John Jensen on sat 11 aug 01
The minute I put a bandaid on someones finger, I'm a doctor? When I check
the oil on my car, I'm a mechanic? When I hang a picture, I'm an interior
decorator? And so forth. I don't think the act of making a pot makes me a
potter, except in some very narrow definition of the word. If I color in a
picture does that make me an artist? I don't think so. If I lay some brick
in my garden, am I then a mason? If I paint my house, am I a house painter?
I don't thinks so.
Ask an regular kind of person what they are and you'll get answers like:
I'm a carpenter (I build houses for a living), I'm an accountant (I keep
financial records for people for a living), or whatever. Ask further and
you may find that the person has a hobby like golf, tennis, gardening; but
more than likely they will not claim to be a golfer, tennis player, or
gardener unless they are very serious about their hobby.
So what are the arts? Painting, music, dance, literature, sculpture, to
name the obvious ones. All the crafts such as pottery, glass, jewelry, wood
turning, and so on may easily be classified as the arts. So if you do these
things for a living then you are an artist. Or if you are serious about
these things as an avocation or hobby then you may call yourself an artist.
If you do make your living at some sort of art, probably you don't think
very much about whether or not to call yourself an artist...it's just too
obvious to think about.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery, Annapolis, Md.
mudbug@toad.net www.Toadhouse.com
Gayle Bair on sun 12 aug 01
Art has been in my life for at least 50 out of my 55 years. From sculpting
the sand at the beach, drawing in coloring books to being in shows and
galleries now. My fondest childhood memories always involve art or
appreciating whatever I perceived as art. My most life altering events
with the exception of children/family issues) revolved and still revolve
around the arts.
Whether I am painting, potting, sculpting, designing flower beds, decorating
a cake or arranging towels in a closet I approach it as an art. The only
thing that changes is the medium I use.
I have no problem calling myself an artist and you are right Jon...I never
think about it.
Gayle Bair
Bainbridge Island, WA
--------------------------------------------------------
http://claybair.com
Jon wrote>>
The minute I put a bandaid on someones finger, I'm a doctor? When I check
the oil on my car, I'm a mechanic? When I hang a picture, I'm an interior
decorator? And so forth. I don't think the act of making a pot makes me a
potter, except in some very narrow definition of the word. If I color in a
picture does that make me an artist? I don't think so. If I lay some brick
in my garden, am I then a mason? If I paint my house, am I a house painter?
I don't thinks so.
Ask an regular kind of person what they are and you'll get answers like:
I'm a carpenter (I build houses for a living), I'm an accountant (I keep
financial records for people for a living), or whatever. Ask further and
you may find that the person has a hobby like golf, tennis, gardening; but
more than likely they will not claim to be a golfer, tennis player, or
gardener unless they are very serious about their hobby.
So what are the arts? Painting, music, dance, literature, sculpture, to
name the obvious ones. All the crafts such as pottery, glass, jewelry, wood
turning, and so on may easily be classified as the arts. So if you do these
things for a living then you are an artist. Or if you are serious about
these things as an avocation or hobby then you may call yourself an artist.
If you do make your living at some sort of art, probably you don't think
very much about whether or not to call yourself an artist...it's just too
obvious to think about.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery, Annapolis, Md.
mudbug@toad.net www.Toadhouse.com
tomsawyer on sun 12 aug 01
As a semi-retired physician and attorney, one of my greatest thrills was
winning an award for excellence at a local fine arts craft show last year
and having my name called out and quoted in the newspaper as "the artist
winning the award for excellence"... Tom Sawyer. One of my first workshops I
attended after my retirement, the instructor asked what we wanted to be. I
answered that I wanted to be a serious artist and not just a "wanna be". I
don't know that I've achieved that status but I remain very serious.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
vince pitelka on fri 17 aug 01
> The minute I put a bandaid on someones finger, I'm a doctor? When I
check
> the oil on my car, I'm a mechanic? When I hang a picture, I'm an
interior
> decorator? And so forth. I don't think the act of making a pot makes me
a
> potter, except in some very narrow definition of the word. If I color in
a
> picture does that make me an artist? I don't think so. If I lay some
brick
> in my garden, am I then a mason? If I paint my house, am I a house
painter?
> I don't thinks so.
Sorry John, but this makes no sense at all. The carpenter and mason are
tradespeople, and as such a particular level of proficiency is assumed
before they can be hired to do work on the open market. On the other hand,
anyone who makes art is an artist. There is no qualitive judgement in that
at all. It may be terrible art, but the mere fact of making art makes him
or her an artist. We must get away from the assumption that only those who
make good art can be called artists, because who the hell decides what is
good art? All of us have art-making ability inside us. It is just a way to
communicate that often results in beautiful objects, and artmaking should be
encouraged in every way possible.
In my opinion, pottery-making is the same. Anyone who makes pots is a
potter. Again, this involves no qualitive judgement about whether he or she
is a good potter. That is up to the consumer who considers buying the
product. It would be my assumption that no one would want to call
themselves a potter after their first pinch pot, but again, this is
completely subjective, since there is no "qualifying exam" to bestow the
title "potter." Anyone who wishes to call himself or herself a potter is
welcome to the term.
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/
Earl Brunner on fri 17 aug 01
Four hundred years ago John was right, you weren't an artist or a potter
until you had gone through just what all those other "trades" that he
mentioned had gone through to prepare themselves to be what they were.
If it makes no difference as far as whether it is art or not what's the
point of having art schools , degrees etc.?
Just because no standard or measurement exists to define art or pottery
as having been produced by an artist or potter, hardly means that
EVERYTHING anybody makes is art or really pottery. This is more a
problem with our definitions and reluctance (for whatever reason, good
or bad) to draw a line in the sand, than it is whether someone is really
an artist or potter.
Perhaps a particular level of proficiency should be required before
people can/should be able to sell on the open market. For good or bad,
our failure to have a definable standard or quality contributes to all
of the problems we have as artist and potters in our relationship with
an "uneducated" public. Good grief, if we don't or can't quantify the
minimum standards, how can we expect John Q Public to know what the heck
is good or bad.
vince pitelka wrote:
Sorry John, but this makes no sense at all. The carpenter and mason are
> tradespeople, and as such a particular level of proficiency is assumed
> before they can be hired to do work on the open market. On the other
hand,
> anyone who makes art is an artist. There is no qualitive judgement
in that
> at all. It may be terrible art, but the mere fact of making art
makes him
> or her an artist. We must get away from the assumption that only
those who
> make good art can be called artists, because who the hell decides what is
> good art? All of us have art-making ability inside us. It is just a
way to
> communicate that often results in beautiful objects, and artmaking
should be
> encouraged in every way possible.
John wrote:
>> The minute I put a bandaid on someones finger, I'm a doctor? When I
>
> check
>
>> the oil on my car, I'm a mechanic? When I hang a picture, I'm an
>
> interior
>
>> decorator? And so forth. I don't think the act of making a pot makes me
>
> a
>
>> potter, except in some very narrow definition of the word. If I color in
>
> a
>
>> picture does that make me an artist? I don't think so. If I lay some
>
> brick
>
>> in my garden, am I then a mason? If I paint my house, am I a house
>
> painter?
>
>> I don't thinks so.
>
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec/
bruec@anv.net
vince pitelka on sat 18 aug 01
> I am not sure where I stand on this issue but, by your argument presented
> here, everyone is an artist. We have all drawn, finger-painted, molded a
> form out of a substance at some point in time in our lives. Since this is
> true and "anyone who makes art is an artist," everyone is an artist and
the
> term is moot.
Randall -
Well . . . . it would be nice if that were true, but I never said that
everyone who has ever made art is an artist. Instead, perhaps it is better
to say that everyone who makes art is an artist. In other words, everyone
actively involved in the making of art can rightfully consider themselves an
artist. You could drive yourself crazy trying to qualify this by
determining what is and what is not art, but that is pointless in this day
and age. Everyone has their own opinion of what is and what is not art, and
there is no way humanly possible we can agree on any reasonable criteria for
defining art, nor should we try. We can take comfort in the sure knowledge
that it will all sort itself out in the end, and the good art will survive
the test of time. In the mean time, I think we are best off if we formulate
our own tastes and opinions with open eyes and an open mind. Remember that
appreciating art has little to do with whether or not we like the work, or
whether or not we would want it hanging it over our sofa. It has to do with
opening our eyes and mind to the content, meaning, and significance of the
work as we see it, and with making our best attempt to understand what the
artist was trying to accomplish.
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/
Timothy Sullivan on sat 18 aug 01
Earl wrote:
"Perhaps a particular level of proficiency should be required before
people can/should be able to sell on the open market. For good or bad,
our failure to have a definable standard or quality contributes to all
of the problems we have as artist and potters in our relationship with
an "uneducated" public. Good grief, if we don't or can't quantify the
minimum standards, how can we expect John Q Public to know what the heck
is good or bad."
While this might sound like a good idea to some, the big question is "Who
gets to decide?" It's often when people are pushing through the limits of
conventional thought that the work gets really interesting. I for one don't
want to set up another bureaucracy to put stamps of approval on people's
heads before they can sell their work. They would simply get it wrong. Try
setting up a single set of criteria that would allow for both De Kooning and
Vermeer. Then add Joseph Beuys into the mix.
People who make music are musicians, people who act are actors, and people
who make art are artists. These terms are categorical, not indicators of
quality or value.
I believe that it's important to choose the appropriate venues to show and
sell your work. In my experience, the same people that buy $15 rock turtles,
are not the same ones that are drawn to $200 tea bowls.
Tim in Hotlanta
Khaimraj Seepersad on sat 18 aug 01
Hello to All ,
Earl ,
for some reason or another this type of discussion
is taking place on quite a few other lines.
Does it really matter , if your a craftsman or an artist ?
Is this just a case of economics , art can sell for more
than craft ?
As for ART , in Oil painting , unless a finished effort
does not reach a Museum / Restoration situation ,
chances are decay will get it . The lower the level of
sound craft applied to oil painting , the faster the decay.
From what I am seeing there are a good many people
who have some desire to be called - Artist - and lay
claims to producing - Art .
History , and Museums decide what is Art . For in the
long run [ the more important view ] , only what is
preserved , will be called ART.
So a thousand years from now A.Robineau , the Leachs
, A,Caiger Smith , and others already in Museums will
probably be remembered as Artists or Potters ,
depending on the language mood of that time period.
Those Guilds were set up to prevent precisely what is
going on today . Economic oversaturation .
If you read back to the 1600's , controls were put into
place to stop all of the Sunday Painters , from flooding
the market with mostly low grade work .
Becoming a Master of anything , takes years of training .
These days are presently returning .
Khaimraj
* Any human has the ability to draw , paint or pot , but will
they master the skills or have anything of substance to
say ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Brunner
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: 17 August 2001 21:06
Subject: Re: definition of an artist
>Four hundred years ago John was right, you weren't an artist or a potter
>until you had gone through just what all those other "trades" that he
>mentioned had gone through to prepare themselves to be what they were.
>If it makes no difference as far as whether it is art or not what's the
>point of having art schools , degrees etc.?
>Just because no standard or measurement exists to define art or pottery
>as having been produced by an artist or potter, hardly means that
>EVERYTHING anybody makes is art or really pottery. This is more a
>problem with our definitions and reluctance (for whatever reason, good
>or bad) to draw a line in the sand, than it is whether someone is really
>an artist or potter.
>
>Perhaps a particular level of proficiency should be required before
>people can/should be able to sell on the open market. For good or bad,
>our failure to have a definable standard or quality contributes to all
>of the problems we have as artist and potters in our relationship with
>an "uneducated" public. Good grief, if we don't or can't quantify the
>minimum standards, how can we expect John Q Public to know what the heck
>is good or bad.
>
>vince pitelka wrote:
>Sorry John, but this makes no sense at all. The carpenter and mason are
> > tradespeople, and as such a particular level of proficiency is assumed
> > before they can be hired to do work on the open market. On the other
>hand,
> > anyone who makes art is an artist. There is no qualitive judgement
>in that
> > at all. It may be terrible art, but the mere fact of making art
>makes him
> > or her an artist. We must get away from the assumption that only
>those who
> > make good art can be called artists, because who the hell decides what
is
> > good art? All of us have art-making ability inside us. It is just a
>way to
> > communicate that often results in beautiful objects, and artmaking
>should be
> > encouraged in every way possible.
>
>John wrote:
>
>>> The minute I put a bandaid on someones finger, I'm a doctor? When I
>>
>> check
>>
>>> the oil on my car, I'm a mechanic? When I hang a picture, I'm an
>>
>> interior
>>
>>> decorator? And so forth. I don't think the act of making a pot makes
me
>>
>> a
>>
>>> potter, except in some very narrow definition of the word. If I color
in
>>
>> a
>>
>>> picture does that make me an artist? I don't think so. If I lay some
>>
>> brick
>>
>>> in my garden, am I then a mason? If I paint my house, am I a house
>>
>> painter?
>>
>>> I don't thinks so.
>>
>
>--
>Earl Brunner
>http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec/
>bruec@anv.net
Earl Brunner on sat 18 aug 01
I what to make it clear that I wasn't really advocating what I was
saying below, I was just attempting to point out that as artists and
potters we sometimes want "to have our cake and be able to eat it too".
Our position of wanting the freedom to "push the envelope" of
creativity on one end can be detrimental to our cash flow on the other
end if the public doesn't like or accept our work. We want to be
artist's, but we want/need to support ourselves as well.
This idea of what qualifies us to call ourselves artist or potters is
tied directly to the making a living at our art or pottery. We have been
talking about both of these topics as separate threads, but not very
much together. I have heard a lot said about educating the public to
make them more aware of pottery. How many of us in the US would like a
national awareness of our craft similar to Japan? With the national
awareness (and appreciation) comes increased sales. How does one get to
the top end of the Japanese market? I was simply pointing out that (for
good or bad) when we can't even agree, then how can we expect the public
to find agreement?
Timothy Sullivan wrote:
> Earl wrote:
> "Perhaps a particular level of proficiency should be required before
> people can/should be able to sell on the open market. For good or bad,
> our failure to have a definable standard or quality contributes to all
> of the problems we have as artist and potters in our relationship with
> an "uneducated" public. Good grief, if we don't or can't quantify the
> minimum standards, how can we expect John Q Public to know what the heck
> is good or bad."
>
> While this might sound like a good idea to some, the big question is "Who
> gets to decide?" It's often when people are pushing through the limits of
> conventional thought that the work gets really interesting. I for one don't
> want to set up another bureaucracy to put stamps of approval on people's
> heads before they can sell their work. They would simply get it wrong. Try
> setting up a single set of criteria that would allow for both De Kooning and
> Vermeer. Then add Joseph Beuys into the mix.
>
> People who make music are musicians, people who act are actors, and people
> who make art are artists. These terms are categorical, not indicators of
> quality or value.
>
> I believe that it's important to choose the appropriate venues to show and
> sell your work. In my experience, the same people that buy $15 rock turtles,
> are not the same ones that are drawn to $200 tea bowls.
>
> Tim in Hotlanta
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec/
bruec@anv.net
William Moody on sat 18 aug 01
I am not sure where I stand on this issue but, by your argument presented
here, everyone is an artist. We have all drawn, finger-painted, molded a
form out of a substance at some point in time in our lives. Since this is
true and "anyone who makes art is an artist," everyone is an artist and the
term is moot.
Just a little food for thought.
Randall
> Sorry John, but this makes no sense at all. The carpenter and mason are
> tradespeople, and as such a particular level of proficiency is assumed
> before they can be hired to do work on the open market. On the other
hand,
> anyone who makes art is an artist. There is no qualitive judgement in
that
> at all. (SNIP)
>Anyone who makes pots is a potter.
Merrie Boerner on sun 19 aug 01
In 1975 I moved to "Small Town Mississippi" and began my identity crisis.
After rebellious college years, I had been thrown into the role of
"lawyers wife" and "Brad's Mom" and I had to give up my cut off jeans, flip
flops and put on a bra. This was not an easy transition, but one that I
struggled with for about 20 years. In the mid 90's, a friend was giving her
husband a 50th birthday party. I dressed in black heels, black slacks and
blouse, black gloves, black hat with black veil, black sunglasses and red
lipstick. I entered the party late....so the room was full. Only the hostess
recognized me and came toward me, took my arm, lead me over to the birthday
boy. We passed by some ladies sitting on a couch. One said to the other,
"Who is that ?!?!" A friend whispered, "That's Merrie, she is an artist."
That was one of the best parties I've ever been to !
Merrie in Mississippi
Terrance Lazaroff on sun 19 aug 01
Determining the definition of artist is like trying to understand William's
: "to be or not to be".
We can strive towards becoming an artist by declaring ourselves as an
artist. This action does not however, satisfy the criteria that makes us an
artist in the eyes of those around us.
The term, "artist", is bestowed upon us by outside forces.
Whether we like it or not these forces,establish the criteria that will
allow them to call us as artists. We can cry foul till the cows come home
but this will not change the fact. In addition, they must establish the
category of artist for clarity's sake. Example: ceramic artist, con artist,
mechanical artist, musical artist, visual artist, culinary artist,
decorative artist, professional artist, amateur artist, sculptor,
illustrator, printer, engraver and the list goes on and on.
Who are these forces? They are organizations, bureaucracies, governments,
International bodies, academics, associations, guilds, the public, customs
agencies, tax accountants, curators and most important peers.
What criteria is used?
Now that is a question.
Every organization establishes their own criteria.
So I challenge everyone on this list (as an organized body), to determine
the what they feel the most important criteria should be that will allow
anyone to be called artist.
Remember that creating is one thing, being an artist is another.
I will start the thread, and let the bashing commence.
The candidate must declare himself an artist.
The candidate creates art work. (If I add the words," to make a living", we
would be discussing professional artists).
The candidate shows or publishes or is represented in public, and/or
distributes his work through agents.
The candidate is recognized by his peers as artist or has won recognition
and awards for work or received grants and recognition from juries and/or
has served as a jurist of his peers.
I am sure there is more. What say you?.
Philip Poburka on sun 19 aug 01
Dear Terrance!
I enjoyed your points below...interesting examination we have here...on this
Question...
If I think back...I have known many people who produced 'Art', but I always
hesitated to call them an 'Artist'.
This was in my own sensibilities and reluctance...something was missing...
They would 'Paint' say...and sell their work at times...maybe sell a lott OF
it , too...everyone called them
an Artist.
Their Car was ugly, their housewares were ugly...their clothes and so on...I
used to ask, where in their life were the deliberately chosen of things?
where, or of what, were they 'conscious'?
Where were their sensibilities the rest of the time?
It was not that their 'Art' for that matter evoked or was embued bye a
particular aesthetic or mood, any special presence or what...it tended to be
contrived...it tended to be about...'something-else', I thought...
So...I used to seek a different term...I said they 'Painted'...I never said
or would say that they were an 'Artist'.
So with other things...
Other People...maybe they were or are an 'Architect'...another was a
Parking-lot attendant...another was or is without a 'job', vocation or
avocation...he sort of makes 'deals'...yet these people...you look at the
things they own...how they order ham-and-eggs in a Cafe...how their empty
plate and silver-ware sit when they are done...how they 'do' what they
do...and...to me...they may not make the mundane-qualified as 'Art', but
their belongings are chosen, their ways of things are embued with something
conscious and present, the
dishes and silverware at a cafe where they just ate...attain some
tableau-vivant of 'presence', because
OF them...become 'Art' in some way...the World has more 'Art' in it, in odd
ways,
for their having been there.
They scribble or doodle in pass-time on the 'phone...it is rich with
dimensions and play, with curious rythmic or poised of shapes...the mood OF
'Art' without necessarily any 'product' which people call 'Art'...
Thats what I notice.
Now if they did 'Paint', Sculpt, Draw, whatever...my bet is that their work
would be memorable and curious...they would be able to have applied to them,
in good conscience from me, the term 'Artist', I am sure.
Like that...
Philip
Las Vegas...
> Determining the definition of artist is like trying to understand
William's
> : "to be or not to be".
>
> We can strive towards becoming an artist by declaring ourselves as an
> artist. This action does not however, satisfy the criteria that makes us
an
> artist in the eyes of those around us.
>
> The term, "artist", is bestowed upon us by outside forces.
> Whether we like it or not these forces,establish the criteria that will
> allow them to call us as artists. We can cry foul till the cows come home
> but this will not change the fact. In addition, they must establish the
> category of artist for clarity's sake. Example: ceramic artist, con
artist,
> mechanical artist, musical artist, visual artist, culinary artist,
> decorative artist, professional artist, amateur artist, sculptor,
> illustrator, printer, engraver and the list goes on and on.
>
> Who are these forces? They are organizations, bureaucracies, governments,
> International bodies, academics, associations, guilds, the public, customs
> agencies, tax accountants, curators and most important peers.
>
> What criteria is used?
> Now that is a question.
>
> Every organization establishes their own criteria.
>
> So I challenge everyone on this list (as an organized body), to determine
> the what they feel the most important criteria should be that will allow
> anyone to be called artist.
>
> Remember that creating is one thing, being an artist is another.
>
> I will start the thread, and let the bashing commence.
>
> The candidate must declare himself an artist.
>
> The candidate creates art work. (If I add the words," to make a living",
we
> would be discussing professional artists).
>
> The candidate shows or publishes or is represented in public, and/or
> distributes his work through agents.
>
> The candidate is recognized by his peers as artist or has won recognition
> and awards for work or received grants and recognition from juries and/or
> has served as a jurist of his peers.
>
> I am sure there is more. What say you?.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
vince pitelka on sun 19 aug 01
> Determining the definition of artist is like trying to understand
William's
> : "to be or not to be".
> We can strive towards becoming an artist by declaring ourselves as an
> artist. This action does not however, satisfy the criteria that makes us
an
> artist in the eyes of those around us.
> The term, "artist", is bestowed upon us by outside forces.
No no no no no. Sorry to be so adamant, but as an art teacher I have spent
fifteen years trying to deal with this attitude. The terms "fine artist" or
"good artist" are bestowed upon worthy artists by outside forces. But as I
have repeatedly said, the term "artist" contains no qualitive measure at
all. It simply means someone who actively makes art as an avocation or
vocation. And since in this day and age we cannot define precisely what art
is, then anyone actively creating anything they think of as art is entitled
to the appellation "artist." It's as simple as that.
> Who are these forces? They are organizations, bureaucracies, governments,
> International bodies, academics, associations, guilds, the public, customs
> agencies, tax accountants, curators and most important peers.
Aaaarrrgggghhhh. Thank god this is not true.
> Every organization establishes their own criteria.
Which shows you exactly how pointless and arbitrary such judgement is.
> So I challenge everyone on this list (as an organized body), to determine
> the what they feel the most important criteria should be that will allow
> anyone to be called artist.
I will be interested in hearing those other opinions, but as I have said,
the mere creation of anything thought of as art, or the creation of anything
with a sense of artistry, qualifiers the maker to the title "artist."
> Remember that creating is one thing, being an artist is another.
That is indeed an odd thought. I'd like to hear you elaborate on that.
> The candidate shows or publishes or is represented in public, and/or
> distributes his work through agents.
What in the world does this have to do with whether or not the "candidate"
is an artist?
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/
iandol on mon 20 aug 01
Dear Terrance Lazaroff,
Chicken and Egg. do you define artist to get a Thread on Art or define =
art to get a lead on Artist.
I was searching for some images for another correspondent when I chanced =
on the remaining photos of a series of thrown and altered sculptures I =
did for a Sydney Gallery. They had been photographed against a dark =
ground to get good contrast.
The ground and the figure had interacted in such a way that parts of the =
figure merged with the ground. The visual effect was to change solid =
pottery into a visual illusion of transparency, of open negative space =
within the contour of the ceramic figure. Now my original intention was =
to show a spirit figure moving through foliage in a woodland glade. Of =
the fifty or so attempts at this task, this one succeeded beyond my =
expectations because the foliage motif seems to float or flow around an =
invisible nymph.
Now which is it to be, Chicken or Egg.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis (not the Ivor with an electric raku kiln)
Marianne Lombardo on mon 20 aug 01
This is an interesting topic.
My late grandmother was an artist, yet she never sold a single oil =
painting. She created beautiful art, but it hangs upon the walls of her =
children and grandchildren, and close friends, not an art gallery. I =
doubt that any art gallery has ever seen Fern Morrow's work, but I'd bet =
my last dollar if they did, they too would call her an artist.
I am a stained glass artist, yet I have never had an urge to sell my =
work, or seek recognition for it. My work is good and it is original. =
Complex, intricate lampshades, and large framed pictures of birds done =
in stained glass fill my home. And various family members have some of =
my work. In the past I have been asked to sell my work, but my answer =
has always been no. Not for sale. I enjoy it too much myself, and have =
enough requests from family to keep me busy for ages. Besides, it takes =
too long to do to make it worthwhile financially.=20
I have no diploma or degree in art. No gallery has looked at my =
stained glass work. Am I an artist? My reply is yes.
Marianne Lombardo
Omemee, Ontario, Canada
email: mlombardo@nexicom.net
| |
|
