iandol on tue 5 jun 01
I like the Art Major's 3Bs definition.
My Old Webster makes it either seem so simple or so complex,=20
from :"Something that is material"....
to ": the quality or state of being something requiring serious =
consideration by reason of being either certainly or possibly vital to =
the proper settlement of an issue"
that if artists are not totally confused or befuddled before they start =
their audience will be by the time they see the exhibit.
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia.
scott lykens on tue 5 jun 01
>ok, i think i really have a nice working definition here.
like the rest of us its from the dictionary.
ma-te-ri-al-i-ty the quality of being material
now just a few words down is what i think were are talking about. keeping in
mind that language is always in flux and how we artists obviously enjoy
renaming things as to suit our listening and pronouncing pleasure.
ma-te-ri-al-ly .. with regard to the matter content substance , and not the
can you see this changing in a panel discussion. two or more artist on stage
discussing hteir work all believing that content is very important. each
balancing the importantance of form against content in their own specific
way. one calls it materially another suggests that places not enough
emphasis on the form. the panel having mere seconds to decide on whether to
agree or argue chooses to agree. With no time to check specific definitions
its decided amoungst the panel materiality will be the word that describes
how a clay artist expresses
materially through their own specific work. it catches on folks giggle the
story told again by all of hte folks veiwing the panel, people they tell
like it too. suddenly a new word in the descriptive process
of art speak is born.
It makes sense to me. think about it. maybe all of you like it too. perhaps
a concept that a piece is about more than form, but also content, however
being clay, its quite difficult to deny certain processes acheivable best in
clay and holding hte signiture of clay.
or to use a bobby silverman piece as an example.
the peice was in a link just yesterday covering the same topic.
on appraoch the piece is more about the form it duplicates
it reminds of things not ceramic
upon closer look one can obviously see this as bowl nesting in each other,
but its organic, flower like, a little ambiguous, maybe about something
other than a pot is a pot is apot, and yet htey are pots
nice pots. but together in a nest they can imply something besides the craft
and skill of making pots.
now i like making pots.
and certainely admit it is a difficult skill to learn. some more than
others. but this isnt me calling craft this or art that or place value
judgements on the way we see. Just imagining how language is always in flux
and how confusing that might be. perhaps its mid flux, and we all wright a
about materiality and how it relates to our work, and together we can define
our new vocabularies.
well thats enough art speak linguistic nonsense from me for one day.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com