Percy Toms on mon 13 sep 99
------------------
In a message dated 9/12/99 8:23:12 AM, vpitelka=40Dekalb.Net writes:
=3E=3E=3E Art is property for its purchasers. Art is a superior kind=
of
=3E=3Enonsense for the Artist. Its product is the way an artist has of =
solving
=3E=3Eproblems of light and shadow becoming the illusion of reality.
=3E=3EDon -
=3EHoo boy. What IS this?? Anyone can string together a bunch of esoteric
=3Estream-of-consciousness drivel, but this is profoundly pessimistic. It
=3Eis
=3Esad that you have so little understanding or appreciation of the value
=3Eand
=3Epurpose of art. And yet you put such opinions forth in an international
=3Eforum like Clayart. I wonder why???
=3E- Vince
=3E
=3EVince Pitelka - vpitelka=40DeKalb.net
=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97==
97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97=97
=3Camicably...=3E With respect, Vince, Don is entitled to express his view =
of Art
in this forum, just as we all do, idiots and savants alike =3Cg=3E.
You say Don=92s view of Art is =93profoundly pessimistic=94. Even if it is,=
I have
no problem with that.
IMHO, Don=92s view of Art and reality may not be so alien to the =
metaphysically
minded. The =93illusion of reality=94 to which he refers is far from a =
strange or
even pessimistic idea to a Buddhist, for example. Even Don=92s =
characterisation
of Art as =93...a superior kind of nonsense for the Artist=94 doesn=92t =
bother me.
It has humour in it, often (I find) a sign of truth, especially the
subversive sort=21
Life is rich in nonsense, friends=21 Let=92s lighten up here. :-)
Ned
Lee Love on tue 14 sep 99
"Only that
Which does not teach,
Which does not cry out,
Which does not persuade,
Which does not condescend,
Which does not explain,
is IRRESISTIBLE."
_W.B. Yeats
Lee Love on tue 14 sep 99
"When he tries to extend his power over objects,
Those objects gain control over him.
He who is controlled by objects
Looses possession of his innter self."
-Chuang-Tsu
Vince Pitelka on tue 14 sep 99
> With respect, Vince, Don is entitled to express his view of Art
>in this forum, just as we all do, idiots and savants alike .
>You say Don's view of Art is "profoundly pessimistic". Even if it is, I have
>no problem with that.
>IMHO, Don's view of Art and reality may not be so alien to the metaphysically
>minded. The "illusion of reality" to which he refers is far from a strange or
>even pessimistic idea to a Buddhist, for example. Even Don's characterisation
>of Art as "...a superior kind of nonsense for the Artist" doesn't bother me.
>It has humour in it, often (I find) a sign of truth, especially the
>subversive sort!
Ned -
Please do not assume that just because I responded a little aggressively to
Don's post that I do not want him to express his opinions. I smiled when I
read his post, and immediately and enthusiastically wrote my response. I
LIKE most of Don's posts, and I greatly appreciate his involvement in
Clayart. I'll tell you my favorite guideline for interpreting Clayart
posts: "If no offense was meant, then there is none." In other words, when
you read a post, do not look for the offense. Do not assume that the writer
is trying to be offensive. I would NEVER do that, but I am not going to
couch my responses in fuzzy compliments, IMHOs, and emoticons. On email we
do not have the benefit of facial expressions, hand gestures, eye contact,
or vocal inflection. All we have is the written word. Let's make the most
of it, OK?
Regarding philosophical/intellectual/spiritual theory on making or
interpreting art, I have no problem with any of that as well. In fact, it
is fascinating. But let's remember that Don stated his original post
straightforward as fact, without any sort of disclaimer or explanation, much
the same way I sometimes write my posts. He was not stating that "There are
cultures that belive etc." He said:
>>> Art is property for its purchasers. Art is a superior kind of
>>nonsense for the Artist. Its product is the way an artist has of solving
>>problems of light and shadow becoming the illusion of reality.
While I saw no offense at all in his post, it is not stated as opinion. It
says "This is the way it is." Should I not have interpreted it that way?
All I have is the written word.
I have no problem either if someone's view of art is profoundly pessimistic,
and I like it when they express their opinions on Clayart. And I like
participating in a spirited debate. My view of art is not at all
pessimistic. There may be grounds to be pessimistic sometimes about the art
art market, the job market, gallery owners, picky customers, rainy craft
fairs, but about art as a general category? Can't understand that at all.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
| |
|
