Donn Buchfinck on sat 5 jun 99
I just wanted to interject my comment here about the new CM
What really bothered me is the new work of bobby silverman.
I know this person, and I look at the work in the article and I am dazed and
confused.
to begin with the forms are the ones we learned how to make as undergrads at
the Kansas City art Institute under Victor Babu
the photos look like an undergraduate critique.
You have to wonder about a lot of the ceramic programs out in the world.
a lot of the instructors have been chosen by the fine art departments.
Painters and sculptors have had a say in the direction of ceramics programs
and the ceramics world in the USA
So we get verbiage laden garbage from the instructor/dabbler/person searching
for an identity, you know, that tenure track thing.
What do painters and sculptors know about running a ceramic program?
These people have had an effect on the direction of how we as potters define
success.
People are working so hard to find that niche.
that thing that will give them the rock star status we seem to desire here in
our culture.
But here lies the problem.
If we are looking out in the world for our inspiration,
mining history for the source material
what does that say about our times.
are we so greedy, so living in the moment, stealing from the past so that we
do not need to invest in our creative spiritual future.
What does a set of stacked bowls really say.
If I dug it up a thousand years later will stacking the bowls have meaning
for me.
or would I just use them to serve peas and mashed potatoes out of them at
thanksgiving. And stacking them just saves room in the cabinet.
Do Not Get me wrong
I am not attacking functional potters here.
who and what I am attacking is the people who wish to step into a different
arena to show their work.
and when you side step into that other realm, the realm of rock star potters
and beautiful emperors clothing, The stuff had better be good. not even
good but great. And It had better be able to transcend all the words that go
with it. Because when history chooses, words and OK stuff will not make it.
So as a maker of things I sit here, I do not have the benefit of having a job
to support myself while I delude myself and try to convince others into
thinking that my work is the
NEXT BIG THING
I'm working on that Job, But my ideas are lacking. And without really great
ideas, I have a hard time convincing those painters and sculptors that I can
teach people how to make pottery. You know those deep ideas about how to pull
a great handle or make a beautiful pot. Oh sorry I used the beauty word.
no wonder I get into trouble.
So what I really am having problems with is what I call Rockstarism.
That need to be unique, that need to be noticed. That desire to be validated.
When you inject the ego into functional pottery it manifests itself in weird
ways.
First there is that deluding yourself factor that the stuff you are making is
the next big thing, then hopefully you have some peers and grad students to
stroke that ego to tell you the work has meaning, that's important because we
want to have meaning in our lives, then with that real cool shtick we have
created' we convince a gallery to show the work, the gallery owner whispers
into a collectors ear "It's the next big thing "which really means, it's the
now thing, and the collector shells out money for the next big thing. In a
thousand years someone will be serving peas and potatoes out of the bowls.
It will not speak to them about being a bowl, because they are what they are,
bowls.
So I sit and shake my head, but I am lifted by the knowledge that the power
the universities have over the clay world will not last. People will get
tired of it, see that it is an empty dream, turn their backs on the stuff and
make what they have to, and it will be good, and history will reward them for
it.
Donn Buchfinck
San Francisco
Bill Downs on sat 5 jun 99
Donna,
I must say, well said! May good pots save us from the intellectualization of
clay. Remember that those ivory towers are just that, ivory not clay.
Bill on the Big Island
On Monday my kiln materials will be delivered and I will begin building my
wood fired kiln, Peg Udall's plans.
Tamara Reid-McConkey on wed 9 jun 99
AMEN!!!
I recently got my BFA in Ceramics and the entire time I was battling with the
"Artspeak," art lingo, deep psychological meaning thing. I was told that it
was important to be able to speak about my work. But there in lies the rub.
I wasn't saying what they wanted to hear. I was actually (covertly, of
course) ridiculed by one of my instructors because my dearest desire was to
make beautiful things. I know, I know, the term "beautiful" is a major faux
pas in art today.
They said that I had to be able to discuss the "content" of my work. Fine.
I told them that it was an extension of myself, my experience, my
personality, my soul. OK? How, Why, etc.... I'm sorry, I guess I don't
know myself well enough to be an artist. Afterall, do any of us know why we
prefer chocolate to vanilla? I know that this is an oversimplified example,
but I'm a very complex person, as most of us are, so any other example is
going to be relatively complicated. I agree that the work must speak for
itself. No amount of rhetoric is going to be able to justify work that just
doesn't, well, work. And work that works well isn't going to need any
explanation.
Just one person's opinion.
T. Reid
Ray Aldridge on thu 10 jun 99
At 03:17 PM 6/9/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>AMEN!!!
>
>I recently got my BFA in Ceramics and the entire time I was battling with the
>"Artspeak," art lingo, deep psychological meaning thing. I was told that it
>was important to be able to speak about my work.
(Snip)
>They said that I had to be able to discuss the "content" of my work. Fine.
>I told them that it was an extension of myself, my experience, my
>personality, my soul. OK? How, Why, etc.... I'm sorry, I guess I don't
>know myself well enough to be an artist.
(snip)
I understand what you're saying, but as annoying as artspeak can be,
there's a useful message in there somewhere. Most folks in your position
simply take a shot at making up something that's flattering without being
too obvious and/or callow (they rarely succeed, alas) and let it go at that.
But that's too bad. Very few of us are so brilliantly instinctive in our
approach to art that we can afford not to think carefully about what we're
doing. In my case, my ambitions are very limited. I want to make
functional ware that does not compromise function for style, that's as
beautiful as possible, that is strong and clean in form, that has a rich
surface which does not detract fatally from the form, and finally, I want
to make pots that are at least somewhat charming. Note that there are two
words in this laundry list which are abstract: "beautiful" and "charming."
"Beautiful" is of course self-referential. Fortunately my idea of beauty
is probably fairly mainstream; if it were otherwise, I'd have a hard time
selling pots. The concept of "charming" involves the end user-- a charming
pot is one that an owner can use comfortably and with pleasure, and that
over time can engender real affection.
As I say, limited objectives. But they are easier to follow than no
objectives at all, which is why it's good to learn to think and talk about
the meaning of your work.
Ray
Parri Gignac on thu 10 jun 99
Tamara,
I can appreciate where you are coming from in your statements, and
moreover, at one time I probably felt much the same. However, after
attending a demonstration workshop given by John and Susanne Stephenson, I
have found my views to be changed.
I signed up for the workshop with some apprehension. Their work tends to
the sculpture side of the ceramic spectrum and my interests currently lie
towards the functional. I felt that at the very least I might learn some
better uses of slips and engobes for my own work. To listen to them
deliver their statements about their work, and dialogue with them as to
what they were expressing in various pieces, as well as finding out their
inspirations truly left me feeling enlightened. It was important to me to
see them work, knowing why decisions were made to twist and alter and
apply this color "here" and that one "there". I feel fortunate that they
were able to articulate the "hows and whys".
I came away with a keen apprecation for the hard work, technical
proficiency, and educated thought that goes into their sculptural work -
something that I might have missed if I had skipped the workshop. And I
find myself reading artist's commentary on their work much more closely
now, trying to look at their work through their eyes.
FWIW,
Parri Gignac
parri@internet.net
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> AMEN!!!
>
> I recently got my BFA in Ceramics and the entire time I was battling with the
> "Artspeak," art lingo, deep psychological meaning thing. I was told that it
> was important to be able to speak about my work. But there in lies the rub.
> I wasn't saying what they wanted to hear. I was actually (covertly, of
> course) ridiculed by one of my instructors because my dearest desire was to
> make beautiful things. I know, I know, the term "beautiful" is a major faux
> pas in art today.
>
> They said that I had to be able to discuss the "content" of my work. Fine.
> I told them that it was an extension of myself, my experience, my
> personality, my soul. OK? How, Why, etc.... I'm sorry, I guess I don't
> know myself well enough to be an artist. Afterall, do any of us know why we
> prefer chocolate to vanilla? I know that this is an oversimplified example,
> but I'm a very complex person, as most of us are, so any other example is
> going to be relatively complicated. I agree that the work must speak for
> itself. No amount of rhetoric is going to be able to justify work that just
> doesn't, well, work. And work that works well isn't going to need any
> explanation.
>
> Just one person's opinion.
>
> T. Reid
>
Pamala Browne on fri 11 jun 99
Hello guys- this struck a nerve with me and I kind of went off.This is not
directed to ANYONE.I've heard the concept of the term beautiful being
cheesy,lesser or what have you in magazines and in conversation.It is
obviously 'not cool' in certain circles to use this word and I say why not?
If someone tells me that something is beautiful and I don't feel the same
way then it shouldn't lessen their feelings about that object.It just means
we see beauty differently.And it isn't right to try to convince them
otherwise.( I was a cynic in college when I thought I knew it all-- now I
just get confused!)
What is this about the term 'beautiful' being a faux pas? It can only be
this if you see beauty in narrowly defined terms.Beauty in any of its
forms touches our souls.It doesn't matter if someone else doesn't see
it.Beauty can never go out of style, it has nothing to do with style..I
thought Edith Bunker was a beautiful woman.She was life ---perfect in her
imperfections.Beauty makes me cry, makes me scream, it breaks my heart.It
really has very little to do with looks.If I want to make beautiful pots
,woe be unto him that tells me it's not "in".Beauty in pots is a form that
works with the design( and I'm sure lots of people will tell you how to do
that)It is subjective.Sounds to me like someone (maybe a lot of someones)
has been listening to too many art dealers or some such nonsense.Make your
beautiful pots.When its done and you stand back from it and it speaks to
you,you will know you are doing what is right--would these people make
something ugly on purpose??God I hope not!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Tamara Reid-McConkey
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: this month's CM the emperors new clothes
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> AMEN!!!
>
> I recently got my BFA in Ceramics and the entire time I was battling with
the
> "Artspeak," art lingo, deep psychological meaning thing. I was told that
it
> was important to be able to speak about my work. But there in lies the
rub.
> I wasn't saying what they wanted to hear. I was actually (covertly, of
> course) ridiculed by one of my instructors because my dearest desire was
to
> make beautiful things. I know, I know, the term "beautiful" is a major
faux
> pas in art today.
>
> They said that I had to be able to discuss the "content" of my work.
Fine.
> I told them that it was an extension of myself, my experience, my
> personality, my soul. OK? How, Why, etc.... I'm sorry, I guess I don't
> know myself well enough to be an artist. Afterall, do any of us know why
we
> prefer chocolate to vanilla? I know that this is an oversimplified
example,
> but I'm a very complex person, as most of us are, so any other example is
> going to be relatively complicated. I agree that the work must speak for
> itself. No amount of rhetoric is going to be able to justify work that
just
> doesn't, well, work. And work that works well isn't going to need any
> explanation.
>
> Just one person's opinion.
>
> T. Reid
>
Brian Crocker on fri 11 jun 99
G'Day Tamara,
Beautiful is Beautiful and if "you" see it that way that's what it is,
all the Secret Society gobble-d-gook the Arty-fartys come up with
is 'in my opinion' just a cover up for their own insecurity.
They often have a medium to low opinion of their own work and want the viewer
to think it better.
Havn't you noticed that the better the craftsperson a Potter is the
less rubbish they talk and the more 'down to earth' they are and the more
they appreciate other people's work?? Look at what many of the CLAYARTERS
present on their Web sites then look at their e.mails, the better the work
the better the e.mails, "Beautiful" work "Beautiful" people.
Don't let it get to you, stay as complex as you want to be, just be you
not the moulded product of the opinions of others.
A very Old saying; "To thine own self be true and let it follow through
the day and the night and thou canst be false to any one".
Kind regards,
Brian C..
At 03:17 PM2:10: 9/06/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>AMEN!!!
>
>I recently got my BFA in Ceramics and the entire time I was battling with the
>"Artspeak," art lingo, deep psychological meaning thing. I was told that it
>was important to be able to speak about my work. But there in lies the rub.
>I wasn't saying what they wanted to hear. I was actually (covertly, of
>course) ridiculed by one of my instructors because my dearest desire was to
>make beautiful things. I know, I know, the term "beautiful" is a major faux
>pas in art today.
>
>They said that I had to be able to discuss the "content" of my work. Fine.
>I told them that it was an extension of myself, my experience, my
>personality, my soul. OK? How, Why, etc.... I'm sorry, I guess I don't
>know myself well enough to be an artist. Afterall, do any of us know why we
>prefer chocolate to vanilla? I know that this is an oversimplified example,
>but I'm a very complex person, as most of us are, so any other example is
>going to be relatively complicated. I agree that the work must speak for
>itself. No amount of rhetoric is going to be able to justify work that just
>doesn't, well, work. And work that works well isn't going to need any
>explanation.
>
>Just one person's opinion.
>
>T. Reid
>
>
Brian Crocker.
4 Erica Street,
Tea Tree Gully 5091,
South Australia. [e.mail] crocker@dove.net.au
The Driest State that's a little wetter now.
Tamara Reid-McConkey on mon 14 jun 99
Ray:
I totally agree with you and the "philosophy" you stated. However, that,
like my own, would not have been good enough. "Beautiful" and "charming," in
the context that you stated, simply would not have been enough. Why
beautiful? Why do you consider your idea of beautiful as "mainstream"? Who
decided that? And as to functional? Functional how? And have you really
investigated the perfect spout? And as to charming -- see "beautiful"? And
the really biggy--but what do you hope to convey/communicate with your
functional ware? There has to be more to it than a perfectly pouring
pitcher. (Their questions, not mine).
See my problem? While I enjoy doing functional work, it is not my major area
of "push." I really don't give a damn what they say about that because it is
usually for myself or my friends. Where I have a problem is in speaking
about my more "abstract" work. Not abstract in form, but in concept. I know
the general realm/s in which it falls and I can even go so far as to explain
the more technical, historical, and academic reasons for exploring certain
areas. However, why I want to do this or what I hope to convey/communicate
is not only irrelevant but irreverant. Why I want to do what I do is, quite
frankly, none of their business unless I choose to make it so. And as to
what I am trying to convey, the work either succeeds or it doesn't. If the
critique were focused on the success or failure of the work to convey, fine.
But it doesn't. It focuses on the intended content to the exclusion of it's
success.
I could dismiss this if it weren't so prevalent in public forums. Too often
I have picked up a copy of CM or someother related media, and the accompaning
commentary doesn't relate to the depicted work. I feel (my own opinion) that
this is a consequence of the academic stress of "talking about your work"
rather than doing it. I think that if you do and continue to do your own
work without worrying about what it means, that the meaning will eventually
become very apparent all on it's own.
Tamara
Ray Aldridge on tue 15 jun 99
At 05:52 PM 6/14/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray:
>
>I totally agree with you and the "philosophy" you stated. However, that,
>like my own, would not have been good enough. "Beautiful" and "charming," in
>the context that you stated, simply would not have been enough.
That's only because I did not convincingly elaborate upon those terms.
Why
>beautiful? Why do you consider your idea of beautiful as "mainstream"? Who
>decided that?
To properly elaborate a term like "beautiful" requires a little effort, but
it certainly can be done. At some point, of course, we must admit that we
are all prisoners in our own minds and that at bedrock, you can only tell a
person what beauty means to you. We must accept that each of us defines it
differently, and that we can never completely communicate this idea, or any
other abstraction, to another person. But that's what artists attempt.
They always fail, but those who come closest are called "great artists."
And as to functional? Functional how? And have you really
>investigated the perfect spout? And as to charming -- see "beautiful"? And
>the really biggy--but what do you hope to convey/communicate with your
>functional ware? There has to be more to it than a perfectly pouring
>pitcher. (Their questions, not mine).
You've sort of begun to answer your own questions here. For example, you
could say that your work is functional, in the sense that you are carrying
on one of the oldest traditions in human life, the use of clay vessels in
cooking and serving food, that you hope to continue and build upon that
ancient and honorable pursuit, that you feel a deep emotional link between
yourself and those first protohumans who gathered around a fire and cooked
up a tasty dish of roasted maggots in a clay-smeared basket.... yadda
yadda yadda. I could go on for many pages, but I'm in a merciful mood today.
>
>See my problem?
Sort of.
While I enjoy doing functional work, it is not my major area
>of "push." I really don't give a damn what they say about that because it is
>usually for myself or my friends. Where I have a problem is in speaking
>about my more "abstract" work. Not abstract in form, but in concept. I know
>the general realm/s in which it falls and I can even go so far as to explain
>the more technical, historical, and academic reasons for exploring certain
>areas. However, why I want to do this or what I hope to convey/communicate
>is not only irrelevant but irreverant. Why I want to do what I do is, quite
>frankly, none of their business unless I choose to make it so. And as to
>what I am trying to convey, the work either succeeds or it doesn't. If the
>critique were focused on the success or failure of the work to convey, fine.
>But it doesn't. It focuses on the intended content to the exclusion of it's
>success.
You can always make something up, if explaining your intent is necessary
for advancing your career-- even if you yourself don't completely
understand your intent, an effort at fantasizing about your art is not
dishonest in any way.
>
>I could dismiss this if it weren't so prevalent in public forums. Too often
>I have picked up a copy of CM or someother related media, and the accompaning
>commentary doesn't relate to the depicted work. I feel (my own opinion) that
>this is a consequence of the academic stress of "talking about your work"
>rather than doing it. I think that if you do and continue to do your own
>work without worrying about what it means, that the meaning will eventually
>become very apparent all on it's own.
>
You're probably right, but don't dismiss the usefulness of being able to
verbalize your intent, if only to yourself.
Ray
Hluch - Kevin A. on tue 15 jun 99
Tamara's comments about the words not matching the work are apt for the
most recent issue of CM. Re-read the article about Rob Barnard. One
would think the Rob's work is "cutting edge" and he had never heard of
Leach, Yanagi, et al....according to the writer.
Looking at the pictures and reading the text left me confused, once again.
I guess even potters want to be revolutionaries even though they make pots
with white slip with a clear covering glaze......
Well, I guess that is kinda weird considering everything else out there!
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Tamara Reid-McConkey wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Ray:
>
> I totally agree with you and the "philosophy" you stated. However, that,
> like my own, would not have been good enough. "Beautiful" and "charming," in
> the context that you stated, simply would not have been enough. Why
> beautiful? Why do you consider your idea of beautiful as "mainstream"? Who
> decided that? And as to functional? Functional how? And have you really
> investigated the perfect spout? And as to charming -- see "beautiful"? And
> the really biggy--but what do you hope to convey/communicate with your
> functional ware? There has to be more to it than a perfectly pouring
> pitcher. (Their questions, not mine).
>
> See my problem? While I enjoy doing functional work, it is not my major area
> of "push." I really don't give a damn what they say about that because it is
> usually for myself or my friends. Where I have a problem is in speaking
> about my more "abstract" work. Not abstract in form, but in concept. I know
> the general realm/s in which it falls and I can even go so far as to explain
> the more technical, historical, and academic reasons for exploring certain
> areas. However, why I want to do this or what I hope to convey/communicate
> is not only irrelevant but irreverant. Why I want to do what I do is, quite
> frankly, none of their business unless I choose to make it so. And as to
> what I am trying to convey, the work either succeeds or it doesn't. If the
> critique were focused on the success or failure of the work to convey, fine.
> But it doesn't. It focuses on the intended content to the exclusion of it's
> success.
>
> I could dismiss this if it weren't so prevalent in public forums. Too often
> I have picked up a copy of CM or someother related media, and the accompaning
> commentary doesn't relate to the depicted work. I feel (my own opinion) that
> this is a consequence of the academic stress of "talking about your work"
> rather than doing it. I think that if you do and continue to do your own
> work without worrying about what it means, that the meaning will eventually
> become very apparent all on it's own.
>
> Tamara
>
| |
|
