iandol on sun 8 apr 01
Dear Mat,
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
I appreciate what Paul had to say but still come up against the problem =
of giving definition to "Form". Until a consensus is achieved then we =
seem to be going off at tangents and not getting down to the essence.
I believe I have already remarked that there can be a considerable =
emotional flux generated by made objects. Is my observation correct? Do =
comments and criticism ignore this? Many expressions seem to be value =
laden and culturally endorsed. Good-Bad-Beautiful-Ugly spring to mind. =
If the middle ground is Indifference, what is "Form"?
Best regards,
Ivor.=20
craig clark on mon 9 apr 01
I tell people that form is the relationship that the overall piece in
question has to itself. In the instance of a pot, I define the form of the
pot as the relationship of the pots shape to the elements of the pot that
are estabablished by that shape. By this I mean the relation of the foot,
belly/body, shoulder, neck and lip to each other as outlined by the shape of
the piece.
In a quote un quote "good" pot with a "good" form there "ought" to be a
"good" balance between the elements. (So much for attempting to define what
is good and bad. Yes it is subjective.)
What is bad form is easier for me.
To borrow from an old East Texas saying, bad form really chaps my ass.
That's the form that results from the inability to center and throw a
balanced (concentric) piece to begin with (if this is the intent), letting
this lack of craft become the defining statement of the form, and then
attempting to pass the piss poor pot off as art, thereby reducing art to
ineffectual happenstance based on lack of ability.
As far as the question of ugly or beautiful goes, I haven't a clue. I know
what pleases me but that doesn't really amount to doodly-squat nor does it
even begin to address the question of beauty anymore than what I've said
addresses the question of the good. Didn't a abunch of old dead Greek guys
talk about this at lenght awhile back?
Craig Dunn Clark ( my legal name)
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas (earth address)
(713) 861-2083 (land locked voice communicaiton line #, don't own a cell and
don't want one)
mudman@hal-pc.org (dorky handle at my favorite computer users group, don't
ask me why I picked it other than the fact that I Love Mud!!! I'm a man!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know it's a cleshay
-----Original Message-----
From: iandol
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Monday, April 09, 2001 7:33 AM
Subject: Form. A vote for Art, ugly or conceptual
Dear Mat,
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
I appreciate what Paul had to say but still come up against the problem of
giving definition to "Form". Until a consensus is achieved then we seem to
be going off at tangents and not getting down to the essence.
I believe I have already remarked that there can be a considerable emotional
flux generated by made objects. Is my observation correct? Do comments and
criticism ignore this? Many expressions seem to be value laden and
culturally endorsed. Good-Bad-Beautiful-Ugly spring to mind. If the middle
ground is Indifference, what is "Form"?
Best regards,
Ivor.
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
| |
|
