Philip on sun 8 apr 01
to artimater...
Dear artimater,
Well, after some vexation and catharsis, I have decided that the most
sense this can make, or the best sense which may be made of it, is to
propose that we
find a 'fresh' start, and accept that a misunderstanding had arisen from my
little
'post' of some days back, about what to 'say' in a casual manner, when
ASKED to
do so, about whether one LIKES some 'form'.
Now I do 'get' that something in that had set you off, and I have
ruminated at some length as to how I maybe had spoke with less care than I
ought to
have, or than was befitting the earnest nature of the subject.
It is clear to me that this is a passionate area for you, and I can admire
that well enough.
I see that there are ways in which my 'post' could be read that would make
it sound callous or negative, or stupid even...even though it didn't have
that way about it in my thought when I wrote it.
I hope you may see that it was not meant to be too 'serious', and yet I
realize, that it has served to evoke a serious and genuine consideration:
that very real and authentic feelings and influences
are at stake, present and vulnerable, in those occasions when our 'Work',
or our 'Art' is being evaluated or 'critiqued'.
I would not dispute the confusion, harm or discouragement which a
sarcastic, flippant, demeaning, negative or postureing 'criticism' can have,
in the guise of a 'critique', or the waste of what might otherwise have been
an important moment and an opportunity for growth, progress, assimilation
and confidence.
I do not think we would have any disagreement , or any lack of appreciation
as to how regrettable these abuses, impostures or impositions are. I have
known them only too well sometimes.
As we both may know, these things happen in 'life' as well: they happened
just now with you and me.
You figure I had it comeing for saying such "crap", and then I figure you
got it comming for attacking me outta
the blue like that. I didn't 'like' your 'critique' and attack of me, You
didn't like my
'post'.
Well...so we both are 'justified', and can each feel that the other fellow
'started it'...
...or in many abstract or other 'situations' in which people may interact,
the 'informal-critique' of things, of all kinds of things, and often, these
are only 'abstractly' formed and informed, or not informed at all, except
as that we have some association, some 'trigger', or one 'likes' or does
not 'like' something...and sometimes...they...'we' say so...even IF we were
not asked...yes?
The scenario in my little 'post' was one in which the 'respondant' WAS
'asked'...I would like you to meditate some little bit, on how your
'critique' of me, and of my 'post' were NOT 'asked' for...
Do you see what you were doing?
Is it not the thing you avow, and very reasonably, to 'hate'?
Now maybe you decided that you don't 'like' me very much, and maybe I am
satisfied to feel something similar about you.
This may have been a lot like the casual and 'bad' critiques we would
otherwise be smart enough TO see through.
Some 'teacher' thinking someone 'has-it-commin' cause of their 'wrong' or
'crappy' or
'how-dare-they-expect-me-NOT-to-see-this-crap'...pot/bowl/vase/'post',
dumb-ass-comment, or seeming to be of one...or whatever.
What is the difference?
Maybe we've been 'boom-a-ranged' into just such a sin of ommision and
commission: in not
seeing what was happening in our reactions...your 'reaction' to my post,
my reaction to your
reaction.
What do you think on this last couple paragraphs?
Did we screw up?
I cannot say what 'Good Form' is, in a global way, and it is not a phrase I
ever even use anyway.
You can keep THAT 'hot-potatoe' for your own lunch!
I think we owe it to our respective intelligences, and to whomever may see
fit to squint at our sorry 'posts', that this has nothing to do with
'criticism', OR with 'form', but with enmity , and maybe the justifications
one may 'have' for it...
'Criticism' has been a very misused term, you misuse it to suit the
disguises of your provocations and meanness...which is how the connotations
of 'criticism' are often OF the disguises which rudeness and enmity may
assume...the 'pretext of criticism' is often a disguise for bullies, angry
and or callous
folk of varied incidental or deliberate manipulations and impostures...yes?
And I think that that is something which you do not like, any more than I
do.
I think that is where we went sideways.
So, let's not abuse 'criticism', or 'pretend' that it may be a disguise
for hostile meddleing,
vengence, meanness and bullying.
Fair enough?
Or maybe we may decide TO find, or adopt some respectful disposition
toward
oneanother...if not 'for' eachother, then 'for' the kind people on this
'List'.
I'd be allright with that...I'd be happy to give that a
whirl.
Live and learn?
Does this settle matters some what better than where they'd stood?
'Regards',
Phil
Las Vegas, Nevada
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "artimater"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 6:03 AM
> Subject: critique and form my offline email
>
>
> The following is my offline post to Phil:
>
> Settle down....for one who seemed so ready to criticize.....you don't
take
> it very well.....Everyone has said that crap in critiques....It is the way
> everyone has been taught...It does not make it right....If you read the
post
> I made a little slower you might even find some humor, not to mention some
> truth about what critiques ought to be....My line about your spelling was
a
> joke and unimportant as was the line about mel......He quickly wrote me
that
> I might turn out to be a good clayarter, and that I had good
> information....Of course he would deny it if askedHEHEHEHE.......Besides,
I
> only gave you a little hotfoot between friends(Contrary to Matt's post)
The
> dunghill line of yours was an example of "projection"....It is a defense
> mechanism....If it will make you feel better, go to my webpages and
critique
> three pieces free
> Happy potting,
> Rush
>
> For what it's worth there it is, on line for all of clayart to
read....If
> you think that was rude, you should see what might happen if I was on the
> receiving end of one of your, "I don't like" critiques...which I consider
> very rude...Please read all the posts of the last couple weeks about the
> issue of "good and bad form"....If you or anyone else has anything besides
> personal attack and flip remark to add I would be very interested in
reading
> it.....judgment of form is a very important issue to all potters....My
> original reply to your post was not a personal attack but a condemnation
of
> the attitude with which most critiques are conducted...If you have to have
> some sort of apology you can have it....I don't know you from Joe Schmoo,
> but I immediately recognized the destructive crap you cited as acceptable
> critique....I believe a critique should be a time for rejoicing in the
> progress of fellow artists...not boot camp(soldier, thin that bottom!-what
> are you? some kinda maroon?)
> If you would be so kind as to enlighten us all as to what exactly,
> besides lack of technical problems, constitutes "good form" we will all be
> eternally grateful...At this point I believe what you think is "good form"
> might just be what YOU think is "good form"
> BTW, I'm glad I got to repost this email; it gave me a chance to use
> spell checker on itHEHEHEHE....And how bout you mel...You gonna admit you
> said I might be OK afterall?
> wishing you all only good forms,
> Rush
> "I only indulge when I've seen a snake, so I keep a supply of indulgences
> and snakes handy"
> http://www.geocities.com/artimator/index.html
> artimator@earthlink.net
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
> __
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
|
