Snail Scott on wed 20 feb 02
What Peter Voulkos gave us was not craftsmanship in pursuit
of an end result, but, (in the mode of Abstract Expressionism)
a commemoration of material and process. The repetition of
forms (the plate, the stack) provide a formal 'scaffolding'
for the efforts of the maker to be recorded in such a way that
the form itself is all but removed as an issue. Instead, it is
the spontaneous, direct manipulation of the material that is
given precedence. While Abstract Expressionism is mainly
associated with painting, Voulkos showed how very suitable
clay was for such work, allowing the direct force of the artist's
efforts to be preserved in a way that conveys the physical nature
of the artist's involvement directly back to the viewer. 'Action
Painters' such as Pollock sought such a preservation of the
artist's presence and gesture, but I don't believe that any
process, when reduced to the interface of paint and canvas,
can be recorded in its original physicality in the way that clay
allows. The foundation of such work lies in the idea that the
essence of the artist's self might be conveyed directly from the
subconcious to the work, if the self-critical faculty of analysis
that 'conventional' art requires can be set aside. Artistic
judgement is not suspended, but is deferred (at least in part,)
until the object is completed. It can then be considered with
a different mindset than the one which created it. 'Making' and
'looking' are very distinct mental places, and divorcing the
two results in a very different variety of art object, which
says very different things about the process of creation.
I believe that Voulkos' choice of forms allowed him to approach
these ideas in nearly opposite directions. The plates are
roughly thrown to create a 'tabula rasa' on which to record
gesture and action. They're closely allied to the Action Painters'
canvases in that they allow the surface to be modified without
concern for the dictates of gravity which are so dominant
in most claywork. The stacks, on the other hand, make gravity
and the physical demands of clay the overriding aspect of the
work. The weight of the clay, its plasticity, its mass and
earthbound tendencies are not concealed by the rising lightness
of a thrown vase form, or concealed behind surface ornament.
The stacks are _about_ clay; the human traces of manipulation
and construction seem only to emphasize the primal nature of
the material. (For this reason, I've always been ambivalent about
the works which he had cast in bronze, which seem to be more
like souvenirs of the process than direct expressions. They
do retain all the visual power of the clay versions even when
seen in person, so perhaps it's no bad thing, but I wonder if
even Voulkos succumbed to the lure of the higher prices placed
on art rendered in bronze.)
Voulkos gave us art, with clay as its subject.
-Snail
Tommy Humphries on wed 20 feb 02
>
> Voulkos gave us art, with clay as its subject.
>
> -Snail
>
This is exactly what I have been trying to form into words all this week, as
I have sorted through my feelings about this man and his works.
The first time I ever saw a photo of a Voulkos piece, it was in '83, a
friend had a copy of Studio Potter with one of his plates in it.
Being raised in the tradition of the southern folk pottery/functional
houseware pottery vein, all I could think of this "art" was that it looked
like an accident from the kiln, like something that a child playing with a
discarded pot would do. With its ripped and torn rim, and gouges and
slashes, folds and creases it looked like nothing "I" would have been proud
of for sure. This first impression lasted for years and he was somewhat of
a joke among me and my peers, when a pot would suddenly spin uncontrolled
off the wheel and lay in a pile, discarded, we would often comment that
there was another Voulkos...
Then, in '90 I met my first Voulkos plate up close and personal...as someone
else stated it was an epiphany for me, as ugly as the plate truly was, the
clay was beautiful, with all its colors and textures brought to the fore. I
found myself caressing the edges of the rips, the very faults that I had
made fun of, were suddenly the best parts of the piece. I bet I sat with
that big chunk of clay in my lap for 30 min. or more and let me tell you it
was a hard task to give that 40 pound monster back to its owner.
In photos of Peter Voulkos, you often see him grimacing, with wild eyes,
almost attacking the clay...I think he saw something inside the clay,
something that he fought to bring to the surface for everyone to see.
Sometimes he succeeded sometimes he didn't but he always showed someone
something they didn't expect to see in the clay.
Don't try to imitate him, his vision was his, and his alone.
Tommy
(wishing that I'd had a chance to meet Pete...perhaps some day...)
(My spellchecker keeps wanting to change Voulkos to Volumes...I think it
knows something!)
Janet Kaiser on thu 21 feb 02
Sorry I cannot take part, but my browser freezes as soon as I try to
hit any of the hyperlinks :-( I am a little uncomfortable about
talking about the work of a man who has recently died...
However, the Peter Voulkos work I have actually seen and been able to
walk around (photos do not come near to conveying enough information)
has appealed to me personally, because it has been rugged, craggy and
strong. All attributes I admire in people. It also awakens echoes of
the landscape here and no doubt many other places around the world...
dramatic, remote, rugged, craggy. (Notice the duplication?) Nothing
cosy or gentle about this sort of land, just as the there is nothing
restful or mellow about PVs work.
I admire the controlled casualness of his work tremendously, but I
don't think I could personally live with any of the pieces I have seen
over the years (which has not been many) but then it is definitely not
homely "decorative art"! Neither could it be the object of restful
contemplation. It has a monumental quality which belongs in a lot of
space. Definitely gallery and/or museum art.
His work also showed a remarkable disregard for what is/was the status
quo... Kicking against the trend and the Establishment. Well, wouldn't
you guess? I really LOVE that! I knew nothing about PV's life-style
or I would probably have "read" a lot more into his work... Tussling
with personal demons and that sort of pseudo-psychological stuff. The
clay certainly looked tortured. Just like the immense physical
dynamics which make mountains.
I also bring personal baggage when retrospectively considering PV's
work. As a child of the 70s, I cannot forget or ignore the tremendous
impact Peter Voulkos (and others) had on us youngsters and this great
influence continues to colour my judgement. I was lucky enough to be
exposed to this movement whilst a student in the USA and although I
found it an exciting and invigorating breath of fresh air, it was much
to my own detriment in the eyes of the Establishment once back home. I
can tell you, that it did not impress teachers who were entrenched in
the Leach & Cardew traditions!
Although this "new" approach has paved the way for many in the
intervening years, I sometimes wonder if the very strength of Peter
Voulkosīs work comes from traditional potter's skills acquired first,
which he then extended until he was breaking all the rules? From the
aesthetic to the technical. Could his work really have become what it
has, without that traditional grounding and knowledge of his chosen
medium? Just as Picasso et al were trained in the traditional manner
and then developed their own styles? It seems to me, that the best
innovation always has some basis in formality and those who try to
work in a Voulkos manner before they can throw a cylinder will always
lack a certain something, not to say integrity...
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art / Capel Celfyddyd
Home of The International Potters' Path
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales
URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
postbox@the-coa.org.uk
| |
|
