Dan Wilson on sat 23 may 98
Lorca,
First of all let me apologize for the bluntness of my post regarding
originality and authenticity.
Now you said:
" I dont know if I'm MO or POMO, when I say I exist in a tradition or have
history to work from, it doesnt mean I into pastiche, maybe parody
I have a feeling that this is not an uncommon position for artists today.
Its difficult to use the language of modernism to redefine current work
that has been given a new name.
"what Imean is that sometimes during my process I discover a similarity with
philosophies or aesthetic decisions from Syria or Pre-Columbia,...
These discoveries - do they really come about during the process? Or or at
those moments of reflection when the process stops and the search for
meaning begins?
"when I mean "original" or "authentic", I mean work that is
thought as existing outside of any discourse in history, I'm sorry but
especially in ceramics that doesnt exist,"
That first part makes sense to me and my personal experience along those
lines verify your view. I do believe though that historical discourse has
and does take place in the ceramic arts. Much has been written and is
being said.
As with the other arts, ceramic traditions span most cultures and
history and the dificulty of grasping it all at once is tantamount to a
lifetime of work as an historian. This is difficult for artists who spend
most of their waking hours doing the work.
Each artist approaches ceramics from a unique perspective and its
not always within the context of a group such as Clayart for example that
aesthetic discussions are fruitful beyond a simple statement of interests
and how they may influence their work. Beyond that, other points of view
are, from a practical application standpoint, useless or unnecessary. I
think it was Paul Mcartney who once said (and it was years ago so I might
be misquoting him) "I don't want to do art. I want to be art." My
interpretation of this statement as I think of it now is that the artist
has a choice to work within an historical context ; in other words, do work
about history or work without it (outside of it) and let history take care
of itself. I must admit I go back and forth on this but in general, it
seems to me, that working conciously within an historical context tends to
make my work self-concious and uninteresting.
" The very nature of ceramics contest the Mary Boone philosophy of
signature. Of course there is ones unique stamp that differentiates from
all others."
How do these two satements relate to each other? You'll forgive me but I
don't know Mary Boone from Pat Boone. How does she define "signature" and
how is it different from the "unique stamp"?
"Lucero, his sculpture are a rendition of his process and vision, however most
of the components of his work can be attributed to a historical period, pre-
columbian, majolica-delftware-and POMO (Post-Modern) as seen in his bar
codes, it is the personal mutation of the way in which one handles the
material and the risks one takes. Luceros work shifts back and forth between
sculpture and painting, and it still remains rooted within a discourse of
clay. The content of his work also questions history...
In your view what is his vision? What History he is questioning? Why did
he choose those materials?
" history is what expands our vocabulary and helps us make the techno
winnie decisions, for instance Celadon vs Temoku, Terra Sigerratta (as
pronounced by my Japanese studio mate) vs low fire commercial glazes, this
decisions affect the context in which your object will be viewed, or the
type of energy released."
This is a complex statement: How does history expand our vocabulary? When
you say "context in which your object will be viewed" what exactly do you
mean?
" George Orr as a pioneer of glaze applications, I mean he really was the
first Abstract Expressionist...."
We had a great discussion about that earlier this year which ranged from
15th cent. Japan to the context in which his work was produced.
Dan Wilson
| |
|
