Gerholdclay on tue 21 aug 12
The concept that creativity is ingrained and not affected by society is gen=
u=3D
inally one of the more idiotic concepts to emerge on Clayart. Your parents=
h=3D
ave no effect, your schooling has no effect. Your friends have no effect. =
T=3D
he books you read have no effect. Museums, galleries, other artists have n=
o=3D
effect. Please!
Of course your personality has something to do with it. But to say society=
h=3D
as no effect. The same people who espouse this theory probably also promot=
e=3D
the myth of " American Exceptionalism". See the contradiction-duh.
Paul
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Robert Harris wrote=
:=3D
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Vince Pitelka wrot=
e=3D
:
> We have this romanticized image of the
>>=3D20
>> artist, writer, or inventor as something of a hermit, laboring in
>> isolation,
>> purposefully excluding the outside world from their sphere of experience
>> and
>> creation/invention in order to avoid distraction or external influence. =
I=3D
n
>> most cases that's bullshit. Most people who make art or invent things o=
r=3D
>> investigate natural phenomena do so specifically in response to the soci=
e=3D
ty
>> in which they live. The society provides the context and the incentive,
>> and
>> I think that has always been true throughout the history of humankind.
>>=3D20
>>=3D20
> Vince -
>=3D20
> I certainly agree that the specifics of what one creates, invents or
> investigates is absolutely correlated to the society or even geography a
> person lives in.
> If you're a farmer you invent a better plow. If you live at the beginnin=
g=3D
> of the industrial revolution, you invent a better steam engine, if you li=
v=3D
e
> through war, you paint Guernica.
>=3D20
> BUT I can't see how ones basic desire to invent something to improve ones
> life or to paint in response to trauma is at all affected by society.
> (James Watt might have invented the Jet Engine, or Picasso painted 'The
> Garden of Earthly Delights). That is, the specifics of what comes out of
> the hands and mind of the inventor or creator may be different - but to s=
a=3D
y
> that if Ben Franklin had not lived in the society he did he would not hav=
e=3D
> been an investigator or inventor at all, seems unlikely. That sort of bas=
i=3D
c
> personality trait, the desire to create or invent or investigate seems to
> me to be ingrained. I was a research scientist for 15 years. For various
> reasons I quit (cold turkey!).
>=3D20
> I now find myself missing that sort of intellectual investigation so much
> that whenever I can, I am running 49 point biaxial line blends and teachi=
n=3D
g
> myself ceramic chemistry. For me at least, while "nurture" at some level
> may have had a great input (blame the parents!), "society" certainly did
> not. So the specifics have changed (perhaps influences by society), but t=
h=3D
e
> basic desire is me (I think) ...
>=3D20
> To conclude, yes, as you say, society provides the context, but I do not
> agree that it provides the incentive - I think that is ingrained.
>=3D20
> Robert
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on wed 22 aug 12
Good mention Paul..!
As for me, I have no idea what people imagine themselves to be talking abou=
t
when they say 'Society' or when they say 'creativity'. Other than, out of a
lager gamut, they are electing a few particular excised abstractions, known=
,
usually, only to them.
In the various contexts of their use, these words or terms to me seem very
vague and amorphous or worse.
To my own Eye, most people who are interested in 'creativity' are really in
my opinion, totally oblivious to it's presence, unless it happens to occur
within some very, very narrow and limited tense of their own particular
aperatures of Vision or knowledge or understanding, so, when the word is
used in a general way, what I find, is that there is anyhting BUT a
'general' recogition of it ( of 'creativity' ), or, anything much for an
appreciation of it, and, what someone is actually trying to say, is
something they have in mind, that is situated within an unstated and very
narrow subjective qualification.
Similar to how 'selfishness' ended up having a connotation which is pretty
well universally disapproved of, ( and never examined ) and, 'creativity'
( with never any bother to qualify the term ) is supposed to be 'good'.
Ed Gyne was 'creative' in his misdemeanors, as were John Wayne Gacey and
scores of others.
The term ends up being meaningless without some accompanying elaboration or
qualification to fill in what the speaker actually has in mind.
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerholdclay"
The concept that creativity is ingrained and not affected by society is
genuinally one of the more idiotic concepts to emerge on Clayart. Your
parents have no effect, your schooling has no effect. Your friends have no
effect. The books you read have no effect. Museums, galleries, other
artists have no effect. Please!
Of course your personality has something to do with it. But to say society
has no effect. The same people who espouse this theory probably also
promote the myth of " American Exceptionalism". See the contradiction-duh.
Paul
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Robert Harris wrote=
:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Vince Pitelka
> wrote:
> We have this romanticized image of the
>>
>> artist, writer, or inventor as something of a hermit, laboring in
>> isolation,
>> purposefully excluding the outside world from their sphere of experience
>> and
>> creation/invention in order to avoid distraction or external influence.
>> In
>> most cases that's bullshit. Most people who make art or invent things o=
r
>> investigate natural phenomena do so specifically in response to the
>> society
>> in which they live. The society provides the context and the incentive,
>> and
>> I think that has always been true throughout the history of humankind.
>>
>>
> Vince -
>
> I certainly agree that the specifics of what one creates, invents or
> investigates is absolutely correlated to the society or even geography a
> person lives in.
> If you're a farmer you invent a better plow. If you live at the beginnin=
g
> of the industrial revolution, you invent a better steam engine, if you
> live
> through war, you paint Guernica.
>
> BUT I can't see how ones basic desire to invent something to improve ones
> life or to paint in response to trauma is at all affected by society.
> (James Watt might have invented the Jet Engine, or Picasso painted 'The
> Garden of Earthly Delights). That is, the specifics of what comes out of
> the hands and mind of the inventor or creator may be different - but to
> say
> that if Ben Franklin had not lived in the society he did he would not hav=
e
> been an investigator or inventor at all, seems unlikely. That sort of
> basic
> personality trait, the desire to create or invent or investigate seems to
> me to be ingrained. I was a research scientist for 15 years. For various
> reasons I quit (cold turkey!).
>
> I now find myself missing that sort of intellectual investigation so much
> that whenever I can, I am running 49 point biaxial line blends and
> teaching
> myself ceramic chemistry. For me at least, while "nurture" at some level
> may have had a great input (blame the parents!), "society" certainly did
> not. So the specifics have changed (perhaps influences by society), but
> the
> basic desire is me (I think) ...
>
> To conclude, yes, as you say, society provides the context, but I do not
> agree that it provides the incentive - I think that is ingrained.
>
> Robert
Nefsigh@AOL.COM on wed 22 aug 12
True enuf--While I am considered an excellent chef, there are times I am
"Creative" in the kitchen and end up producing "poop". On the other hand,
there are times I simply toss things together than wouldn't usually be use=
d as
such and create a wonder. Hmmm . A dilemma. I often think the "creativity"
of the artist is purely conceptual/mental i.e. The Idea-...and the "art"
produced merely a by product of the individual's attempt to share the
"creative vision". Art school and training help us do just that-they train=
us to
express those visions--which begs the question, if art is indeed the
cerebral event, then do we need any physical evidence of its existence?
Hmm.
Just wandering food (bringing this back full circle to the chef notion) for
thought.
Cheers to all
lenny
In a message dated 8/22/2012 4:23:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
Good mention Paul..!
As for me, I have no idea what people imagine themselves to be talking
about
when they say 'Society' or when they say 'creativity'. Other than, out of =
a
lager gamut, they are electing a few particular excised abstractions,
known,
usually, only to them.
In the various contexts of their use, these words or terms to me seem ver=
y
vague and amorphous or worse.
To my own Eye, most people who are interested in 'creativity' are really i=
n
my opinion, totally oblivious to it's presence, unless it happens to occur
within some very, very narrow and limited tense of their own particular
aperatures of Vision or knowledge or understanding, so, when the word is
used in a general way, what I find, is that there is anyhting BUT a
'general' recogition of it ( of 'creativity' ), or, anything much for an
appreciation of it, and, what someone is actually trying to say, is
something they have in mind, that is situated within an unstated and very
narrow subjective qualification.
Similar to how 'selfishness' ended up having a connotation which is pretty
well universally disapproved of, ( and never examined ) and, 'creativity'
( with never any bother to qualify the term ) is supposed to be 'good'.
Ed Gyne was 'creative' in his misdemeanors, as were John Wayne Gacey and
scores of others.
The term ends up being meaningless without some accompanying elaboration
or
qualification to fill in what the speaker actually has in mind.
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerholdclay"
The concept that creativity is ingrained and not affected by society is
genuinally one of the more idiotic concepts to emerge on Clayart. Your
parents have no effect, your schooling has no effect. Your friends have n=
o
effect. The books you read have no effect. Museums, galleries, other
artists have no effect. Please!
Of course your personality has something to do with it. But to say societ=
y
has no effect. The same people who espouse this theory probably also
promote the myth of " American Exceptionalism". See the contradiction-duh.
Paul
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Robert Harris
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Vince Pitelka
> wrote:
> We have this romanticized image of the
>>
>> artist, writer, or inventor as something of a hermit, laboring in
>> isolation,
>> purposefully excluding the outside world from their sphere of experienc=
e
>> and
>> creation/invention in order to avoid distraction or external influence.
>> In
>> most cases that's bullshit. Most people who make art or invent things
or
>> investigate natural phenomena do so specifically in response to the
>> society
>> in which they live. The society provides the context and the incentive=
,
>> and
>> I think that has always been true throughout the history of humankind.
>>
>>
> Vince -
>
> I certainly agree that the specifics of what one creates, invents or
> investigates is absolutely correlated to the society or even geography a
> person lives in.
> If you're a farmer you invent a better plow. If you live at the
beginning
> of the industrial revolution, you invent a better steam engine, if you
> live
> through war, you paint Guernica.
>
> BUT I can't see how ones basic desire to invent something to improve one=
s
> life or to paint in response to trauma is at all affected by society.
> (James Watt might have invented the Jet Engine, or Picasso painted 'The
> Garden of Earthly Delights). That is, the specifics of what comes out of
> the hands and mind of the inventor or creator may be different - but to
> say
> that if Ben Franklin had not lived in the society he did he would not
have
> been an investigator or inventor at all, seems unlikely. That sort of
> basic
> personality trait, the desire to create or invent or investigate seems t=
o
> me to be ingrained. I was a research scientist for 15 years. For various
> reasons I quit (cold turkey!).
>
> I now find myself missing that sort of intellectual investigation so muc=
h
> that whenever I can, I am running 49 point biaxial line blends and
> teaching
> myself ceramic chemistry. For me at least, while "nurture" at some level
> may have had a great input (blame the parents!), "society" certainly did
> not. So the specifics have changed (perhaps influences by society), but
> the
> basic desire is me (I think) ...
>
> To conclude, yes, as you say, society provides the context, but I do not
> agree that it provides the incentive - I think that is ingrained.
>
> Robert
Vince Pitelka on wed 22 aug 12
Lenny wrote:
"A dilemma. I often think the "creativity" of the artist is purely
conceptual/mental i.e. The Idea-...and the "art" produced merely a
byproduct of the individual's attempt to share the "creative vision". Art
school and training help us do just that-they train us to express those
visions--which begs the question, if art is indeed the cerebral event, then
do we need any physical evidence of its existence?"
Hi Lenny -
Well, isn't that the loaded question in regards to art school today, becaus=
e
so many seem to have abandoned any attempt to teach students to create the
eloquent object. Of course the reality is that without the art object, the
cerebral event means nothing except in the mind of the artist, and what is
really the worth of that? Well, it is certainly worthwhile in however it
advances the worth and agenda of the individual, but within an integrated
society the individual cerebral event is worthwhile only in the way it
impacts other people. Without the art object, that never happens, because
no one is going to convince us of the worth of the cerebral event with a
description. We gotta see it manifested in the real world.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
James Freeman on thu 23 aug 12
Lenny wrote:
> "A dilemma. I often think the "creativity" of the artist is purely
> conceptual/mental i.e. The Idea-...and the "art" produced merely a
> byproduct of the individual's attempt to share the "creative vision". Ar=
t
> school and training help us do just that-they train us to express those
> visions--which begs the question, if art is indeed the cerebral event, th=
en
> do we need any physical evidence of its existence?"
>
Lenny...
The Painted Word???
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote=
:
>
> Well, isn't that the loaded question in regards to art school today,
> because
> so many seem to have abandoned any attempt to teach students to create th=
e
> eloquent object. Of course the reality is that without the art object, t=
he
> cerebral event means nothing except in the mind of the artist, and what i=
s
> really the worth of that? Well, it is certainly worthwhile in however it
> advances the worth and agenda of the individual, but within an integrated
> society the individual cerebral event is worthwhile only in the way it
> impacts other people. Without the art object, that never happens, becaus=
e
> no one is going to convince us of the worth of the cerebral event with a
> description. We gotta see it manifested in the real world.
>
>
Holy crap, Vince! I actually agree with you! As you mentioned off list,
the world must truly be coming to an end! Yep, I hear galloping horsemen!
Well, actually I don't agree with this sentence: "but within an integrated
society the individual cerebral event is worthwhile only in the way it
impacts other people", but the rest of your post is gold! Okay, I don't
agree with this one either: "no one is going to convince us of the worth
of the cerebral event with a description", Try telling that to Einstein!.
I guess we get a reprieve from Armageddon!
All the best.
...James (who is late for the gym, but thinking there might be no point in
going if the world is about to end)
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Nefsigh@AOL.COM on thu 23 aug 12
James--Perhaps
I often find art critics desperately writing to describe what they think
they need to see in a work and if they don't "see" that, it often gets a
less than stellar "review".
Somehow, in contemporary culture, "art critic" and "art reviewer" have
become synonymous, when in fact they are (or should be) vastly different.
Along with the merging of these two distinct areas has evolved the "art ma=
ster"
(my term ..although guru could just as easily be substituted). The art
"master" has set him/herself up in a position of a somewhat final arbiter o=
f
what is or isn't art' what is or isn't craft; what is or isn't couture and
heck, what is or isn't good food. These "masters" have become the "drug" u=
pon
which many in the collecting, museum, gallery and even literary worlds
have come to depend upon for defining for them how good their choices are.=
A
sort of "you're so wonderful because I am so wonderful and because I am
wonderful everything I approve is wonderful therefore you and your collecti=
on
is wonderful" and thus the choices I made for you are wonderful and must =
be
the high point of art.
Sadly, there are still hundreds, perhaps even thousands of collectors and
museums that rely these "masters" (and Sothebys) for their accusations an=
d
exhibitions, rather than developing their own understanding, focus and
taste for art. Heck, we all agree it is much easier to purchase hemorrhoid
creme after a celebrity has told us how well it worked for him/her...right=
?
Good criticism is hard to find. A good critic, even harder. I suppose it
has more to do with the fact that it is difficult to go analyze an
exhibition or an artist's work after a long day at WalMart stocking shelves=
to make
ends meet. Anyway, I know your work must be wonderful because mine is and
therefore, everyone else on here ought to purchase our works soon before
Sothebys gets them and really raises the roof....
Lenny
PS. Perhaps Tom should have taken it one step further and ended it as the
"Imagined word".
Cheers
In a message dated 8/23/2012 6:52:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com writes:
Lenny wrote:
"A dilemma. I often think the "creativity" of the artist is purely
conceptual/mental i.e. The Idea-...and the "art" produced merely a
byproduct of the individual's attempt to share the "creative vision". Art
school and training help us do just that-they train us to express those
visions--which begs the question, if art is indeed the cerebral event, the=
n
do we need any physical evidence of its existence?"
Lenny...
The Painted Word???
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Vince Pitelka <_vpitelka@dtccom.net_
(mailto:vpitelka@dtccom.net) > wrote:
Well, isn't that the loaded question in regards to art school today,
because
so many seem to have abandoned any attempt to teach students to create th=
e
eloquent object. Of course the reality is that without the art object, th=
e
cerebral event means nothing except in the mind of the artist, and what is
really the worth of that? Well, it is certainly worthwhile in however it
advances the worth and agenda of the individual, but within an integrated
society the individual cerebral event is worthwhile only in the way it
impacts other people. Without the art object, that never happens, because
no one is going to convince us of the worth of the cerebral event with a
description. We gotta see it manifested in the real world.
Holy crap, Vince! I actually agree with you! As you mentioned off list,
the world must truly be coming to an end! Yep, I hear galloping horsemen!
Well, actually I don't agree with this sentence: "but within an
integrated society the individual cerebral event is worthwhile only in the=
way it
impacts other people", but the rest of your post is gold! Okay, I don't
agree with this one either: "no one is going to convince us of the worth =
of
the cerebral event with a description", Try telling that to Einstein!. I
guess we get a reprieve from Armageddon!
All the best.
...James (who is late for the gym, but thinking there might be no point in
going if the world is about to end)
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
_http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com_ (http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/)
_http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/_
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/)
_http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources_
(http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources)
James Freeman on thu 23 aug 12
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, wrote:
> **
> James--Perhaps
> I often find art critics desperately writing to describe what they think
> they need to see in a work and if they don't "see" that, it often gets a
> less than stellar "review".
>
Sometimes it goes too far the other way. I recall a few years ago Ceramics
Monthly ran an article by one of their critics about a show of some really
horrible work by a famous clay person whose name escapes me at the moment.
All the review did was barf back the stuff in the Artist Statement, then
really stretched to find some contrived art historical justification. I
also recall that the review was absolutely lousy with really strained
similes, but that is another issue! If a critic merely agrees with and
repeats what the artist already said in their statement, what is the point
of the article? Someone called out the critic in the "letters" section of
the next issue in a really backhanded way that made it appear on the
surface that it was a compliment. I thought it was really funny, and
couldn't believe CM printed it.
> These "masters" have become the "drug" upon which many in the collecting,
> museum, gallery and even literary worlds have come to depend upon for
> defining for them how good their choices are. A sort of "*you're so
> wonderful because I am so wonderful and because I am wonderful everything=
I
> approve is wonderful therefore you and your collection is wonderful" *and
> thus the choices I made for you are wonderful and must be the high point =
of
> art.
>
> Sadly, there are still hundreds, perhaps even thousands of collectors and
> museums that rely these "masters" (and Sothebys) for their accusations a=
nd
> exhibitions, rather than developing their own understanding, focus and
> taste for art.
>
Art dealer Richard Feigen has a chapter addressing this issue in his
excellent and entertaining book "Tales from the Art Crypt". He traces the
problem back to changes in the role and character of museums and museum
directors. Feigen outlines how museum directors, traditionally the leisured
progeny of the wealthy, were trained, usually at Ivy League schools, in a
love for and appreciation of the object, and how the role of museums was
the amassing of such objects in a cogent and planned way. He goes on to
point out how, beginning toward the end of the 20th century, museum boards
have moved from being mere honor societies for the major donors, who
traditionally did not interfere with curatorial decisions, to activist
groups of art world social climbers who increasingly inject their own ideas
(whether honest or corrupt) into curatorial matters. He also explains how
the role of the modern museum director, beginning with the Guggenheim's
Thomas Krens, has switched from the largely aesthetic concerns surrounding
the amassing of a collection to one more akin to that of a corporate CEO,
concerning themselves with bringing in revenue and expanding the museum
brand. To this change he attributes the modern phenomenon of the
"blockbuster show", whereby our museums now merely hire in whatever
collection of things, art or otherwise, they believe will bring in the
crowds. Thus we have the recent spectacle of the largest grossing
exhibition in New York art museum history being a collection of designer
dresses. The measure of an art museum is now gate receipts, not the
objects in the collection.
Anyway, I know your work must be wonderful because mine is and therefore,
> everyone else on here ought to purchase our works soon before Sothebys ge=
ts
> them and really raises the roof....
>
Yes! I quite agree!
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Vince Pitelka on thu 23 aug 12
James Freeman wrote:
=3D93Holy crap, Vince!=3DA0 I actually agree with you!=3DA0 As you mentione=
d =3D
off list,
the world must truly be coming to an end!=3DA0 Yep, I hear galloping =3D
horsemen!
Well, actually I don't agree with this sentence:=3DA0 "but within an =3D
integrated
society the individual cerebral event is worthwhile only in the way it
impacts other people", but the rest of your post is gold!=3DA0 Okay, I =3D
don't
agree with this one either:=3DA0 "no one is going to convince us of the =3D
worth of
the cerebral event with a description",=3DA0 Try telling that to =3D
Einstein!.=3DA0 I
guess we get a reprieve from Armageddon!=3D94
Hi James =3D96=3D20
Sometimes when I write I assume a certain interpretation of what I am
writing, when in fact I ought to explain things better. This is a good
example. In writing about the individual cerebral event, I was =3D
specifically
referring to the cerebral event that envisions a certain work of art.
Having the artist describe the work of art isn=3D92t going to cut it =3D
unless the
=3D93art=3D94 is storytelling. So apparently we do agree on this, but don'=
t =3D
worry,
it's happened before we we're all still here. =3D20
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
Lee on fri 24 aug 12
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Gerholdclay wro=
=3D
te:
> Of course your personality has something to do with it. But to say socie=
=3D
ty has no effect. The same people who
>espouse this theory probably also promote the myth of " American Exception=
=3D
alism". See the contradiction-duh.
We stand on the shoulders of Giants. ("nani gigantum humeris
insidentes" Dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. or "You
didn't build that!")
Post-modern hubris keeps us in the narcissistic mode of thinking.
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
| |
|
