Dannon Rhudy on thu 11 apr 02
For those of you who like to laugh, and/or have had to
write/read art history papers, and/or have a slightly
skewed view of the universe, artspeak, and critique,
I submit the following web site. The website was done with wit and
intelligence and tongue firmly in cheek.
http://www.dearauntnettie.com/gallery/index.htm
regards
Dannon Rhudy
Vince Pitelka on sun 20 sep 09
This discussion has probably just about run its course. I really appreciat=
e
all the opinions posted. I know that some people think we are just rehashin=
g
the same old information, but that's not true. There is new information
that comes to light. I know that I tend to be very persistent about such
things, but I have no wish to get in the last word. I would like to repeat
something I said to James Freeman off-list, and he actually agreed with me
(can you imagine that?). Actually, James and I have a lot in common, and
are equally passionate (you might read "stubborn") about our beliefs. I
said "My point is that all art fits into a continuum from the most humble,
ordinary, and unoriginal to the most grand and noble, with every possibilit=
y
in art-making existing somewhere along that continuum." So where do we draw
the line? Where do we say what is art and what is not? How do we decide
who is an artist and who is not? It's fine to leave it up to the
individual, a matter of personal taste and inclination. I guess that's
pretty much what we have to do. So, after all this discussion, it really
becomes a moot point. I say that anyone who makes art is an artist, and
that the terms "art" and "artist" do not necessarily contains any
qualitative judgment, and there is no basis for saying that those statement=
s
are incorrect. James and others say that only those who have reached an
elevated level of vision and accomplishment in art can be called artists -
those who make the grand and noble art, whether it is the Watts Towers or a
Rembrandt masterpiece, and I have no basis for saying that those statements
are incorrect. As an artist, teacher, and writer, my inclination is to be
more inclusive and openly invite people to consider themselves artists. I
think that's a very healthy thing to do (for the sake of the role of art in
American and world culture, for the sake of our future), and for me, part o=
f
that invitation would also be to encourage them to make worthwhile art.
I am in the business of spreading art and I would prefer that it be good
art. Art-on-a-stick at the local Pumpkin Festival, crappy art in a
"you-paint-it-we-fire-it" ceramics shop, or the first lesson in a drawing
class is still art, and it's a lot better than no art at all. Getting
people involved in art at any level is a very good thing, and it encourages
them to learn about of, be respectful of, and be in awe of the "grand and
noble art," as James eloquently put it.
Someone implied that if everyone who makes art is an called an artist, it
diminishes the significance and enjoyment of great art. Huh? There's a
great deal of bad food in the world, but it's all still food, and the
contrast increases the significance and enjoyment of great food. When
people who make art call themselves artists, rather than demeaning the term=
,
it places a higher expectation upon them. Either they live up to it or the=
y
don't. If they don't, then they are just bad artists making bad art, but
they're still artists.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Kate McCoy on sun 20 sep 09
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> . . . When people who make art call themselves artists, rather than demea=
ning the term, it places a higher expectation upon them. Either they live =
up to it or they don't. If they don't, then they are just bad artists maki=
ng bad art, but they're still artists.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Vince, and all,
I was recently told that a lady in my town wants to sell my work. I'm
told however, that "ARTISTS" sell better than non artists. So, in order
to get better prices for my work, I must be a "REAL", "ARTIST".
Uh OH! Hmm, what does this mean? Secret handshake, shopping trip for new
"ARTIST" clothes, special acccent (get rid of the English one!) ...
Looks like some sort of expectation here. And it's more the expectations
that "outsiders" (those who don't make art) put on us. MY expectations
are already high, but now, with this new thing, I have no clue what is
expected.
Thought I might just "pretend" to be a "Real Artist", but what if I'm
found out. How can they tell? What does a real artist look like.
There's a book I was given years ago by ex-husband's family, "How to be
an Italian" by Lou D'Angelo - mayber there's a book out there somewhere,
"How to be an Artist", or perhaps someone whould write one, because
ordinary folk like me just don't know.
Kate - going to practice being an artist in front of the mirror now, for
one hour, then to the studio to do some real work!
Larry Kruzan on sun 20 sep 09
Hi Kate - Don't forget to send off for your Laminated "Artist" I.D. badge
and secret decoder ring - and then there are the special x-ray artist
glasses.....
Sorry - I just couldn't resist.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Kate McCoy
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:48 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Art and Artists
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> . . . When people who make art call themselves artists, rather than
demeaning the term, it places a higher expectation upon them. Either they
live up to it or they don't. If they don't, then they are just bad artists
making bad art, but they're still artists.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Vince, and all,
I was recently told that a lady in my town wants to sell my work. I'm
told however, that "ARTISTS" sell better than non artists. So, in order
to get better prices for my work, I must be a "REAL", "ARTIST".
Uh OH! Hmm, what does this mean? Secret handshake, shopping trip for new
"ARTIST" clothes, special acccent (get rid of the English one!) ...
Looks like some sort of expectation here. And it's more the expectations
that "outsiders" (those who don't make art) put on us. MY expectations
are already high, but now, with this new thing, I have no clue what is
expected.
Thought I might just "pretend" to be a "Real Artist", but what if I'm
found out. How can they tell? What does a real artist look like.
There's a book I was given years ago by ex-husband's family, "How to be
an Italian" by Lou D'Angelo - mayber there's a book out there somewhere,
"How to be an Artist", or perhaps someone whould write one, because
ordinary folk like me just don't know.
Kate - going to practice being an artist in front of the mirror now, for
one hour, then to the studio to do some real work!
Larry Kruzan on sun 20 sep 09
After lots of posts via PM I'll explain what the X-ray glasses do - they
allow you to distinguish between humble items of fine craft and REAL ART.
For those who are confused - That's a joke already!!!!!!!
Now I've got to go back to work - pots to make and kilns to fire before I
rest......
(please forgive me Mel)
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Larry Kruzan
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 4:54 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Art and Artists
Hi Kate - Don't forget to send off for your Laminated "Artist" I.D. badge
and secret decoder ring - and then there are the special x-ray artist
glasses.....
Sorry - I just couldn't resist.
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Kate McCoy
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:48 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Art and Artists
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> . . . When people who make art call themselves artists, rather than
demeaning the term, it places a higher expectation upon them. Either they
live up to it or they don't. If they don't, then they are just bad artists
making bad art, but they're still artists.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
Vince, and all,
I was recently told that a lady in my town wants to sell my work. I'm
told however, that "ARTISTS" sell better than non artists. So, in order
to get better prices for my work, I must be a "REAL", "ARTIST".
Uh OH! Hmm, what does this mean? Secret handshake, shopping trip for new
"ARTIST" clothes, special acccent (get rid of the English one!) ...
Looks like some sort of expectation here. And it's more the expectations
that "outsiders" (those who don't make art) put on us. MY expectations
are already high, but now, with this new thing, I have no clue what is
expected.
Thought I might just "pretend" to be a "Real Artist", but what if I'm
found out. How can they tell? What does a real artist look like.
There's a book I was given years ago by ex-husband's family, "How to be
an Italian" by Lou D'Angelo - mayber there's a book out there somewhere,
"How to be an Artist", or perhaps someone whould write one, because
ordinary folk like me just don't know.
Kate - going to practice being an artist in front of the mirror now, for
one hour, then to the studio to do some real work!
Snail Scott on sun 20 sep 09
On Sep 20, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ...I say that anyone who makes art is an artist, and
> that the terms "art" and "artist" do not necessarily contains any
> qualitative judgment, and there is no basis for saying that those
> statements
> are incorrect. James and others say that only those who have reached
> an
> elevated level of vision and accomplishment in art can be called
> artists -
> those who make the grand and noble art, whether it is the Watts Towers
> or a
> Rembrandt masterpiece...
The issue here is not that either statement is
incorrect, but that they make use of two disparate
definitions of 'artist'. The English language abounds
with such varied and nuanced usages, and to suggest
that either meaning is negated by the other is absurd.
Discussion is furthered when an appropriate usage
is selected and used by all, instead of sidetracked by
accusations that one usage is simply invalid. A
productive dialogue might be had on either of these
two usages of 'artist', but not at the same time.
A Philly cheese-steak is not a steak at all by any
non-Philly definition, but within its own sphere it is
an entirely legitimate usage. We would never even
get to the 'onion question', much less the Great
Cheese Controversy, if we spent all our time just
declaring it to be Not Steak.
-Snail
James Freeman on mon 21 sep 09
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Snail Scott wro=
=3D
te:
>
>
> Discussion is furthered when an appropriate usage
> is selected and used by all, instead of sidetracked by
> accusations that one usage is simply invalid. A
> productive dialogue might be had on either of these
> two usages of 'artist', but not at the same time.
>
> A Philly cheese-steak is not a steak at all by any
> non-Philly definition,
>
Snail...
I do not believe that either side in this debate tried to argue that any
given dictionary definition was invalid. Rather, the argument focused on
the idea that the liberal, all-inclusive, innocuous definition (small "a"
art) rendered the lofty and noble definition (capital "A" Art) meaningless.
The "is too" faction argued that art could be good or bad, but it was all
still art, and "artist" simply meant anyone who makes or thinks up stuff
that they say is art. The "is not" faction did not argue that this
definition was invalid, but rather that it rendered the very word "art"
meaningless. The dialog seemed quite productive to me as I read the many
and varied posts on the subject.
This discussion was and is focused on the capital "A" sense of art, because
this is what folks tend to think of when they hear the word. That some wan=
=3D
t
to use the probably accurate small "a" title in order to garner the capital
"A" aura without having to earn it is the very crux of the objection to thi=
=3D
s
very broad and inclusive use of the word. It is like a PhD using the title
"Doctor" outside of an academic setting to set up an unspoken implication
and garner the respect automatically accorded Medical Doctors, knowing as w=
=3D
e
do that when folks hear the word "doctor", they assume "MD". Another
example would be if I were to apply the broad definition of "esquire" to
myself to imply that I was an attorney at law without, technically, telling
the lie; accurate according to Websters', but a cheap ploy.
The dictionary should not be employed in debate. That is like using a
shovel to perform brain surgery. As I pointed out in another post, a
dictionary, of necessity, distills out all subtlety, all nuance, in the
cause of brevity. It is akin to trying to win an argument by employing a
bible quote, when every position in the world, from "love thy neighbor" to
"poke his eyes out with a flaming stick" is in there. A dictionary is only
capable of inflicting blunt force trauma, not of performing the coup de
gr=3DE2ce.
Oh, and "cheese steak" is a single, complex noun. "Cheese" is not an
adjective modifying the noun "steak", as would be, say, "New York Strip".
Or at least so says my dictionary! ;-)
Take care.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
steve graber on mon 21 sep 09
it's only a true cheese steak AFTER you put the ketchup on it....=3D0A=3DA0=
Stev=3D
e Graber, Graber's Pottery, Inc=3D0AClaremont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve=
Too=3D
l - for awesome texture on pots! =3D0Awww.graberspottery.com steve@grabersp=
ot=3D
tery.com =3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Clay's website=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.=
com/blog=3D
s/ =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A________________________________=3D0AFrom: Jame=
s Freeman amesfreemanstudio@GMAIL.COM>=3D0ATo: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=3D0ASent: Mon=
day,=3D
September 21, 2009 5:58:53 AM=3D0ASubject: Re: Art and Artists=3D0A=3D0AOn=
Sun, =3D
Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Snail Scott wrote:=3D0A=
=3D
=3D0A>=3D0A>=3D0A> Discussion is furthered when an appropriate usage=3D0A> =
is selec=3D
ted and used by all, instead of sidetracked by=3D0A> accusations that one u=
sa=3D
ge is simply invalid. A=3D0A> productive dialogue might be had on either of=
t=3D
hese=3D0A> two usages of 'artist', but not at the same time.=3D0A>=3D0A> A =
Philly=3D
cheese-steak is not a steak at all by any=3D0A> non-Philly definition,=3D0=
A>=3D
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
| |
|
