Evan Dresel on tue 25 apr 00
[I retitled this because it's kind of far from the original thread]
I went to the senior art show where a friend was displaying her very
abstract paintings. My immediate reaction was somewhat underwhelmed.
But a while later I saw her sitting on the floor in front of one of the
paintings in an enthusiastic explaination to her little sister of what
she was trying to do and doing with her painting. After listening in
for a bit I started to see a whole lot more in the work and appreciate
it more (is that why they call those college courses "art
appreciation"?). Morals:
1) Talking about art isn't alway inane babble.
2) If you are at a loss to respond to an artist, try asking about the
work. "What are you trying to accomplish here?" or some such. You will
deflect the need to render an opinion, and you might learn something.
-- Evan in W. Richland WA where the desert cheat grass is turning brown
and prickly and it is getting warm enough that even my dalmatian was
dragging tail on her walk.
Bonnie wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Mel raises a very interesting point, even for the American "in your
> face," "tell it like it is" culture. How do you say something nice about
> a work of art (and feel you have to say something) when you really don't
> like it at all. This situation arises when you are seeing a visual work
> of art for the first time, while standing right next to the artist or
> when you are hearing a new piece of music and will be talking with the
> composer and/or performer/s shortly afterwards. It's actually the same
> when you see someone you know well who has radically changed appearance
> (as in a new, very different hair style). What do you say?
>
> I've found it helps to be prepared with enthusiastic but non-commital
> responses, such as, "Wow! I can see that you put a lot into this piece."
> Or, "That was certainly different from your other work! I know I'm going
> to remember it!" Or, "That was quite a performance/piece!!!!!!!!" Most of
> us would be disappointed to get NO reaction, although we'd like to think
> that our efforts produced art that appealed to others.
>
> Clearly it's easier when we can find something genuinely positive to say,
> if only to acknowledge that the artist has improved. But for those times
> when you can't find much to say, what do you say?
>
> Bonnie
Dwiggins, Sandra (NCI) on tue 25 apr 00
Sometimes it doesn't matter if you know what the artist intended....the
piece still doesn't work... The way I learned it was, if you have to know
what the artist intended before the piece works for you, the piece doesn't
work. That's given an intelligent, aesthetically educated viewer.....
But, I think that view has changed.
Sandy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Dresel [SMTP:pedresel@3-cities.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:48 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> Subject: What to say about someone's art
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> [I retitled this because it's kind of far from the original thread]
>
> I went to the senior art show where a friend was displaying her very
> abstract paintings. My immediate reaction was somewhat underwhelmed.
> But a while later I saw her sitting on the floor in front of one of the
> paintings in an enthusiastic explaination to her little sister of what
> she was trying to do and doing with her painting. After listening in
> for a bit I started to see a whole lot more in the work and appreciate
> it more (is that why they call those college courses "art
> appreciation"?). Morals:
>
> 1) Talking about art isn't alway inane babble.
> 2) If you are at a loss to respond to an artist, try asking about the
> work. "What are you trying to accomplish here?" or some such. You will
> deflect the need to render an opinion, and you might learn something.
>
> -- Evan in W. Richland WA where the desert cheat grass is turning brown
> and prickly and it is getting warm enough that even my dalmatian was
> dragging tail on her walk.
>
>
> Bonnie wrote:
> >
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > Mel raises a very interesting point, even for the American "in your
> > face," "tell it like it is" culture. How do you say something nice about
> > a work of art (and feel you have to say something) when you really don't
> > like it at all. This situation arises when you are seeing a visual work
> > of art for the first time, while standing right next to the artist or
> > when you are hearing a new piece of music and will be talking with the
> > composer and/or performer/s shortly afterwards. It's actually the same
> > when you see someone you know well who has radically changed appearance
> > (as in a new, very different hair style). What do you say?
> >
> > I've found it helps to be prepared with enthusiastic but non-commital
> > responses, such as, "Wow! I can see that you put a lot into this piece."
> > Or, "That was certainly different from your other work! I know I'm going
> > to remember it!" Or, "That was quite a performance/piece!!!!!!!!" Most
> of
> > us would be disappointed to get NO reaction, although we'd like to think
> > that our efforts produced art that appealed to others.
> >
> > Clearly it's easier when we can find something genuinely positive to
> say,
> > if only to acknowledge that the artist has improved. But for those times
> > when you can't find much to say, what do you say?
> >
> > Bonnie
Earl Brunner on wed 26 apr 00
Still, the goal has to be to make art work that will stand
on it's own, without the explanation. We can't ask Van Gogh
what he was shooting for
with Starry Night, we can only speculate. (Unless he said
something
about it in one of his letters to Theo.) Sure the
explanation might
help, but to really suceed, the work has to work without it.
Evan Dresel wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> [I retitled this because it's kind of far from the original thread]
>
> I went to the senior art show where a friend was displaying her very
> abstract paintings. My immediate reaction was somewhat underwhelmed.
> But a while later I saw her sitting on the floor in front of one of the
> paintings in an enthusiastic explaination to her little sister of what
> she was trying to do and doing with her painting. After listening in
> for a bit I started to see a whole lot more in the work and appreciate
> it more (is that why they call those college courses "art
> appreciation"?). Morals:
>
> 1) Talking about art isn't alway inane babble.
> 2) If you are at a loss to respond to an artist, try asking about the
> work. "What are you trying to accomplish here?" or some such. You will
> deflect the need to render an opinion, and you might learn something.
>
> -- Evan in W. Richland WA where the desert cheat grass is turning brown
> and prickly and it is getting warm enough that even my dalmatian was
> dragging tail on her walk.
>
> Bonnie wrote:
> >
> > ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > Mel raises a very interesting point, even for the American "in your
> > face," "tell it like it is" culture. How do you say something nice about
> > a work of art (and feel you have to say something) when you really don't
> > like it at all. This situation arises when you are seeing a visual work
> > of art for the first time, while standing right next to the artist or
> > when you are hearing a new piece of music and will be talking with the
> > composer and/or performer/s shortly afterwards. It's actually the same
> > when you see someone you know well who has radically changed appearance
> > (as in a new, very different hair style). What do you say?
> >
> > I've found it helps to be prepared with enthusiastic but non-commital
> > responses, such as, "Wow! I can see that you put a lot into this piece."
> > Or, "That was certainly different from your other work! I know I'm going
> > to remember it!" Or, "That was quite a performance/piece!!!!!!!!" Most of
> > us would be disappointed to get NO reaction, although we'd like to think
> > that our efforts produced art that appealed to others.
> >
> > Clearly it's easier when we can find something genuinely positive to say,
> > if only to acknowledge that the artist has improved. But for those times
> > when you can't find much to say, what do you say?
> >
> > Bonnie
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
Helvi Abatiell on wed 26 apr 00
But what if the artist is truly looking for an honest response to their
works? Wouldn't it be better to be honest with them about how it makes you
feel, whether good or bad?
How will the artist know how to develop further or which way to go with their
works if the audience isn't truthful I wonder...
In a message dated 4/25/00 2:53:47 PM, pedresel@3-cities.com writes:
<< I've found it helps to be prepared with enthusiastic but non-commital
> responses, such as, "Wow! I can see that you put a lot into this piece."
> Or, "That was certainly different from your other work! I know I'm going
> to remember it!" Or, "That was quite a performance/piece!!!!!!!!" Most of
> us would be disappointed to get NO reaction, although we'd like to think
> that our efforts produced art that appealed to others. >>
vince pitelka on wed 26 apr 00
> she was trying to do and doing with her painting. After listening in
> for a bit I started to see a whole lot more in the work and appreciate
> it more (is that why they call those college courses "art
> appreciation"?). Morals:
> 1) Talking about art isn't alway inane babble.
> 2) If you are at a loss to respond to an artist, try asking about the
> work. "What are you trying to accomplish here?" or some such. You will
> deflect the need to render an opinion, and you might learn something.
Evan -
I cringe when I read statements like your #1 above. It is true that there
are some artists and critics who's writing about art is constructed with
intellectual artspeak. Such writing is not really in service of the art or
the artist. It is a way of grandstanding one's own theories and vocabulary,
imposing them upon the artwork, twisting the art to fit the dogma. In the
case of the artist writing in this fashion, especially in an artist's
statement, such language conceals rather than illuminates the true worth of
the art, and in fact sis often employed specifically to embillish work which
is vacuous and contrived.
But the above situations represent a very small fraction of art writing by
artists, reporters, or critics. If you approach art writing predisposed to
prejudice, you stand to miss the prose and depth of meaning in much art
writing, and thus the opportunity for illuminated experience and
understanding of the work
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Home - vpitelka@dekalb.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Erin Hayes on thu 27 apr 00
Hi All!
Evan's comment about talking about art not having to be inane babble
certainly reflects the mystification that many non-artists (and some of us
in the discipline) feel surrounds art. The inane babble, as Vince later
said, doesn't serve a constructive purpose for art in general, or for the
individuals involved in making and viewing it.
The situation Evan originally described is certainly hard to deal with, too.
This is an experience at student critiques during the quarter, and in
professional situations as well. In fact, my mom often gets the "deer in
headlights" look in her eye when she sees what I've been working on, mostly,
I think, because she doesn't have the experience in art to feel comfortable
offering much more than that she likes it or doesn't understand it.
I think that Art Appreciation is all about arming viewers with enough
information to feel comfortable looking at art and offering an informed
opinion, good or bad. No one expects everybody to enjoy their work, but I
think it's always helpful when you get any form of positive or negative
feedback, that it is supported with some reasoning and background to inform
that opinion. You can see then that the viewer has given their opinion some
thought and can give you something to think about as you proceed.
Erin. (Enjoying a cool spring in Central Washington.)
Eloise VanderBilt on thu 27 apr 00
Aren't there many parallels here? A cook who spends a whole day in the
kitchen and presents a meal on a beautifully set table figuratively holds
his/her breath from the initial "it LOOKS wonderful" to the final "it TASTED
wonderful". Anything less than wonderful tasting food is usually at least
acknowledged to be good food.
A poet who presents a poem at a poetry reading waits for some response. If
his language and imagery are so obtuse that no one understands it, then he
may have to explain that "I was TRYING to say such and such." But you
would probably at least acknowledge his effort. You are not required to
like it.
I think it is the same with any art form. Even if it is not my style, it is
easy for me to say "That's very creative!" When Japanese people walked
into our home in Japan, they would often say "Shibui desu ne" and my heart
would dance. But shibui only means simple, quiet, harmonious. I chose to
let the words make me happy.
Only public art critics need to give a frank opinion. They are getting paid
for it. I think the rest of us could be a little more gentle in our reaction
to art we don't like. If the artist wants to sell but doesn't sell anything
at all, he/she will soon be their own severest critic.
eloise - after eight hours in the studio cleaning, teaching, and then
unloading a kiln that broke in the middle of a firing and still in love with
pottery
Ray Aldridge on thu 27 apr 00
At 12:58 PM 4/26/00 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>But what if the artist is truly looking for an honest response to their
>works? Wouldn't it be better to be honest with them about how it makes you
>feel, whether good or bad?
>How will the artist know how to develop further or which way to go with their
>works if the audience isn't truthful I wonder...
>
In theory I agree with Helvi. The problem, from the artist's viewpoint, is
that the artist has no way of knowing if the critic is being truthful, or
if the critic is just having a bad day, or even if the critic's opinion is
worth having.
In the end, the only critic that should matter to an artist is herself.
That's not to say that criticism isn't useful. Often you can use your
reaction to criticism to help understand and articulate your own responses
to a work. If you get criticism that seems laughably inept, you can
probably disregard it. But if it makes you angry, then it's probably
worth thinking about, because it's clearly hit a nerve that was already
tender.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Evan Dresel on sat 29 apr 00
Gee vince, I *agree* with you. Although that doesn't mean that I
always have the energy to wade through the somewhat unfamiliar prose
style sometimes employed by those more accustomed to discourse about the
humanitites.
-- Evan who just had a discussion with his technical editor about
whether it was correct to use the plural word, "sediments". If you are
a geologist, it is.
vince pitelka wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> > she was trying to do and doing with her painting. After listening in
> > for a bit I started to see a whole lot more in the work and appreciate
> > it more (is that why they call those college courses "art
> > appreciation"?). Morals:
> > 1) Talking about art isn't alway inane babble.
> > 2) If you are at a loss to respond to an artist, try asking about the
> > work. "What are you trying to accomplish here?" or some such. You will
> > deflect the need to render an opinion, and you might learn something.
>
> Evan -
> I cringe when I read statements like your #1 above. It is true that there
> are some artists and critics who's writing about art is constructed with
> intellectual artspeak. Such writing is not really in service of the art or
> the artist. It is a way of grandstanding one's own theories and vocabulary,
> imposing them upon the artwork, twisting the art to fit the dogma. In the
> case of the artist writing in this fashion, especially in an artist's
> statement, such language conceals rather than illuminates the true worth of
> the art, and in fact sis often employed specifically to embillish work which
> is vacuous and contrived.
>
> But the above situations represent a very small fraction of art writing by
> artists, reporters, or critics. If you approach art writing predisposed to
> prejudice, you stand to miss the prose and depth of meaning in much art
> writing, and thus the opportunity for illuminated experience and
> understanding of the work
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Home - vpitelka@dekalb.net
> 615/597-5376
> Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
> 615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
> Appalachian Center for Crafts
> Tennessee Technological University
> 1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
> http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Evan Dresel on sat 29 apr 00
I guess I used to think this but I don't really anymore. Not that there
is anything wrong with accessible art, but that isn't really the only
way to go so I don't think it is "the goal". If I think of the pots
that really move me, some are ones that I was attracted to long before I
was very aquainted with pottery but i think my appreciation has grown
through experience, reading, and discussion. I particularly like it
when a pot or any art challenges me a bit and extends my understanding
-- something that reaches out for me and pulls me in. Sometimes though
a little help from the artist, a curator, or maybe even a
professor like Vince ;-) teaches us something. That's not a bad thing
IMO.
-- Evan in W. Richland WA where the pasture is already ready to mow.
Earl Brunner wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Still, the goal has to be to make art work that will stand
> on it's own, without the explanation. We can't ask Van Gogh
> what he was shooting for
> with Starry Night, we can only speculate. (Unless he said
> something
> about it in one of his letters to Theo.) Sure the
> explanation might
> help, but to really suceed, the work has to work without it.
| |
|
