adventurous
and outrageous, but looking back at him now, it is difficult to imagine not
giving him credit for his courage and his accomplishments. And it does see=
m
strange to categorically say "I don't like Geo. Orr pots," for the simple
reason that there was such variety in his work.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
| |
|
