Seth Barendse on sun 26 aug 01
I wrote this to the dicusion group and wondered what you thought.
>From: Seth Barendse
>Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:33:28 -0400
>
>Art is not something you can be taught to make. Art is what comes from
>within. Art is a transfer from an abstract thought or feeling brought to a
>definition.
>Seth
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Snail Scott on mon 27 aug 01
At 11:45 PM 8/26/01 -0400, you wrote:
>>Art is not something you can be taught to make. Art is what comes from
>>within. Art is a transfer from an abstract thought or feeling brought to a
>>definition.
>>Seth
I think this is a lovely thought. It reflects on the
strong impulse to make art. But, I disagree with it.
If you consider 'art' to the simple self-referential act
of creation for its own sake, then the above definition
may serve. But, 'art' is not less 'art' for being
deliberately crafted, using techniques acquired from
others to serve the artist's intent. If the only standard
that applies is 'expression', the thing created may well
only be of interest or relevance to its maker, produced
in an id-based moment of fingerpainting/mudpie freedom.
The likelihood of such as artwork connecting with any
other audience is small, however. It might be a wonderful
world, to have the spontaneous products of everyone's
mind resonate equally to an outside viewer, but in
reality, communication through art usually requires a
deliberate consideration of the effect desired, and the
most apparently heartfelt and moving works often involve
the most conscious self-editing and revision.
If the result and not the process alone are genuine
considerations in the creation of a work of art, then it
seems unreasonable to demand that each artist work in
a vacuum, without the influence of others, 'reinventing
the wheel' for each expression of an idea. For all that
we value originality, the ability of other people to
perceive the intent of an artwork is based, not in the
'new' aspects of it, but on those aspects which are held
in common between the artist and the viewers.
It seems absurd to me that there should be no value in
the transmission of those shared techniques and ideas.
That transfer is called 'teaching'.
I have a deep personal aversion to the notion that the
artist is somehow just an unconscious vehicle for the
primal urge to mess around. I do agree that such an
urge underlies much of the impulse to make art, and if
the satisfaction of that urge is all the artist desires,
then they should by all means proceed 'as the spirit
moves them'.
If the artist desires that the outcome be more focused,
the result of a thoughtful and considered endeavor which
is capable of transcending the individual artist's own
frame of reference and reaching further, then an
understanding of broader techniques and assumptions will
enlarge the artist's 'toolbox' for doing so. Fine
things may be achieved by those who are entirely self-
taught, but how much more might be gained with the
assistance of others, to broaden the artist's repertoire
of ideas and methods and to gain insight into how their
work is percieved by others. Artists who allow a teacher's
influences to utterly subsume their own voice may lose
something of the spark which led them to create in the
first place, but should we therefore expect all artists
to work in a vacuum, 'free' of the contaminating forces
of others? Force each to 'work from scratch', in search
of the means to express their vision to others? Learning
may occur without teaching, per se, but whenever we
learn from those around us, we are being taught.
Some art is made for onesself, and some is made for
others. The 'art for self alone' is made based solely
on the impulse to create, and 'art for others alone' is
based on a desire for a result acceptable to others
('commercial art'). They are both art, though. Also,
it seems to me, almost all art is a combination of these
two states of process. Many people create art for their
own satisfaction, but want it to be received and understood
by others. Or, they may be working 'to order', but still
put much of themselves into it.
'Art' doesn't come from within. The impulse and desire do,
but not 'art' itself. 'Art' is the external form we give
to that desire, to give it a presence in the world. It
is the product of a process, and it does not exist in a
void. Teaching is one of the means by which we learn to
create that actuality.
-Snail
Ababi on mon 27 aug 01
Hello Sara.
Good point, but let me disagree. Yes it comes from your inside, but the
surrounding you help you to create or to "shut up". I work with Bedouin
women. Some of them are not leaving home except market Medical clinic and my
studio. This is their only opportunity to make art( except their beautiful
traditional art) So let say, this is their first time since they were born
to make free art, the way that clay is done, or can be done? Don,t they need
an assisting hand? Could I learn art without assisting hands?
Just think I might and my life changing T.V. channels all the time!
About abstract thoughts: I think I have it the other way around start with
real exact idea and become "wilder" later on.
Ababi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Barendse"
To:
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 05:45
Subject: Re: what is art
> I wrote this to the dicusion group and wondered what you thought.
>
>
>
> >From: Seth Barendse
> >Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> >To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> >Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:33:28 -0400
> >
> >Art is not something you can be taught to make. Art is what comes from
> >within. Art is a transfer from an abstract thought or feeling brought to
a
> >definition.
> >Seth
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> >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.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
>
Carolsan Burkhart on tue 28 aug 01
Terrance L wrote:
> > 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.
This passage really made my head spin especially when he mentioned the IRS.
Leo Tolstoy was convinced that there was an indubitible way to distinguish
true art from counterfeit, and that was in art's infectiousness. He
implied that when one partakes of another's artwork, and the object
stimulates feelings/mental condition as if the object was what he had long
been wishing to express, then he is united with the artist, therefore, the
object is art. Tolstoy contended that "a real work of art destroys, in the
consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the arts.
. If a man is infected by the author's condition of soul, if he feels
this emotion and this union with others, then the object which has effected
this is art; but if there be no such infection, if there be not this union
with the author and with others who are moved by the same work - then it is
not art. And not only is infection a sure sign of art, but the degree of
infectiousness is also the sole measure of excellence in art. The stronger
the infection, the better is the art as art, speaking now apart from its
subject matter, i.e., not considering the quality of the feelings it
transmits. "
However, it appears that there is no longer a definition of art, for
example -
- William Rubin, director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York,
"there is no single definition of art."
- The art historian Robert Rosenblum believes that "the idea of
defining art is so remote [today]" that he doesn't think "anyone would dare
to do it."
- Philippe de Montebello, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
in New York, states that there is "no consensus about anything today,"
- art historian Thomas McEvilley agrees that today "more or less
anything can be designated as art."
- Arthur Danto, professor of philosophy at Columbia University and art
critic of The Nation, believes that today "you can't say something's art or
not art anymore. That's all finished." In his book, After the End of Art,
Danto argues that after Andy Warhol exhibited simulacra of shipping cartons
for Brillo boxes in 1964, anything could be art. Warhol made it no longer
possible to distinguish something that is art from something that is not.
I think most people believe that art is important, but informed
individuals tell us that art has little "essence." However, art remains
significant, and the idea that now anything can be art, strikes most of us
as unacceptable.
Regards,
C. Burkhart
Philip Poburka on fri 31 aug 01
Dear Seth, and All who may,
Just a spin-off...bye your leave TO have fun with it...that:
'Taught' is a funny notion...I do not believe in it for anything.
So to me, no one is ever taught anyway...which is not to say that people do
not interfere in one-another's learning...or contribute to it...how-so-ever
'so'...
People learn...as they may, and most, if not all of it, is in the rhelm of
the emotional.
And all of this is 'in' an in-dependance of sorts...
Intellect is something the emotions learn to 'do'...as it serve their
interests.
Or their perception OF their 'interests', as are or maybe 'learned'...and or
the tensions between the 'learned' and the presumeably,
innately proprioceptive.
To me, in this, the term 'Art' has become a reification...
Once we take Art out of Life, in how we think...we indulge an abstraction of
sorts as though it were something in itself...it is more a figure-of-speech,
than that it is something in itself...and the something-in-itself it may
seem to be, is 'in' the emotional languages we speak...rather than 'in' the
thing we percieve...so far as the apprehension of artifacts, of what in
general is appreciated as 'Art'...
To me, there are many 'false' divisions...of what is a continuity...and
there is room to discern qualities as well as the catagoric IN the
continuity...or of it...but if the continuity, or sense of it is lost...then
so too is the perspective from which TO 'see' it...
"The it we do not see...is the absence of the us who would have seen it.."
(R.D.Laing...more or less...)
'Art' as testimonies, abstracted from, and evokeing implications
of...ontological considerations...from 'where' it was made....from the
emotional 'where'...the Spiritual 'where'...hence, to me...all is (of)
"Shrines"...
All kinds of Shrines...and all are (of, at least) a 'place'...
I would say...that is 'what' we 'do'...we make Shrines.
Hugo of Tours brought back, from the Crusades...on a Camel...a purported
portion...of the 'Elbow-Bone'...of Saint...(Oh! I forget)
somebodyorother...and...AS an 'abstraction', in more ways than one...it was
enshrined...in 'France'...
'Art' may be said to have been employed...in the actual Architecture, and
motiffs,
ceilings and panels 'painted'...sculptures array'd...and what, as supportive
remindres, testimonies and ennunciations as respect the emotional context
for the appercaption OF the presence of the meanings about...the little
shard of 'elbow-bone'...probably it was tucked away...in some part of an
existing Cathedral...and maybe...it is still 'there'...
And...there is too...the 'Pearl-in-the-Oyster'...
and IN the 'Pearl'...is a grain-of-sand...
He may also have brought back, 'Soap'...and certain notions of
Chivalry...less abstract...but still...defferential TO...some implied
'whole'...or wholeness...or inplicit constellation, (Emotional) latitude and
longitude vectors... in which one have or aquire 'stance'...IN some
wholenness...
The 'stance' IN some landscape...is the 'what', to which, so many evocations
and allusions...abstractions and references...imply...or beseech...or maybe
implore.
Perception and apperception...hypnosis as well, in many subtle and not so
subtle of it's influences...meanings...and some may, in effect, be very
'Powerful'...
Allusions...evocations...implicit references 'to', or
'of'...something...allways...of a 'place' IN...bigger 'places'...places
among...
The context OF the 'context'...
All 'art', 'Art', 'ART' or what...all of it is...defferential...and
defferential 'to'...something...often something we have learned...
To me all Artifacts are 'Art'...Cars, Houses, Shoes...the tube of
Tooth-Paste...I look at things, I ask myself, "What does this say?"
Most things say "You do not matter - you are a fool"
Or..."here is your sop"
Or..."Life is not worth liveing"
Or..."We are defeated, but here is a distraction"
Or..."If starved for the real, here is the conveniently havable..."
or "I am confused"
or "I do not care...I cannot live anymore, so I do 'this'..."
Stuff like that...consumer goods...fodder for the dimishing involute
consolations for
having 'learned'...one's way...out on a limb...to nowhere...
Steeped in the psyches of their Makers...
Some things say, "I respect you"
Some things say, "I am happy"
Some things say, "I will serve earnestly and well, the task I was made to
do..."
Some say, " Mystery and elegence and energy...attend me, or do so...for you"
Lots of things...
.."I am happy"
.."I am a window to God...look through me!"
..on and on...
Many things are said...testimonies and implications...of the 'who' and the
wherefrom they were made, the 'Garden' in which they were 'grown'...the
'Soup' in which they were steeped...the song in which they were phrased,
'said'...ennunciations made 'tangible'...of the emotional-logic and nexus of
constellated orientation of
'stance' and countenence...in which they were 'said'.
They allways say true...of where they 'are'...
We may not see them straight...but they do not decieve...we may only make
errors of judgement about them...and some things are calculated TO exploit
probable
errors of judgement...that is 'where-they-are'...what they are about...that
is what they 'do'...if one makes these 'errors'...these things are there for
one...for me...for whomever so construes or thus 'sees'...and so it goes..
Jazz is truth
Sex is truth
Death is truth
The things we make are truth
The things we do are truth
This moment is truth
They may not lie...we may not see them straight...we may have learned not
to...but they do not lie.
There are no 'lies'...so much as that there are truths seen through the
veils of what we 'learned'...
Same thing...to 'see' what kind of Shrine we are looking at...what it is
about...what is it's truth...from 'where'...
Imagine the ingenue which IS the presence of innocence...
THAT is the presence of the energy and genious...on which all things rely..
Even if they rely on the energy OF its absence...the defference, however
so...is still to that...inversely.
Or with time and learning, the ways that that may 'go'...
The trunk of a tree..and the branches...
..what may we say, and from where?
..how do we say' it?
..who listens, and from where?
Probably it would make more sense to suppose...that we recognise Art in
aesthetic-emotional 'languages', which are innate...but may and do become
invested in idiomatic and cultural ennunciations...or political ones...or
'in' the recognition of them.
Become mediated bye and in...'experience'...or accrued experience, and the
decisions OF 'experience'...about experience...
These attenuations are like the branches of a tree...and one may be, or end
up...'out on a limb'...
How we preserve the qualities of the presence of these 'languages'...or the
presence of their qualities...or how we may express them...or percieve them
being expressed...depends on what we have 'learned'...and on the decisions
we may make, as to the values we attribute...'to'...or 'about'...
In practice, most of what we call 'Art' is from an implicit 'definition'
made
abstract...or an abstraction of or from a 'defintion'...an implication or
evocation of some 'definition'...some emotional
definition...comprehension...apprehension...intention...whatever it's skill,
it will 'say' from where it is at....'of' where it is at...
Latitude and Longitude...
An emotional 'definition'...and an ontological 'abstraction'...directions
'to'...a 'place'.
A splendid 'Bowl' succeeds well AS a whole...and as a component in many
abstractions of living and thinking....symbol and sacrement...(Shrine)
A painting representing a vignette of some 'scene'...is a latitude and
longitude vector, among other things...it is information 'about'...a
'place'...as 'seen' or as seen 'from'...some other 'place'...or as a place
from which...to look out...'from'...'of'...'to'...other places...
In the 'Algebra' and equations of experience...the expressions, disclosures
and excretions - Artifacts what ennunciate of our mediated
experience affect others experience, as they experience us doing
something...'saying'...something, as we may...or the product of that...the
'artifact' assumes a-life-of-it's-own...as something 'said'...
My ramble...I just woke up...can hardly focus on the screen here...but
Coffee...is
on it's way to getting born...
Phil
Las Vegas...
> I wrote this to the dicusion group and wondered what you thought.
>
>
>
> >From: Seth Barendse
> >Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> >To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> >Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:33:28 -0400
> >
> >Art is not something you can be taught to make. Art is what comes from
> >within. Art is a transfer from an abstract thought or feeling brought to
a
> >definition.
> >Seth
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> >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.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
| |
|
