Snail Scott on sun 21 oct 01
At 03:24 PM 10/21/01 +0900, Lee wrote:
> I thought you were commenting on Mingei, Leach, Yanagi and Hamada.
You
>misunderstand their philosophy. It is too bad that you would try to create
>conflict with otherwise sympathetic people...
> ...If anything, it is the inferiority complex of the artist that
does not
>allow himself to stand next to the artist/craftsman. Function and the
tactile
>relationship to clay are very powerful means of communication.
Lee-
Honestly, I don't know why you think I'm hostile toward the
various traditions of craft pottery. I admire much of it; I
simply resent what I often perceive to be an exclusion, even
with the best intentions, of other approaches to clay.
Much has been written on the Mingei approach to clay, and
its philosophy is a fine one. Not the only one, however.
It wasn't conflict that I was after, but dialogue, and an
expanded awareness of the possibilities of a material which,
perhaps more than any other, allows a near-infinite range of
expression.
There are people who have made craft pottery and its practice
a lifetime pursuit. But for all the variety of its traditions,
from Yanagi to MacKenzie and further afield, it still represents
a small fraction of the clay world, and I often feel that it
is disproportionately represented in many current magazines,
at the expense of other modes of work. If I use terms like
'lumpy brown pots', it is merely to reflect my frustration with
what often seems like 'more of the same', however laudable each
example might be individually.
You are clearly devoted to your chosen discipline, and I credit
your defense of it. Please allow me some defense of my own. I
do not claim that 'fine art' is in any way superior to 'craft';
I've tried to make that clear. It is simply a different thing,
with its own standards, and a thing I'd like to see more of.
-Snail
By the way, I think that quote from Leach (on Picasso) is a
great one!
Marie Gibbons on sun 21 oct 01
In a message dated 10/21/01 4:59:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> You are clearly devoted to your chosen discipline, and I credit
> your defense of it. Please allow me some defense of my own. I
> do not claim that 'fine art' is in any way superior to 'craft';
> I've tried to make that clear. It is simply a different thing,
> with its own standards, and a thing I'd like to see more of.
>
> -Snail
>
Snail,
as another artist who is non functional in this world... I agree! I recall
many responses on list to the Confrontational Clay exhibit... many not
supportive.
Clay is a wonderful medium, we work in clay because it is the medium that
allows us to use our visual voice, it is a medium that we work well with. We
all do very different things with this medium, but for the life of me I can't
uderstand why we can't all just enjoy the basis of clay as a joining of our
creative spirits instead of a barrier put up because of the different ways we
use it. I realize all do not look at one form or the other as right or
wrong, however, it is an issue, and one that comes up on this list from time
to time to time.
just my thoughts...
marie gibbons
www.oooladies.com
Lee Love on tue 23 oct 01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
> Honestly, I don't know why you think I'm hostile toward the
> various traditions of craft pottery.
Then please refer to it in kinder terms then.
As far as I have noticed, potters tend to be open to a broad use of
clay. Actually, many of the well known non-functional artists started their
careers studying pottery and moved in the direction of non-functional art.
Non-functional clay, if anything, owes a huge debt to potters. Magazines like
CM probably couldn't exist without them.
>
> Much has been written on the Mingei approach to clay, and
> its philosophy is a fine one. Not the only one, however.
Mingei is a minority view and I don't know anybody that promotes it as
the only way. It's always people outside of Mingei who put up a 'Straw Man' by
saying it isn't the only way (it is like the question, "Have you stopped beating
your wife yet?". ) It is obviously not the only way. It isn't a majority,
or even a large minority way for folks in clay in America.
Many people doing functional work are not what you'd call 'mingei
inspired.' I've had several discussions here with potters who don't follow
mingei. While magazines like CM do emphasis pottery, not all of the pottery
in the magazine focus on function, not all of it is traditional, and even less
of it is Mingei inspired.
> It wasn't conflict that I was after, but dialogue, and an
> expanded awareness of the possibilities of a material which,
> perhaps more than any other, allows a near-infinite range of
> expression.
I think, what you fail to recognize, is that the interest in functional
work in no way takes away from non-functional work. I personally don't
accept the distinction between craft and "fine art." The best functional
work has always been seen as "fine art" here in Japan. One of the highest
levels of art here is tea ceremony ware. So the post-modern western
perspective is not a universal one. Actually, it is a recent invention in the
West.
Function and a tactile association with creative work are just an added
dimension in art. In modern society, where the emphasis is on the visual, we
are loosing our ability to use our tactile senses. If anything, non-functional
art can learn from pottery and emphasize tactility as another medium for
expression. Function, or use, has a deep symbolic and ritualistic meaning.
They are excellent tools for artists.
> There are people who have made craft pottery and its practice
> a lifetime pursuit. But for all the variety of its traditions,
> from Yanagi to MacKenzie and further afield, it still represents
> a small fraction of the clay world, and I often feel that it
> is disproportionately represented in many current magazines,
> at the expense of other modes of work.
I don't think so. If you consider the number of people employing
themselves making pottery, and compare them to people making non-functional
expressive work, the potters out number the non-functional workers. It is a
simple matter of readership. What you see in the clay magazines is pretty
representational of the people working in clay. And of the people working in
functional clay, only a fraction of them are influenced by Mingei. Many other
people make non-traditional functional work, while others make more gallery
related pottery.
> If I use terms like > 'lumpy brown pots', it is merely to reflect my
frustration with
> what often seems like 'more of the same', however laudable each
> example might be individually.
I've seen a lot of lumpy non-functional art, but not any pots from the
Leach/Hamada school. It takes no insight, awareness, nor courage to be
critical without specific examples of work for others to view and see how their
ideas match up to yours. Generalizations might be enjoyed by one's supporters,
but they do no in any way enhance communication with those you choose to dialog.
> You are clearly devoted to your chosen discipline, and I credit
> your defense of it. Please allow me some defense of my own. I
> do not claim that 'fine art' is in any way superior to 'craft';
> I've tried to make that clear. It is simply a different thing,
> with its own standards, and a thing I'd like to see more of.
There is no need to put down the work of others to defend your own
work. Let your work stand on its own merit. The trouble you see, in the type
of work you favor not getting the type exposure you think it should, has nothing
to do with the work and attitudes of functional potters. It has more to do
with the views of what you call your fellow "fine artists." Because "fine art"
tends not to be medium specific, you should probably look to promote it in the
main stream art community. There are countless art magazines to follow art in.
Garth Clark is in the art selling business. It is difficult to see him
as having an unbiased view about functional pottery. As John Tolman of the
Tolman Gallery (a print gallery in Tokyo) told my wife, you cannot trust a
critic whose pocketbook influences what they write. Many potters are not
controlled by the gallery system. Many of them sell directly to people from
their own property. This independence is not useful to gallery people.
And in conclusion, I'd like to say that Mingei has no quarrel with art.
As I mentioned before, all the original founders of the movement were trained
artists. My favorite work from the original group was made by the woodblock
artist Shiko Munakata. I believe he was the creative genius of that group. He
once said something like "I want to be the Japanese Picasso." I believe he
was.
Serizawa, the textile artist, was also a wonderful painter. There
is a large muti-volume set of his art notebooks. My artist wife Jean has check
out many of them from the local library. I especially enjoy his painting
sketches of pottery. They put me in mind of one of my favorite painters
Morandi.
Actually, there are many things about Mingei philosophy that "fine
artists" can put to good use as an antidote to many of the post-modern ills we
have fallen prey to: An interest in the character of the maker, a value of
beauty, and a turning away from the self consuming Ego.
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Interested in Folkcraft? Signup:
Subscribe: mingei-subscribe@egroups.com
Or: http://www.egroups.com/group/mingei
Help ET phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
| |
|
