Stephani Stephenson on sat 14 jul 01
Janet wrote:
"The unfortunate part is that these artists/makers have not transcended
the comfortable and homely into totally new dimensions for
themselves and the rest of us... ."
Janet , I find merit in many of your comments but there are two lines
of reasoning with which I differ. Or maybe I am working out my own
reasoning here as I put some questions to yours.
One is that the above statements seem to lambaste the sculptor/clay
artist who steps outside the strict definition of functional work, for
not
'transcending the comfortable and homely into totally new dimensions for
themselves and the rest of us. ". That is indeed , a tall order.
Does the potter who makes ' functional ware' take on that challenge?
When a potter sits down to throw a set of mugs will the potter fail
unless they 'transcend......dimensions for themselves and the rest of
us?.." Do you see their homely and comfortable mugs as a blight on the
aesthetic landscape? Or is that standard applied only to those who do
not make traditional functional pottery? And if one works outside the
realm of functional pottery is one NOT allowed to work with something
comfortable and homely, as you say?
Why would one person be accepted, even heralded for clinging to a
tradition, while another be both slammed for stepping outside a
tradition and simultaneously slammed for NOT transcending and creating
new dimensions in art for everyone? Could you yourself rise to that
challenge? It sounds like "step over this line and you'd better be
superartist!" .
The image of the fiercely independent artist creating new worlds ,
breaking through barriers, was and is an imagined ideal . Lofty yes,
romantic, perhaps also a figment of our stereotypes about artists.
Herculean heroes are there , Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Picasso, you say
Chilhuly , but that pretty much leaves out millions of artists
throughout history and all over the world, traditional or non
traditional , making functional OR non functional work. I cannot for
the life of me figure why one decries another's attempts as falling
short while they themselves hide under the mantle of their own
traditionalism.
What I do read in your post is a cry for quality, integrity. I think
under it all, you are arguing against the fake, the fad. YES, I am with
you on this Janet, but I think you are using particularly nasty
examples of 'useless 'art , (subbing 'useless' for 'nonfunctonal'), and
applying these narrow examples with a very broad brush, to a whole big
area of work, needlessly and sweepingly stereotyping many , many people
.
It seems that you are angry at a fad, for lack of a better word at this
late hour. I understand and agree with you in some areas, but sense
that your argument colors all who reason differently with the blood red
pigment you see when you think of that fad.
Janet wrote "The first non-functional teapots were new, exciting and
cutting edge, but now is time to move on, especially for those
who are only copying the concept."
Try repeating that statement, only insert the word 'functional', instead
of 'nonfunctional'.
Now I ask you , how many times have potters copied FUNCTIONAL
teapots, COPIED the CONCEPT of FUNCTIONAL teapots. Probably a gazillion
(nonscientific number) times more often than potters copy or create
nonfunctional teapots! Must the potter 'move on' because Functional
teapots are no longer 'new, exciting and cutting edge'? One could say
in argument that the FUNCTIONAL teapot has been done to death. Or one
could say that the pseudo Japanese teabowl has been 'done to death'.
Would you agree? Yes and No, they HAVE been done to death, but it is
excusable in the pottery tradition, because the same Herculean
standards do not apply. One hopes the traditional teapot IS
discovered over and over again within that tradition. Renewal happens
even on a quiet level...everyday, so why be hypocritical about it?
In fact throughout history, copying is considered an asset. We are
primates. We are very good at aping! As soon as one person discovered
something new being done SOMEWHERE else, the trick was to bring it back
home and be the first to reproduce it. FUNCTIONAL potters are very
adept at this. Some artists ARE innovators, others are refiners,
copiers, decorators, engineers, others adapt and combine. Some start
trends, others follow. Some are market savvy, others are driven by inner
conviction. It is all there in the stew. It always has been, it always
will be. Am I promoting it? excusing it.? Am I just settling for " I'm
OK you're OK". Not really, I am just recognizing it. Recognizing the
variety of approaches taken.
Those writing on behalf of sculpture on this list ( who knows: maybe you
read that as those with 'non traditions' or 'DIFFERENT traditions' or
'people who make nonfunctional work' or 'people who make crap', ) have
been extremely respectful of the pottery tradition,, and of the
traditional opinions of those on this list.. Most make a point of
saying this. From what I have read they LOVE the best of traditional
pottery and would not think of trashing it. Many have their foundations
in it . Some will always be rooted in it, others not. Some are actually
hesitant to admit they do anything other than throw a pot with clay. It
seems to be a risky thing to say. How absurd!
Finally It seems as if the examples you present attempt to define the
discourse by reducing it solely to the merits and sins of the 'non
functional teapot.' That is an EASY target, and few will argue if you
shoot it down.You are probably right , the crest of this trend came and
went. What remains is often an exercise in ornamentation, excess,
commentary, humor or satire. So be it! Perhaps it is you who has not
moved on, hanging on to this example to prove your point. Please do not
let the narrowness of your example obscure what others are sincerely
attempting to describe about their own work or process. Potters and
artists all over the world experiment, putting together new and old. We
also experiment and fumble with words. It seems that on this list we
give each other the opportunity to not only communicate , but to reach
outside the day to day world of our studios and practice putting into
writing those thoughts which are not easily written.
Janet, your last two posts sounded defensive, as if YOU have been
attacked. Maybe I missed something, but I do not sense, cannot find,
where the attack came from. Yet you really did slam Jean who was
attempting to describe her own work, by placing the words 'ad nauseum'
next to 'domestic icons' the term she used to describe her work. I know
you take responsibility for what you say, but it seemed a low blow.
I often appreciate your fierce and uncompromising approach, and your
humor and willingness to share your real self with us . I think I see
what you are shooting at, but I also think your double barrel shotgun
hit some bystanders who were offering considered and valid points to a
group discussion.
In particular, some of the handbuilders and sculptors have been asking
for a wee bit of open mindedness in this discussion. But if WHAM is how
you feel then WHAM it is.
By the way my FAVORITE teapots are those British ones with the faces on
them. Monkeys and Pirates and moonfaces and old men. Use to gaze at
them endlessly as they sat on an aunt's shelves. Use to play teatime
with them and turn them into characters in a stage play. One woman's
detritus is another's delight.
Sincerely
Stephani Stephenson
steph@alchemiestudio.com
William Moody on mon 16 jul 01
I question the use of the term "non-functional teapot." If you can't use it
for its intended purpose then it is not a teapot but a sculpture resembling
a teapot. I make odd teapots in the shape of everyday objects such as
telephones, guitars, bricks, etc. but they all could be used if one so
desired. They do not pour or handle as nicely as a straight-forward teapot
but they are all functional. A "nonfunctional teapot" is like a photograph
of a teapot in that it is not a teapot.
P.S. It could be argued that my teapots are "poorly functional teapots" ;)
The best non functional tea pot I ever heard about had no strainer holes.
But I think many teapots illustrated in the "Glossies" would tend to be
Dysfunctional under the terms which are being argued in this thread.
iandol on mon 16 jul 01
Janet wrote "The first non-functional teapots were......"=20
The best non functional tea pot I ever heard about had no strainer =
holes.
But I think many teapots illustrated in the "Glossies" would tend to be =
Dysfunctional under the terms which are being argued in this thread.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
| |
|
