Larry Phillips on thu 14 sep 00
vince pitelka wrote:
>
> > Nope. The only thing I have seen that I don't consider crap are some of
> > his charcoal sketches, and they are merely adequate, in my opinion. I
> > haven't seen any of his ceramic work either, though.
>
> You are of course entitled to your own opinions of Picasso and his work, and
> after the above post I certainly am not going to waste my time trying to
> help you understand him, but I have to wonder why you would want to
> grandstand such arrogance on Clayart.
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion of me, but I don't see
it as arrogance at all. I have this idea that art is in the eye of the
beholder; that if an artist fails to reach me with his communication, I
have no obligation to consider his work to be anything other than what I
perceive it to be. Do you really expect me to believe that you agree
with any consensus of an artists worth, on no more basis than that the
consensus exists?
If so, why would you bother to look at, listen to, feel, or otherwise
experience any art at all, if all you need to know is what others think
of it?
--
Hukt on fonix werkt fer me!
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
vince pitelka on thu 14 sep 00
> Nope. The only thing I have seen that I don't consider crap are some of
> his charcoal sketches, and they are merely adequate, in my opinion. I
> haven't seen any of his ceramic work either, though.
Larry -
You are of course entitled to your own opinions of Picasso and his work, and
after the above post I certainly am not going to waste my time trying to
help you understand him, but I have to wonder why you would want to
grandstand such arrogance on Clayart.
- 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/
Larry Phillips on fri 15 sep 00
Lori Leary wrote:
>
> Larry,
> Crap. Hmmm.... That can mean lots of things. What I want to
> know: Can you describe exactly why his work is crap to you?
I thought I had explained that pretty well. There is nothing in it that
communicates anything of significance to me.
> I am not taking umbrage at your dislike of Picasso's art; you are
> certainly welcome to your opinions. It bothers me to hear what seems to
> me to be a narrowminded view of Picasso's work as well as what strikes
> me to be a kneejerk response to his art.
Narrow-minded? What I said was not a reasoned argument as to why his
work is inferior. It was an offhand comment that I still don't like it.
Knee-jerk? Hardly. I stated my opinion, as a small part of making a
larger point, and the sound of jerking knees came from Picasso fans.
> The general public (it seems to me) has very little understanding of art
> and makers of art. Remarks such as yours only perpetuate the myths and
> confusions surrounding art in general.
Do you in some way think I am unique? Do you think I am the only one who
doesn't appreciate Picasso? I perpetuate no myths. I tell you that I
don't appreciate some body or artworks. Read no more than that into it.
--
Hukt on fonix werkt fer me!
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
Larry Phillips on fri 15 sep 00
J Paul Watkins wrote:
>
> Judging ART is not in "the eye of the beholder".... Preference is in the
> eye of the beholder....you don't have to know anything to express
> preference of an object whether art or broccoli... you can like it but
> that is not the basis of judgement....
In order to decide if I like it or not, I am making a judgement.
> the more we learn about art the more we are capable of understanding
> what we are looking at and then we won't take the easy way out and
> just call it "crap"...
It's crap to those that see it as ugly or mediocre. If the viewer later
see it as meaningful, it becomes non-crap _to that viewer_. This does
not mean that it was actually crap, or that those who see it as non-crap
are wrong.
> this is not just my opinion... it is based on 40 years of
> study, research and teaching art on secondary and university levels and
> helping students learn and begin to appreciate "crap" because they become
> visually literate...
Fine. I have no idea if you read the posting that I made that started
this controversy, but in case you didn't, this was __precisely__ my
point. I had not appreciated van Gogh at all, when all I had seen was
pictures of hiw works. I changed my mind, suddenly and profoundly, when
I saw one of his works up close. Seeing Picasso's work up close did not
have any effect on my opinion of it. If it does next week or next year,
I'll be happy to admit that I changed my mind.
> and it is based on a tremendous wealth of research
> and information easily accessed through art education literature...
All the research in the world would not make me hang one of his pictures
in my home at this time.
--
Hukt on fonix werkt fer me!
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
J Paul Watkins on fri 15 sep 00
Judging ART is not in "the eye of the beholder".... Preference is in the
eye of the beholder....you don't have to know anything to express
preference of an object whether art or broccoli... you can like it but
that is not the basis of judgement....
Art is judged on significant requirements including
universality of concept or idea, development of that idea through the
unique interpretation based on intensity and depth
of personal experience, acquired and developed skills in the use of tools,
materials and techniques, knowledge and use of design concepts, and the
ability to communicate your idea through the media of choice related to
the idea.... our responsibility as artists/craftspeople is to educate the
visual literacy of others that do not understand how to look at visual
communication... it encompasses a tremendous amount of knowledge.. the
same as the ability to read the written word and make sense of what the
words say.... we study English grammar, literature and write essays for at
least 12 years in public school and still have difficulty in communication
so how can we expect people that have never studied visual communication
to understand what they are viewing without educating them... the more we
learn about art the more we are capable of understanding what we are
looking at and then we won't take the easy way out and just call it
"crap"... this is not just my opinion... it is based on 40 years of
study, research and teaching art on secondary and university levels and
helping students learn and begin to appreciate "crap" because they become
visually literate... and it is based on a tremendous wealth of research
and information easily accessed through art education literature...
Paul Watkins
---------------------------------------------------
http://web.utk.edu/~watkins/redshed.html
Lori Leary on fri 15 sep 00
Larry,
Crap. Hmmm.... That can mean lots of things. What I want to
know: Can you describe exactly why his work is crap to you?
I am not taking umbrage at your dislike of Picasso's art; you are
certainly welcome to your opinions. It bothers me to hear what seems to
me to be a narrowminded view of Picasso's work as well as what strikes
me to be a kneejerk response to his art. The general public (it seems
to me) has very little understanding of art and makers of art. Remarks
such as yours only perpetuate the myths and confusions surrounding art
in general.
Just my thoughts,
Lori
lleary@sccoast.net
Pawleys Island, SC USA
Diane G. Echlin on fri 15 sep 00
J Paul Watkins wrote:
> Art is judged on significant requirements including
> universality of concept or idea, development of that idea through the
> unique interpretation based on intensity and depth
> of personal experience, acquired and developed skills in the use of tools,
> materials and techniques, knowledge and use of design concepts, and the
> ability to communicate your idea through the media of choice related to
> the idea....
Paul,
This is the clearest statement on defining "art" I've ever seen. Thank you! I'm
going back to college in January to get my BFA, and the one non-studio course I'm
really looking forward to is art history. I picked up a two-volume text recently,
and I think it took an entire chapter to say what you just summed up in a few
phrases. One thing, though, that makes me nervous, is my perception (and I could
be wrong) that in studying art, and specifically painting, we read into many pieces
much more than the artist may have intended. I'm well aware of the amount of
symbolism that is contained within the realm of religious art, but I wonder about
Picasso or Van Gogh or Jackson Pollock. I spent 4 years analyzing William Faulkner
to death: I hope I won't be asked to over analyze all these artists! (Please
understand I haven't taken any Art History, so my comments are based on my own
limited observation)
Comments?
Diane in CT
vince pitelka on fri 15 sep 00
> Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion of me, but I don't see
> it as arrogance at all. I have this idea that art is in the eye of the
> beholder; that if an artist fails to reach me with his communication, I
> have no obligation to consider his work to be anything other than what I
> perceive it to be. Do you really expect me to believe that you agree
> with any consensus of an artists worth, on no more basis than that the
> consensus exists?
> If so, why would you bother to look at, listen to, feel, or otherwise
> experience any art at all, if all you need to know is what others think
> of it?
I'm sorry Larry, but you missed my point. I have no problem at all with
your opinions, or with you stating your opinions. I certainly do not expect
anyone to agree with the majority, and I never stated anything to make you
think thiat I did. I just have to wonder why anyone would use such extreme
language in condemning one of the most important artists of the 20th century
on this forum, knowing full well that they will raise hackles and get
flamed. So tell me why you do that. If it is not a huge cyber-soap-box,
then what is it?
- 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/
Larry Phillips on fri 15 sep 00
vince pitelka wrote:
>
> I'm sorry Larry, but you missed my point. I have no problem at all with
> your opinions, or with you stating your opinions. I certainly do not expect
> anyone to agree with the majority, and I never stated anything to make you
> think thiat I did. I just have to wonder why anyone would use such extreme
> language in condemning one of the most important artists of the 20th century
> on this forum, knowing full well that they will raise hackles and get
> flamed.
First of all, I don't consider my language extreme. I have done nothing
more than state (and in an offhand manner), what I think of Picasso's
art. I am somewhat taken aback by the ferocity of the disagreement, and
wonder why some folks seem to think I am not entitled to an opinion.
> So tell me why you do that.
I do nothing but tell the truth as I see it. Would you have me say that
his art moves me deeply, when the truth is that I wouldn't give it wall
space at any price?
> If it is not a huge cyber-soap-box, then what is it?
I made a point, or so I thought, that not all artists are appreciated by
all people, and additionally, that what doesn't do it for me today,
might do it tomorrow. Apparently, I gored the wrong ox.
Make no mistake about it, I am not saying that you (or anyone else) is
wrong in feeling that he was a great artist. I am not saying that you
can't appreciate him. I don't, in spite of the opinions of a lot of
others. That's it. That's all. What's the big deal?
--
Hukt on fonix werkt fer me!
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
frank ozereko on sat 16 sep 00
It may be interesting to examine the role of the "designer" or
"director" in making craft and art objects in the Picasso debate.
Picasso followed the accepted practice of his day to make his
artistic objects. He worked closely with people whose skills and
knowledge he respected. Outstanding , influential and revolutionary
work (my opinion) was made using this process.
If we contemporary ceramic artists examine Picasso's ceramic process
with an open mind,we will note that his methods of creating objects
were/are very similar to other ceramic traditions and cultures, such
as Chinese ceramics. We don't dis Chinese ceramics because the
person who threw the pot is different from the other group of artists
who trimmed, fired, glazed and overglazed the individual piece.
Throughout history, artists or designers have and will work closely
with a potter, glassblower, weaver, papermaker etc to create an
object. Entire traditions of art-making come from this process.
Consider Italy's incredible sensibility about design which comes from
its linkage between industry, individual artist, crafter, factory
etc. If printmakers were having this discussion, the issue of
Picasso's work as an important printmaker (and he may be one of the
most influential in the 20th century) is not discussed on the basis
of whether or not he printed, cut or etched each print he made.
Why get uptight about throwing? Why is someone less of an artist
if he didnt throw the pot? Why is the object less worthy of
consideration if it wasnt entirely made by the artist? How far do we
extend these rules? Did Picasso have to mine the clay as well? Is
a movie of less value because one person didnt act, direct, write,
distribute, create special effects etc for it?
Re: the Betty Woodman and Voulkos connection. Of course they were
influenced by Picasso and Italian Futurist ceramics as well. The
most original of artists have the ability to enlarge/ continue/
extend the traditions begun by ALL art activity, to include ceramic
activity, from the beginning of time. Picasso did enlarge the
dialogue of ceramic activity. To my knowledge he was the first clay
artist who was able to enter a clay studio, pick up broken clay
flues, roof tiles, floor tiles and shards from the floor and make
wonderful, imaginative and meaningful artistic statements using
pieces that had been ignored by centuries of ceramic artists.
Diane Mead on sat 16 sep 00
Dear FRank:
Thanks for the following. With printmaking experience, I agree. I made that
point in another post, and you too, make that valid point.
The collaborative efforts Picasso involved himself in make more sense to me
when I view them in light of an area I know, (in this case, prints).
Thanks for a good post that lends credence to this discussion! It is
obviously worth examining since we all still feel compelled to get invovled
in it.
diane mead
georgia
snip, from Frank. . . . . . . . . . . . .
If printmakers were having this discussion, the issue of
>Picasso's work as an important printmaker (and he may be one of the
>most influential in the 20th century) is not discussed on the basis
>of whether or not he printed, cut or etched each print he made.
>
>Why get uptight about throwing? Why is someone less of an artist
>if he didnt throw the pot? Why is the object less worthy of
>consideration if it wasnt entirely made by the artist? How far do we
>extend these rules? Did Picasso have to mine the clay as well? Is
>a movie of less value because one person didnt act, direct, write,
>distribute, create special effects etc for it?
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
| |
|
