Erin Hayes on sat 16 sep 00
Hi All!
I question the idea that anything is universally understood, much less =
something as complex as art. When it can be manifested in so many ways =
in so many cultures for so many reasons, how could we ever hope to =
understand "it?" Art isn't really a single "it" I would hold, but an =
broad and nearly limitless area. Certainly since it is made by human =
beings there will be strong connections which underpin art in different =
cultures, but universal understanding is something that for me would =
take some of the individual discovery out of it.
Somebody mentioned that they thought Art Appreciation classes were =
useless unless you already liked art. This sounds like a point of =
confusion between appreciation =3D admiration and appreciation =3D =
awareness. I feel that those who feel confused by art can most benefit =
from a class that helps them be more aware of the breadth of art =
behaviors, but I guarantee they won't necessarily admire some of them. =
Admiration is a personal decision. Awareness creates the context in =
which you make those decisions.
Mouthing off again,
Erin.
Paul Taylor on sun 17 sep 00
Dear All
My favorite quote I can not remember where it is from "one mans
Parthenon is another mans marble quarry".
A friend of mine found a Korean celadon dish at a jumble sale because he
could see the article beyond the context and by putting it in the prime
place in his living room he redefined this humble object as a work of art.
I do not understand why he chose this dish when a more significant
intellectual statement could have been made by displaying a crushed gas
canister.
I have a conceptual nature and find the serendipity of juxtaposed
images that make up the cooperation tip a stimulating experience.
Other less able conceptualists in our post modernist era feel obliged to
place this spectacle in a museum - calling it an instillation. This is a
synicle act of vandalism . Trash, for the full artistic experience, should
be seen as a whole.
However I do believe that some objects have a value in them
selves and are out of place in the dump because they destroy the feeling of
unity that is the visual tip experience. I feel that if I remove crafted
articles, beautiful pieces of furniture, meatal work et all I am augmenting
the conceptual whole.
I get away with this, because my lady would not have anything in the house
that did not have some sort of intrinsic value. I cooperate with this lack
of sophistication out of love.
However although understanding that context is of primary importance my
very own criteria for deciding whether an art object is worth while is 'If I
saw it on the dump could I take it home'.
-- Regards Paul Taylor.
Westport Pottery, Liscarney, County Mayo. Ireland.
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery/
Ps toall. Please paragraph your posts and put a blank line in between the
paragraphs. I have great difficulty reading large blocks of type from a
screen.
> From: Erin Hayes
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:56:50 -0700
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Art being universally understood?
>
> Hi All!
> universal
> understanding is something that for me would take some of the individual
> discovery out of it.
>
> Mouthing off again,
>
> Erin.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
