Vince Pitelka on wed 20 may 98
>believe that clay people are a pretty resilient breed, but when these
>exchanges pass disembodied through cyberspace between us, even what might
>have been meant as a jocular jibe can easily be taken as a callous insult.
>Then what may seem or have been meant to be a measured response to uncalled
>for calumny comes out the other side as the blathering of paranoid
>nitpicker. As the dust rises the original topic of discussion is lost, and
>no one but the combattants has any desire to get involved. I believe I've
>seen that happen several times here. And I believe that fear of triggering
>such an episode is a big damper on the free expression of individual
>heartsongs here in this forum. We disagree. Actually I hope you're right and
>I'm wrong, because I believe that yours is a smaller hurdle to rise over.
I'd love to see more discussions of aesthetics on Clayart, at any cost.
Personally, I like to see the variations of exclamation and response here on
the list that exist in real life. So, while I would prefer not to see
callous insults, there's certainly room for jocular jibes, and I suppose the
occasional blathering of a paranoid nitpicker is inevitable. And I believe
that in most cases the original topic of discussion remains the focus of the
discussion even when things evolve into a genuine cyber-argument. All sorts
of things come out. It is usually very illuminating. People who don't want
to participate in any particular discussion thread can easily delete the
messages. I hope everyone on this list feels free to openly express their
opinions about ceramic aesthetics, and to respond openly and honestly to
others opinions and the language they use in their aesthetic discussions.
We could have real fun with this, and learn a lot in the process.
I think that participation in Clayart helps people to express themselves
freely and openly. I sincerely hope no one on the list is intimidated or
quieted when someone speaks out forcefully or even harshly. I think it is
important that we let the various discussion threads flow as they will, even
when things get tense, because the alternative smacks too much of
censorship. Occasionally people will get nasty, but so what? It happens.
A few people might be intimidated, but far more probably are entertained by
it. And when someone really gets mean, I think it just reflects badly on
them. Some may be surprised to hear me say this, because I have
occasionally been accused of being harsh or mean. I never intend it that
way from my end, but cyberspace does funny things to words, when we do not
have the benifit of facial expressions, vocal inflection, hand gestures,
etc. I admit that, but I am not willing to constantly compose my words to
guarantee that they are warm and fuzzy. Life is not like that.
Gee, I did not mean to rant.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
DIANA PANCIOLI, ASSOC. PROF. on fri 22 may 98
I find aesthetic discourse possible with an object in front of us to
discuss.
Diana
EMU
NgtvSpace on sun 24 may 98
I believe that the isue that Michael and Vince point to is one of
communication styles, its funny that people should feel the same way in
cyberspace as they would in a real setting were "aesthetic discourse" can take
place, I think people shouldnt be afraid to be nasty and say whats really on
there mind, I think its good when discussions heat up as this is a sign of
finding ones passion, there have been many things I once felt adamant about
and thru new information and argument have since changed my mind. (please note
that I am not advocating toxic ranting or raging). It seem curious that even
in cyberspace we have to deal with "co-depency", you cant get any safer than a
dialogue mediated by a computer, these issues are the same in a real setting (
i.e. crits, dinner talks, etc.) Having had to read many essays by
philosophers, historians, etc, etc., it was amazing to me how scathing they
were to one another, I realized that in many cases discourse was established
in these essays by philosophical sparks, and that this way of communicating
had its own craft which is now extinct as philosophy has been separated from
the rest of the sciences and the arts. In the forties many brilliant
psychotherapists fled Europe and came to New York, this had a great impact on
the Art scene in America, Abstract Expressionism was born, and many of the
Aeesthetic Discussion used psychology as a cannon of dialogue. Since then,
however, our diaologue has deteriorated into psychobabble. I think that the
70's are over we all know that "I'm okay and your okay" and we all have our
therapist or 12 step groups, so that aesthetic discussions need not center
around the issue of self-esteem or co-dependency, but on all the processes of
making art. So if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kiln! :>).
Lorca
Michael McDowell on mon 25 may 98
Lorca,
Just read your post in the Sunday Digest from Clayart. I think I've covered
my feelings about this communications styles issue in our private
discussion. Still have much study to do of your latest by the way. I thought
I'd just share it with the list. Not your latest, my "thang" 'bout our
chatting here. My point is that in "real" space, or even in print within
scholarly circles, you get in someone's face, they have to respond. I don't
think it works that way here. We all have delete keys, "page down" works for
me. We press that, you wink out, you don't exist here! Ain't nothin' or
nobody in MY face!
I don't want to express this point any more forcefully, 'cause when YOU
respond, I don't want you to wink out. I like you! I've got to tell you a
story about Bill Daley and me. He's played a special part in my clay history
too! Doubt if he'd remember me, If he did, NO HUG. But I want to give HIM
one!
Michael McDowell
Whatcom County, WA USA
http://www2.memes.com/mmpots
mmpots@memes.com
| |
|
