iandol on sat 31 mar 01
Well, we are getting subjective aren't we. I suppose it had to happen =
when you consider that one of the main clay foundation texts relating to =
this topic uses the human figure as the metaphor for the forms so =
popular with ceramic artists.=20
So, how obese or emaciated does form have to become before those fifty =
percent say "Whoa, that's bad form" and when do the other fifty percent =
tell you those buns have been overcooked?
Now, which of you Wits is going to ghost a reissue of Daniel Rhodes =
"Pottery Form".
Ivor.
vince pitelka on sun 1 apr 01
Ivor said:
"So, how obese or emaciated does form have to become before those fifty
percent say "Whoa, that's bad form" and when do the other fifty percent tell
you those buns have been overcooked?"
Ivor -
I can appreciate your sense of humor in these comments, but I think it is
important to point out that there is absolutely no implication of good or
bad form in comparing pottery form to human form, regardless of the extreme
of human form. I am not trying to contest or add to your post, so much as
to state my own opinion for the benefit of everyone participating in this
discussion. A pottery form could be described as emaciated or obese, but
neither would necessarily be any indication at all that the pot is good or
bad form. There is no implication whatsoever that there is any standardized
"ideal" pottery form, and it certainly could not be associated with any
standardized "ideal" of human form, because there is none.
There is an almost unlimited range of successful form to be seen in world
pottery through history. Many cultures set rigid standards in pottery form,
only to have other cultures come up with spectacular forms which defy some
or all of those standards. It has happened all over the world. At an NCECA
conference many years ago, while observing some pots on display, Michael
Cardew openly and rather harshly criticized the form and surface design of a
particular group of pots. Cardew had no idea that among the small group of
listeners were the makers, Maria and Julian Martinez. Open mouth, insert
foot up to the knee.
Human analogy and body terminology is a logical way to reference pottery
form, but there is no judgement of good or bad form in the use of that
terminology, unless embellishing adjectives provide that judgement.
And just to knock around an old but not dead issue, the human race is just
barely beginning to explore pottery form. The possibilities are unlimited.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Matt MacIntire on fri 6 apr 01
Paul wrote:
I think the good form ( for sake of argument I am accepting the conjecture
"good and bad" ) depends on balance I do not mean symmetry but balances in
to the golden mean 1 :: 1.618.
Matt replies:
That was an interesting post. Many thoughts occurred to me while reading
it.
Just curious... If you compose a rectangle that has pleasing proportions, do
you find that it has the proportions of the golden mean?
I "tested" myself one time. Sketched some rectangles that seemed "right" to
me. Then I measured them. (Some have called me anal, it is true.) Anyway,
although I think I have a good "eye," I failed the golden mean test. I find
that what MY eye responds best to is NOT the golden mean. I like my
rectangles either taller or wider. Almost as if the golden mean was a
statistical middle ground. Some "perfect" blend of vertical and horizontal,
that sort of thing. I never considered the golden mean as an objective
aesthetic goal, but rather as an objective idea that is almost statistical
in nature. The golden mean has always intrigued me, but in my experience,
art infrequently bears these very proportions.
Perhaps modern eyes seek the ECCENTRIC and crave proportions that deviate
from the mean. Perhaps this is a cultural component such as you mention. I
agree with you that this sort of analysis is only meaningful in retrospect.
But that makes me wonder why you place such high value on the golden mean.
I also wondered, do you have a background in science or mathematics?
A couple other thoughts...
Too bad you reject conceptual art out of hand. It strikes me as being just
like any other medium. I have seen good, bad, and ugly conceptual art.
Some is stupid, but some artists have raw ideas are beautiful and brilliant
and insightful. We make ugly pots sometimes. A conceptual artist similarly
may do work that is awful, or deliberately challenging. What I respect
about conceptual art is that it is about the most fundamental aspect of all
good art, that is to say conceptual art is about IDEAS. Now there is a
medium I wish I could master!
I am surprised that your supreme value is attached to craftsmanship over
creativity. I too respect impeccable craftsmanship, However, I would value
a poorly made, but brilliantly conceived artwork over a work with no
conceptual framework, but impeccable craftsmanship. Picasso comes to mind.
The guy definitely made some ugly stuff that was hastily thrown together,
but wow, old Pablo sure had some great ideas!
Is the pure perfection and craftsmanship of industrial pottery your
standard? I doubt it. If you make handmade potter, you must have some
desire for a core expression of creativity as well. Or else you would want
to design for a factory.
I also note that it seems a bit contradictory to value the golden mean so
highly as you do, yet dissociate yourself from any conceptual framework.
What you describe as the basis for "good form" seems to me to have all the
earmarks of a CONCEPTUAL approach to your work!
Matt
Paul Taylor on fri 6 apr 01
Dear Ivor
I think the form argument can go on forever especially since we are
asking a question that has no scientific answer but fortunately enough that
does not bar us from trying.
I think the good form ( for sake of argument I am accepting the conjecture
"good and bad" ) depends on balance I do not mean symmetry but balances in
to the golden mean 1 :: 1.618. The form does not have to contain those
proportions it can break the rule but it has to have a philosophical contact
with that rule so it is breaking that rule for a reason. A strong image may
break the rule if the breaking of that rule is what is giving the image
it's poignancy so therefore still bears reference to the golden mean -
therefore is good form.
This reference to the Mean can be as obscure as you like; for example a
blank canvas implies it will be filled with a composition that does follow
the golden mean.
And to confuse matters even further the golden mean may be working on
all sorts of levels . Like a shape may be in total disregard of the golden
mean but the enviroment the shape is put into brings the object into the
context of natures proportions . A pot can be hideous but imaginatively
placed can take on a new form exterior to its self.
What's more subjectivity now has a role to play . The connections actual
and philosophical that we accept and or can see within the rule govern our
judgement good or bad of what we are looking at ( or experiencing) . The
rule of context makes the whole exercise of art and creation have infinite
possibilities whilst still being tied down to a rule 1 :: 1.618
(understanding - that we all share and accept) -- artists and craftsmen
work within this apparent contradiction.
I believe this to be the dynamic of creation its self
So by this argument many can agree on what good form is, but since,
context, culture and subjectivity play such a large role in our vision one
persons balance may be another's over the top depending on how much the
viewer understands or accepts the context he is viewing the object in. I for
instance do not accept the context of conceptual art. I have little respect
for creativity it is too easy to do as opposed to craftsmanship which
reflects the sole.
As a mater of association if I see a clever instillation it reminds me
that I am in a society that cares little for its enviroment and has a major
part of the world crippled by usuary . When I see craftsmanship I see
poverty and materialism transcended I look at a piece of bronze age art and
I see the humanity of the person that made it and I am over awed by the
vision of perfection that person had and the sophistication of his
understanding. So my judgement of form is within this context.
When I judge form I also tend to be non accepting of self expression that
does not communicate - a self expression that selfishly demands to be
understood. This all makes me seem rather conservative. Fortunately I only
need a few toys to play with- well with in the means of a modest living -
so I am free to be what I want.
So even if I perceive this rule working; the rule is practically useless
for judging any thing by . When I work I work instinctively. I carry the
understanding of good form as part of my make up mental and physical its
only after that I may see what I have done in the intellectual sense.
Knowing about proportion and composition only helps me after the event.
Usually trying to diagnose what went wrong !
So to conclude I teach what makes a good form to my students by referring
to the golden mean. But intellect has to be in harmony with feeling so the
student has to work hard drawing and practicing to make good form a
spontaneous instinct.
-- Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Those that live by rhetoric will lie by it
> From: iandol
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:18:23 +0930
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Subject: more form
>
> Well, we are getting subjective aren't we. I suppose it had to happen when you
> consider that one of the main clay foundation texts relating to this topic
> uses the human figure as the metaphor for the forms so popular with ceramic
> artists.
> So, how obese or emaciated does form have to become before those fifty percent
> say "Whoa, that's bad form" and when do the other fifty percent tell you those
> buns have been overcooked?
Paul Taylor on sun 8 apr 01
Dear Matt
You are right - I over did it a little - well a lot! you will have to
excuse the hyperbolae it's cultural.
I am not going to discuss conceptual art in detail because I no longer
know enough about it and I have discussed it too much in the seventies when
I decided it was not for me. Also I am faced by the prospect that because I
am not that interested in it I am not qualified to comment but no one seems
to challenge the conceptualists as being too self invested to be objective
either. I knew I should have left it out of the post the minute I sent it.
My essential point was that a discussion of form is intellectual because
it can not be any thing else unless it is a rhetorical exchange just on the
lines of 'mine is better than yours'.
I am championing the golden mean as a starting point to discuss good
form and even though the forms being discussed may deviate from the mean the
viewer and the creator has the mean as the starting point be it conscious or
subconscious for judging whether hes is comfortable with the shape . Further
if the object is not comfortable to look at the concept takes over and
becomes part of the balance . It's a bit like ; if you use a musical note
purposely played flat. If you have a logical reason that the listener can
follow for doing it only then does a flat note becomes acceptable.
There is a distinct difference between creation and criticism I do not
use such logical thinking to create I use vision as you do to work by .
Artists are not supposed to be able to do both it seems to be taken for
granted that the two are in some way mutually exclusive. Artists that can
not cope with the art :) of criticism can be very dismissive of it . I know
how artist feel to be rejected.
I find the world of consepulism trite because it seems to be driven by sudo
intellectualism and is never criticized on any understandable model.
Unfortunately there is a catch twenty two situation in that criticism is the
only thing that will dislodge it form its establishment but since its
foundation is in criticism and not in vision (it is usualy better than it
looks) I feel it is very difficult to talk about conceptual art no curater
would be interested and it is rarely criticized just ignored . I have never
seen a damming critique of a conceptual exhibition . A film for instance
even a good film will have some negative criticism attached to it . The art
criticism I see is never negative it reads more like marketing than
criticism. It usually reads like an intellectual proving to every body that
he can read the hidden signes in the work, those deep sensibilities of those
sophisticates in the know - not obvious to the untrained eye.
The rights of spring caused riots. In drama the Abbey theater was nearly
burnt down by the audience on seeing the "Playboy of the western world" -
that's a reaction. Conceptualism is just ignored by every body except the
few intellectuals that pretend to under stand it. I like some conceptualism
especially in the film medium. And some environmental stuff like Andy Golds
worthy but I would call his stuff sculpture.
So some conceptualism does get through . But as an artist I criticize its
intellectualism and the grotesque as easy and would prefer to see good
craftsmanship as opposed to trite concepts. Of course like you if I am
looking at both a good idea and Immaculate craftsmanship I appreciate the
genius.
The pots by picasso you mentioned were about imagery and the image is
enhanced by the direct making ; and the craftsmanship is not that bad and he
is a master at composition - golden sections every where.
The pots decorated by him are a prime example of my thesis. If the
design of the pots were not as strong as the image the image would have
dominated the pot beyond the balance of the mean and would have not have
worked as well . The viewer would have to see the pots as separate to the
whole if the pots were not made in the direct style - but the craftsmanship
is not that bad as to detract .
To put it another way imagine a rectangle devided vertically along the
mean and the smaller rectangle devided again along the mean . the biggest
square is picassos image loud and strong the next size square is the pot
directly made and the small square is the craftsmanship adequate but not
flashy. and all the squares have on another level harmonies that also refer
to the golden mean. The line of the image balances the color by the mean,
the shape of the pot changes slightly on or in easy reference the mean and
the subtitles of the craftsmanship may do the same. ( I am looking at
picasso's ceramics as I write this).
From all that It is obvious that picasso's orchestration would have to be
done instinctively . In the same way as your rectangles are deviant from the
mean might give them a certain caricature. I was not saying that shape
depends on the correct following of the mean but that the golden mean was
the best tool to use when discussing good form and composition - it's two
dimensional brother.
I Think there is a harmony between intellect and instinct (feeling) . I
have bothered with this post because many would be good potters are stuck
because they know what good form is but can not understand why it is . If
they learn some of the basic tricks they can push start themselves by
getting used to the simple rule , And evolve later on to handle the personal
and more complicated ideas that they have with greater confidence.
Some will find this whole discussion unnecessary limiting, for them the
delete button is in the right hand corner just by the intersection of the
golden mean on their keyboard.
-- Regards from Paul Taylor
http://www.anu.ie/westportpottery
Those that live by rhetoric will lie by it
> From: Matt MacIntire
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:04:39 -0400
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: Subject: more form
>
> Paul wrote:
> I think the good form ( for sake of argument I am accepting the conjecture
> "good and bad" ) depends on balance I do not mean symmetry but balances in
> to the golden mean 1 :: 1.618.
>
>
> Matt replies:
>
> That was an interesting post. Many thoughts occurred to me while reading
> it.
>
> Just curious... If you compose a rectangle that has pleasing proportions, do
> you find that it has the proportions of the golden mean?
>
> I "tested" myself one time. Sketched some rectangles that seemed "right" to
> me. Then I measured them. (Some have called me anal, it is true.) Anyway,
> although I think I have a good "eye," I failed the golden mean test. I find
> that what MY eye responds best to is NOT the golden mean. I like my
> rectangles either taller or wider. Almost as if the golden mean was a
> statistical middle ground. Some "perfect" blend of vertical and horizontal,
> that sort of thing. I never considered the golden mean as an objective
> aesthetic goal, but rather as an objective idea that is almost statistical
> in nature. The golden mean has always intrigued me, but in my experience,
> art infrequently bears these very proportions.
>
> Perhaps modern eyes seek the ECCENTRIC and crave proportions that deviate
> from the mean. Perhaps this is a cultural component such as you mention. I
> agree with you that this sort of analysis is only meaningful in retrospect.
> But that makes me wonder why you place such high value on the golden mean.
>
>
> I also wondered, do you have a background in science or mathematics?
>
>
> A couple other thoughts...
>
> Too bad you reject conceptual art out of hand. It strikes me as being just
> like any other medium. I have seen good, bad, and ugly conceptual art.
> Some is stupid, but some artists have raw ideas are beautiful and brilliant
> and insightful. We make ugly pots sometimes. A conceptual artist similarly
> may do work that is awful, or deliberately challenging. What I respect
> about conceptual art is that it is about the most fundamental aspect of all
> good art, that is to say conceptual art is about IDEAS. Now there is a
> medium I wish I could master!
>
> I am surprised that your supreme value is attached to craftsmanship over
> creativity. I too respect impeccable craftsmanship, However, I would value
> a poorly made, but brilliantly conceived artwork over a work with no
> conceptual framework, but impeccable craftsmanship. Picasso comes to mind.
> The guy definitely made some ugly stuff that was hastily thrown together,
> but wow, old Pablo sure had some great ideas!
>
> Is the pure perfection and craftsmanship of industrial pottery your
> standard? I doubt it. If you make handmade potter, you must have some
> desire for a core expression of creativity as well. Or else you would want
> to design for a factory.
>
> I also note that it seems a bit contradictory to value the golden mean so
> highly as you do, yet dissociate yourself from any conceptual framework.
> What you describe as the basis for "good form" seems to me to have all the
> earmarks of a CONCEPTUAL approach to your work!
>
>
>
> Matt
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
| |
|
