Janet Kaiser on wed 5 apr 00
------------------
Did I spell baloney right? If not, I mean =22nonsense=22, but in forceful =
and
provocative tone=21
Words are there to help us communicate our thoughts and ides. Right?
But if we take the word =22functional=22 and claim it really means =
=22existent=22 where
on earth will that take us? There will be chaos next time someone says =22I =
made a
functional sculpture today=22. Immediate question: =22Oh, yes? And what does=
it do?
How does it work?=22.
It does not =22do=22 anything. It exists. It pleases the eye. It makes =
people think.
That is the function...
Or someone says, =22I made a functional teapot today=22...
=22Does it pour well?=22
=22Oh no.. It is not for making tea=21 It exists and is the shape of a =
teapot,
therefore it is a teapot=22.
Well, sorry, but being an old fashioned sort of clay lover, I think this is
beginning to smell of the pretentious crap known here as Art Balls, which is
coming out of fine art departments by the hundredweight and the ream...
For goodness sake=21 Why try to turn a perfectly functional definition on =
its
head? It functions =3D it WORKS. And preferably it works well. What on earth=
is
wrong with that? Why all this word play? Someone been to 101 philosophy =
classes?
Big deal=21 But clever-clever talk does not help communication=21
As for =22utilitarian=22... Being a post-war baby that has BIG negative =
vibes.
=22Utility furniture=22 and utilitarian household goods of all sorts were =
=22cheap and
cheerful=22. Made with the least waste of resources. It did the job with no =
fancy
frills, but dear me, was it boring=21 That may be where the negativity =
entered and
even to this day =22utilitarian=22 can be used as a put down. =
=22Utilities=22, as in
gas, electric, etc., was originally an Americanism here in the UK. It could =
just
as easily be =22consumables=22 or =22useables=22.
Splitting hairs makes me really cross=21 I bet you can tell?
Janet Kaiser - On the coldest April day for 34 years.
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox=40the-coa.org.uk
martin howard on fri 7 apr 00
Clay Art is not the only E-Mail group with the problem of word definition
:-)
English has got so many multiple meanings for the same word, and more are
being made by the minute.
It's great for theatre, but it does not help us get our ideas across from
one person to another.
If only we had just ONE dictionary of all English words, with each meaning
given a number. Then, in writing we could put the number against the word
and the other person would know what was really meant by the word.
An easier and more effective answer is for us all to use Esperanto, but
you've all heard that from me before ;-) It will come, in time.
What is most difficult for us English speakers outside the USA is when the
posting is in broad local dialect, so the use of a dictionary, of any kind,
is no help.
Of course, very often the problem is simply that the poster is muddled and
then uses high sounding words to cover that confusion.
Martin Howard
Webb's Cottage Pottery
Woolpits Road
Great Saling
BRAINTREE
Essex CM7 5DZ
01371 850 423
martin@webbscottage.co.uk
www.webbscottage.co.uk Should be ready for 2000 :-) or 2001
Cindy Strnad on fri 7 apr 00
Hi, everybody.
I wasn't going to get into this one, but Janet Kaiser's letter made me laugh
and nod in agreement. Even though I'm too young and too fortunate to have
experienced any surfeit of "utilitarian" wares (in the sense she described,
re: no frills, usable and that's *it*), I still do have that sense of the
word "utilitarian" programmed into my mind. Utilitarian, to me, means
strictly basic, not concerned with appealing to the senses, in fact, maybe
even possessing a distaste for being attractive. A bathroom at summer camp;
plastic silverware; towels at a cheap hotel--that sort of thing. You all
know what I mean.
Functional, on the other hand, could include utilitarian, but is not limited
to it. Functional does not, in my mind, take in the higher uses, but only
the day-to-day uses such as containing tea, getting you to work on time,
providing you with shelter, and so on. Teapots, automobiles, and houses can
all be works of art, but to be functional, they must also perform their
primary function. Everyone hates a chronically non-functional car, no matter
how beautiful it is. Try to tell the man who has just taken his lovely lemon
to the shop for the "nth" time that it is functional because it is
beautiful. Just don't stand too close to him when you explain
this concept.
Art does certainly have a purpose, or function, and that function is
unquestionably higher than merely pouring tea. Those who don't understand
this will not be made to understand it by having artists explain to them
that yes, of course the art is functional--its function is to make you
think/ provide you with beauty/make you angry/etc. A person so dense as to
feel that a piece of work is unworthy because it performs no mundane
function is certainly too dense to understand the subtle play on words
inherent in calling art "functional". I say forget about them. Let them come
to art by their own path and in their own time, and play to the audience
that is ready for you; those who know, appreciate, and understand the value
of art for its own sake.
Cindy Strnad
earthenv@gwtc.net
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
Norman van der Sluys on sat 8 apr 00
Janet, I second your interpretation of the two terms. Utilitarian means it will
the job. The French Deux Chevaux comes to mind. It will get you where you want
go, but the flat surfaces are corrugated, the seats are canvas strung to a frame
the four doors hinge from the two center posts. When I was in Europe way back i
'59 they were everywhere. Buyers had a choice of grey or walking. Very utilitari
If you are hand making mugs that are utilitarian like the Deux Chevaux you shoul
ask yourself why.
Now, my Ford Escort is not a large or expensive car, but it is aerodynamic, will
80 mph all day at 32 miles per gal. (US), and if I have to, I can load a rocking
chair into the back! It really functions - it is not just another pretty face. T
is what I call functional!
Janet Kaiser wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> ------------------
> Did I spell baloney right? If not, I mean "nonsense", but in forceful and
> provocative tone!
>
> Words are there to help us communicate our thoughts and ides. Right?
>
> But if we take the word "functional" and claim it really means "existent" wher
> on earth will that take us? There will be chaos next time someone says "I made
> functional sculpture today". Immediate question: "Oh, yes? And what does it do
> How does it work?".
>
> It does not "do" anything. It exists. It pleases the eye. It makes people thin
> That is the function...
>
> Or someone says, "I made a functional teapot today"...
> "Does it pour well?"
> "Oh no.. It is not for making tea! It exists and is the shape of a teapot,
> therefore it is a teapot".
>
> Well, sorry, but being an old fashioned sort of clay lover, I think this is
> beginning to smell of the pretentious crap known here as Art Balls, which is
> coming out of fine art departments by the hundredweight and the ream...
>
> For goodness sake! Why try to turn a perfectly functional definition on its
> head? It functions = it WORKS. And preferably it works well. What on earth is
> wrong with that? Why all this word play? Someone been to 101 philosophy classe
> Big deal! But clever-clever talk does not help communication!
>
> As for "utilitarian"... Being a post-war baby that has BIG negative vibes.
> "Utility furniture" and utilitarian household goods of all sorts were "cheap a
> cheerful". Made with the least waste of resources. It did the job with no fanc
> frills, but dear me, was it boring! That may be where the negativity entered a
> even to this day "utilitarian" can be used as a put down. "Utilities", as in
> gas, electric, etc., was originally an Americanism here in the UK. It could ju
> as easily be "consumables" or "useables".
>
> Splitting hairs makes me really cross! I bet you can tell?
>
> Janet Kaiser - On the coldest April day for 34 years.
> The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
> Home of The International Potters Path
> TEL: (01766) 523570
> WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
> EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
--
Norman van der Sluys
Helping everyman with access to today's information technology
Ray Aldridge on sat 8 apr 00
At 01:09 PM 4/7/00 EDT, you wrote:
>
>Art does certainly have a purpose, or function, and that function is
>unquestionably higher than merely pouring tea.
I'll just point out that to many Japanese people, "merely pouring tea" is
an art form as worthy as any other.
Talking about art is complicated. It can be frustrating, too, if you take
it too seriously, and don't realize that at the core, art is an intensely
personal concept that cannot be entirely conveyed in words, however eloquent.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Joyce Lee on sat 8 apr 00
I'm going to contribute my own slice of baloney here....why not?
If one uses the word "functional" to describe art that serves, not just
primarily, but solely... to be beautiful, thought provoking, imagination
enhancing, life enriching or soul feeding.....why use the word
"functional" to describe ANY form of ceramic work? Maybe "practical"
would be a better choice, for isn't the purpose of
"functional" in this case to distinguish one form of art/craft from
another? If so...... and for me it is clearly true ... why muddy the
lines of communication for those potential customers who think we're all
a bit non-functional ourselves, anyway? I'd have to really be in love
with a piece to continue opening MY wallet when confronted with such
artsy nonsense. And, Cindy, I love you and your plate ... and your bowl
will be on the way with great pleasure shortly, but the distinction
you're making to my mind is not "subtle" at all ... more like squeaking
chalk on the chalkboards of my youth. Maybe I'm just not enough of an
artist.... yet. And maybe I'll always be behind..... third time through
The Unknown Craftsman, after all.... must mean something. It's not
difficult to understand but IS elusive at times .... and now one of you
tells us that such readings are no longer pertinent. I prefer The Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance, anyway, which I think (hope I'm not way off
track and making a fool of myself here) elucidates a similar philosophy.
Joyce
In the Mojave disbelieving that she's implying she might become an
artist.... in time ..... at least, maybe I'll "function" as an artist
whether I actually manage to BE one or not... can functional aptly
describe the artists artistic condition, rather than just the condition
of his work? Is it possible that I can then just SAY that I'm an
artist/potter .... can I just LOOK the part.... and SOUND the part...
and not have to DO anything at all in order to be a FUNCTIONAL artist??
Wow! Does this work for teaching or plumbing or skywriting .......... or
maybe I just have cobwebs for brains ......
ferenc jakab on sat 8 apr 00
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Clay Art is not the only E-Mail group with the problem of word definition
> :-)
>
> English has got so many multiple meanings for the same word, and more are
> being made by the minute.
Let me introduce a third word into this thread, Utility, Function, Purpose.
Function is now often confused with purpose.
Feri.
Ray Aldridge on sun 9 apr 00
At 10:50 PM 4/8/00 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I'm going to contribute my own slice of baloney here....why not?
>If one uses the word "functional" to describe art that serves, not just
>primarily, but solely... to be beautiful, thought provoking, imagination
>enhancing, life enriching or soul feeding.....why use the word
>"functional" to describe ANY form of ceramic work? Maybe "practical"
>would be a better choice, for isn't the purpose of
>"functional" in this case to distinguish one form of art/craft from
>another?
Joyce, I like to think of myself as a maker of "domestic wares." I'm sure
there are folks who find negative connotations in the word "domestic,"
particularly when it means "servant" but I tend to think of the virtues of
domesticity-- all the good things about home. For the most part, my wares
are designed to serve food. Food is one of the principle pleasures of life,
along with the good feelings that come from eating in the company of
friends and family.
Lately I've started making a few vases again, though for a time I swore off
vases, feeling that there was an imbalance between the numbers of nice
vases and the numbers of nice pasta bowls, at least handmade ones. But
flowers are another aspect of domesticity, the art of making a house a home.
Works of art that function solely as objects of contemplation are less
interesting to me, because they imply a sort of abstract isolation that is
already too prevalent in the world. As much as I love sculpture, in my
heart of hearts, I feel a closer connection to a beautiful rice bowl than I
do to, say, a Brancusi sculpture.
It's a personal response, of course. But it's why I make domestic ware
instead of any of the other things my manual dexterity would allow me to
make-- though if I had another life to spend learning a craft, I'd make
beautiful things out of wood. (I did design and build our kitchen table--
you can see the same bias driving that wishful thinking.)
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Pancioli on mon 10 apr 00
Dear Ray:
About terms: your comment about the word "domestic" parallels my
feelings about the word "utilitarian". While "utilitarian" may have
negative connotations to some, its purest meaning is simply "useful",
and to my mind describes in a nice plain way what pots (that are meant
to be used) do. (Without the confusion that the word "functional"
causes.)
>I like to think of myself as a maker of "domestic wares." I'm sure
>there are folks who find negative connotations in the word
> "domestic," particularly when it means "servant" but I tend to think
> of the virtues of domesticity-- all the good things about home.
Diana
Bill Aycock on mon 10 apr 00
I want to insert a comment from my checkered past- Bill Brown, then the
director of Penland school, once very patiently explained to me, with
reference to my pre-occupation with "Functional", that I should remember
that an objects function might well be merely (?) to be enjoyed. He tried
the word "utilitarian" on me- for what I was stuck on- with only minor
success.
Bill- Still on Persimmon Hill, where RVERYTHING is growing. (including the
grass).
At 11:33 PM 4/9/00 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 10:50 PM 4/8/00 EDT, you wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>I'm going to contribute my own slice of baloney here....why not?
>>If one uses the word "functional" to describe art that serves, not just
>>primarily, but solely... to be beautiful, thought provoking, imagination
>>enhancing, life enriching or soul feeding.....why use the word
>>"functional" to describe ANY form of ceramic work? Maybe "practical"
>>would be a better choice, for isn't the purpose of
>>"functional" in this case to distinguish one form of art/craft from
>>another?
-
Bill Aycock --- Persimmon Hill
Woodville, Alabama, US 35776
(in the N.E. corner of the State)
W4BSG -- Grid EM64vr
baycock@HiWAAY.net
w4bsg@arrl.net
Janet Kaiser on thu 20 apr 00
Dear All,
I did not re-post this mail... It has suddenly reappeared several days after
the original which was 5th April. For those who think I have finally lost my
marbles... Well, I may well have done, but in this particular case I plead
"not guilty". I just left the header to "prove" my case!
Of course it could be Mel... may be he is practising?
Countdown to May 1st.
Janet Kaiser - sniffing and snorting with a stinking cold.
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Janet Kaiser
To:
Sent: 05 April 2000 21:02
Subject: Functional baloney
| |
|
