Dannon Rhudy on fri 3 sep 99
At 12:09 PM 9/2/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>I dissagree with David, that there can only be one, to be unique.
>
>-----------------------------
Doesn't matter if you "disagree" with David. "Unique" only has one meaning.
Regards,
Dannon Rhudy
potter@koyote.com
Ray Aldridge on tue 7 sep 99
At 04:03 PM 9/3/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 12:09 PM 9/2/99 EDT, you wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>------------------
>>I dissagree with David, that there can only be one, to be unique.
>>
>>-----------------------------
>
>Doesn't matter if you "disagree" with David. "Unique" only has one meaning.
>
True, and I understand that you are pointing out that "unique" is an
absolute term, and can be accurately applied to very little except,
perhaps, the universe as a whole (and there are theoretical astrophysicists
who would love to argue with that assumption.) But would you say that each
*set* of Goya's etchings is not unique, even though they were produced in
editions of more than one? And to look at the other end of the argument,
how unique is a bowl you've thrown a thousand times? It's true that
calipers applied to the various measurements of each bowl would show more
variations than the same bowl cast a thousand times (though it's ironic
that the more skilled the thrower, the less these variations would probably
be.) In neither case would there be any exact duplicates found, though I
would tend to agree with David that on the whole the thrown bowls would be
"more unique," in spite of the semantic impossibility of defending this
assertion-- a thing is either unique or it is not, as Dannon says.
Still the difference is one of degree, I think, at least in the imprecise
sense in which most of us use the term "unique." To illustrate the
ambiguity of the question, (and leaving aside Dannon's valid point that
only an object which has no duplicates anywhere can really be considered
unique) which object has a greater claim to "uniqueness"-- a formulaic
thrown mug made of a commercial body and glazed with a widely-used glaze,
or a cast plate with a brilliant and original brushwork design in china paint?
Just to deflect any flaming asteroids aimed in my direction (and remember,
kids, I am a professional devil's advocate--don't try this at home) I
should mention that I have no plaster in my studio, except for the gypsum
in the wall board. Hate the evil stuff-- I had a traumatic experience with
popouts early in my life as a potter, when I was learning from old books
that recommended the use of the stuff for everything from wedging tables to
bats. But I really think we all should understand clearly that it doesn't
matter a hill of beans what techniques other artists use to make their
work, unless of course they are not being honest about those techniques, to
some innocent person's detriment. As an example, I find cast and jiggered
pots with fake throwing ridges to be awful. Not only are they dishonest,
but in every case I've ever seen, they would be better pots if they were
designed with a more considered and appropriate kind of accent.
Anyway, an interesting discussion.
Ray
| |
|
