BVCuma on sat 10 aug 02
I wrote:
>>with good consistancy in aesthetic response..
________________________
I think "colour/texture response" would be a better choice for words.
By chance I was thumbing through "Functional Pottery"=20
Form and Aesthetic in Pots of Purpose
by Robin Hopper
He states the definition from Websters dictionary as follows..
=20
Aesthetics, is the study or theory of beauty,
and of the psychological responses to it;
specifically the branch of philosophy dealing with art,
its creative sources, its form and effects.
I was not comfortable with the word aesthetic
in the context I had used it but wasn't sure why..
simply visual is very different from the inherant meaning
within the framework outlined above as aesthetic content.
Just thought it was worth noting.
Bruce
Geoffrey Gaskell on tue 22 nov 05
"Lee Love" wrote:
> Aesthetics are not totally relative. If we look at creative work
> historically, and you have some ability to discern, you can see
> universal aspects of beauty, line, form, feeling and humor. When work is
> informed by universal archetypes, then it can stand the test of time,
> and be more than an simply an artifact of its time.
I think it time to change the title from "What is crap?" Anyway Lee has made
a very interesting point. I would further suggest that an individual sense
of aesthetics is totally relative for that individual until he or she has
acquired sufficient exposure to the "universal archetypes" that recur
throughout the history of creative work. As Lee seems to imply in his first
sentence, even with the most extensive education in art history &
appreciation it is not possible for individuals to be totally objective &
therefore lose that last degree of relativity in their aesthetic assessments
of objects. A sufficiently complete understanding is not possible for finite
beings, much as their pride rebels against this simple fact, for it to be
otherwise. I refrain from further exposition here, since it would touch upon
theological issues that properly belong not here, but to a different sort of
mailing list altogether.
Geoffrey Gaskell
http://www.geoffreygaskell.co.nz/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/05
Steve Irvine on tue 22 nov 05
Two quotes citied in Clary Illian's, "A Potter's Workbook" would fit in well here.
First from Igor Stravinsky: "A real tradition is not the relic of a past that is irretrievabley gone; it is
a living force that animates and informs the present... Far from implying the repetition of what has
been, tradition presupposes the reality of what endures. It appears as an heirloom, a heritage that
one receives on condition of making it bear fruit before passing it on to one's descendants."
An interesting comment from one of the last century's most avant-garde artists.
The second is from Robertson Davies: "Any great craft tends at last toward a condition of
philosophy."
Steve
http://www.steveirvine.com
2ley on tue 22 nov 05
From: "Geoffrey Gaskell"
> "Lee Love" wrote:
>
>> Aesthetics are not totally relative. If we look at creative work
>> historically, and you have some ability to discern, you can see
>> universal aspects of beauty, line, form, feeling and humor. When work is
>> informed by universal archetypes, then it can stand the test of time,
>> and be more than an simply an artifact of its time.
>
> I think it time to change the title from "What is crap?" Anyway Lee has
> made
> a very interesting point. I would further suggest that an individual sense
> of aesthetics is totally relative for that individual until he or she has
> acquired sufficient exposure to the "universal archetypes" that recur
> throughout the history of creative work. As Lee seems to imply in his
> first
> sentence, even with the most extensive education in art history &
> appreciation it is not possible for individuals to be totally objective &
> therefore lose that last degree of relativity in their aesthetic
> assessments
> of objects. A sufficiently complete understanding is not possible for
> finite
> beings, much as their pride rebels against this simple fact, for it to be
I hesitate to continue in this discussion, not out of fear of attack, but
out of respect for the quality of some of the thoughts appearing in this new
thread.
Aesthetics is not a single touch-stone. While I respect Lee's position, I
have yet to see an over-riding and universal aesthetic that transcends both
time and culture. Beyond that, art is not merely about aesthetics. Nor is
art a qualitative descriptor. Something that is art may not, in fact, be
beautiful, nor even desirable, but that does not remove it from the world of
art.
Angela Davis once taught a class on aesthetics at SFAI, and it opened my
eyes to the diverse forms of aesthetics in areas throughout the world.
Ah, I ramble. This cold has left me brainless. I retire from the field.
Philip TUley
Lee Love on wed 23 nov 05
On 2005/11/22 15:47:00, ggaskell@paradise.net.nz wrote:
> throughout the history of creative work. As Lee seems to imply in his
> first
> sentence, even with the most extensive education in art history &
> appreciation it is not possible for individuals to be totally objective &
> therefore lose that last degree of relativity in their aesthetic
> assessments
> of objects.
First we admit our prejudices. If you know you are fallible, then you
make allowances. If we don't have standards, then judges, juries, and
admissions officers are waisting their time.
> A sufficiently complete understanding is not possible for finite
> beings, much as their pride rebels against this simple fact, for it to be
> otherwise.
Discursive understanding is not always necessary. Actually, it can kill
intuition. I think where pride actually comes in, is when art moves away
from beauty and becomes simple self-expression. It is the height of
narcissism.
> I refrain from further exposition here, since it would touch upon
> theological issues that properly belong not here, but to a different
> sort of
> mailing list altogether.
Do you think so Geoffrey? If a spiritual perspective is discussed from
the universal, an not the particular perspective, then it causes no
difficulty. In Zen particularly, there is has been much emphasis on the
metaphysics of Beauty, that doesn't include theology.
--
李 Lee Love 大
愛 鱗
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/ My Photo Logs
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"We are such stuff / As dreams are made on, and our little life / Is
rounded with a sleep."
--PROSPERO Tempest Shakespeare
Geoffrey Gaskell on thu 24 nov 05
Lee Love wrote:
> First we admit our prejudices. If you know you are fallible, then you
> make allowances. If we don't have standards, then judges, juries, and
> admissions officers are waisting their time.
Yes, this is important. Finite human standards are necessarily fallible, but
to have some standards is a better condition than having none at all.
Whatever the degree or quality of these standards, such as they are, it is
equally important that every effort is made to remain consistent with them
in order to reduce the margin of error (relativity) to a minimum. The
achievement of an ideal condition of an absolute set of standards with a
zero margin of error (the error of relativism: aesthetic, moral or other) is
attainable only by an absolute being with various infinite attributes. I
allow that people will have differing ideas about the precise identity of
such a being, but he does seem to have taken an interest in working with
clay, at least.
> Discursive understanding is not always necessary. Actually, it can kill
> intuition. I think where pride actually comes in, is when art moves away
> from beauty and becomes simple self-expression. It is the height of
> narcissism.
I understand this sentiment fully. Whether I'm working on pottery, painting
or photography, I tend to work quickly & intuitively. I have a mostly blank
visual diary, because I carry most of the preliminary work in my head. I
have no interest at all in overt autobiographical content in my work,
although people who are personally acquainted with me often recognise
something in the art that seems to typify the way I think in general terms.
Recently I was involved in a group exhibition in which autobiographical
themes were specifically requested. Everyone else duly supplied a range of
"story-telling" pieces depicting scenes or images from their life along with
very bean-spilling artists statements of varying length. Some pieces were
beautiful, some rather ugly (& there is a place for ugliness in art, if
there is method in the madness, so to speak). I simply provided a set of
landscape paintings & some caricature figurines & no artist statement. The
gallery manager who knows me well accepted my pieces without question. One
or two of the other artists challenged me about these pieces being there
since they could not see specifically how they related to my life. I simply
responded that the things I created explained my thinking about the world,
that by virtue of my capacity for thinking there was a high probability that
I actually existed & that being sentient in this way provided sufficient
evidence that my pieces at least had something to do with my life.
Geoffrey Gaskell
http://www.geoffreygaskell.co.nz/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/178 - Release Date: 22/11/05
Wes Rolley on tue 7 aug 07
I refrained from joining the recent exchanges regarding "beauty, and
meaning (without funny words)" or "Philosophy of Clay Aesthetics".
These are exchanges that have no end, but which are interesting in what
they tend to reveal about various viewpoints and those who hold them.
Some general comments:
The words we use in this discussion have meanings that can only be
understood in context. Lee Love's example of Hamada's use of the term
"style" contrasts sharply with art critic Clement Greenberg's usage of
the same term. You can not separate the meaning from the context, but
that does not become an argument for relativism.
The study of aesthetics has a long tradition in philosophy. The first
treatment that we still read today was written by Aristotle (384-322
BCE). In simple terms, Aristotle defined art as "the realization in
external form of a true idea." (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
)
Of more importance to contemporary philosophers might be Immanuel Kant's
"Critique of Judgement" which begins with an account of beauty and deals
directly with that which might make us say "that is a beautiful
sunset." Again, to quote from the same source, "Kant holds that
aesthetic experience, like natural experience leading to determinate
judgments, is inexplicable without both an intuitive and a conceptual
dimension."
There is a very long standing tradition in the realm of philosophy that
provides a framework for the discussion of beauty with language that may
not be a precise and universal as Ivor may want, but which is, none the
less, understandable and which provides clarity rather than obfuscation
in the discussion.
It may be noteworthy that two of the most influential art critics of the
era since WW II, Clement Greenberg and Arthur C. Danto, were not artists
at all, though Greenberg did try. There is a story that Jackson
Pollack, on seeing a Greenberg attempt for the first time, said "who
painted this shit." Danto is, by profession, a professor of philosophy
at Columbia University.
This is a long way of saying that I pretty much agree with Lee when he wrote
>
> There are particulars in beauty and also universal qualities. These
> exist in all human perceptions. If we ignore the relative, we become
> dogmatic, thinking only we have a handle on the truth. If we ignore
> the universal, we become flaky relativists. Believing what ever we say
> is true just because we say it.
>
> There are universal aspects because we all share the same equipment of
> perception. There are particular aspects because there is some
> variation of perceptive ability amongst individuals.
>
Note: in all of this there is a distinction between the concept of art
and the concept of beauty. Beauty is a term that can be applied to both
the realm of nature and the realm of man made objects. Art, on the
other hand, deals with only with that which is man made, though even
here there is some blurring. At one time, I posted links to some pieces
of wood that I had found and which, by positioning in a certain manner
found that they elicited an aesthetic response. Yet, many refused to
call that art because the objects were not created by me. (I have some
more examples in which, through the use of a saw and a rasp, I selected
and refined the parts of the wood that I wanted to display, though the
work is still primarily the way I found it.... I will take a photo and
post if this discussion warrants.)
To my way of thinking, the best of art exists where there is a joining
of or an tension between those aspects which Lee refers to as particular
and universal.
Fortunately, the discussion of such ideas is essentially the subject of
philosophy and has little to do with the motivations of those who spend
their lives making "art". The range of such motivations are as broad as
the population of artists. They are all very personal. They also have
nothing to do with any judgment (in Kant's sense) of that which the
artist created. Personal angst or even the feel of throwing with a fine
clay may be the motivation but we still assign aesthetic value to the
work based on our judgment as to whether has the characteristics of
beauty (Kant) or truth (Aristotle).
--
"I find I have a great lot to learn EUR" or unlearn. I seem to know far too much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am getting on." -- Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wesley C. Rolley
17211 Quail Court
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408)778-3024
http://www.refpub.com/
Lee Love on wed 8 aug 07
On 8/7/07, Wes Rolley wrote:
> The words we use in this discussion have meanings that can only be
> understood in context. Lee Love's example of Hamada's use of the term
> "style" contrasts sharply with art critic Clement Greenberg's usage of
> the same term. You can not separate the meaning from the context, but
> that does not become an argument for relativism.
Context always helps. I was hoping pairing up Coleridge with
Hamada's perspective would help. I have trouble with Hamada's
phrasing. I think part of the problem is that it most likely looses
something in the translation, because in Japan, the heart and mind are
not seen as separate. So that feeling as Hamada uses it, is not in
an emotional context. Not sure what terms I would use. Maybe
essence and appearance.
So much of how we evaluate objects in our time depends upon sight
at the cost of our other senses. As I quoted MacKenzie earlier, we do
so much to manipulate and protect ourselves from our environment, that
we are loosing our tactile language. And in many other ways, we are
so enamored with novelty. It is like any other physiological
addiction, in which we need more vivid stimulation for things to
register. We loose the ability to recognize subtle and nuanced
stimulus. We abhor silence and the quiet spaces between movement
and activity.
In the East, the mind is seen as just another sense. This
perspective helps keep intellectual knowledge from dominating our
experiences.
> The study of aesthetics has a long tradition in philosophy. The first
> treatment that we still read today was written by Aristotle (384-322
> BCE). In simple terms, Aristotle defined art as "the realization in
> external form of a true idea." (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> )
I have always thought we turned our backs on our Greek heritage
while we fully embraced Imperial Rome.
> sunset." Again, to quote from the same source, "Kant holds that
> aesthetic experience, like natural experience leading to determinate
> judgments, is inexplicable without both an intuitive and a conceptual
> dimension."
Intuitive and conceptual, they are like left and right hands.
> less, understandable and which provides clarity rather than obfuscation
> in the discussion.
Yes! And an open oyster to the open mind.
> at all, though Greenberg did try. There is a story that Jackson
> Pollack, on seeing a Greenberg attempt for the first time, said "who
> painted this shit."
Who is Jack the Dripper to ask? ;^) Actually, he
is like Duchamp: it was interesting the first time he did it, but the
copies are just boring.
http://www.students.sbc.edu/evans06/images/Marcel%20Duchamp.jpg
> more examples in which, through the use of a saw and a rasp, I selected
> and refined the parts of the wood that I wanted to display, though the
> work is still primarily the way I found it.... I will take a photo and
> post if this discussion warrants.)
Jean has an essay by the woodblock printer Shiko Munakata. In
it, Munakata says that you should make a print from the uncarved
woodblock before you start carving your image on the block. Then
compare the uncarved block with your image carved onto the block.
Before you can consider the print to be a success, it must be at least
as beautiful as the print made from the uncarved block.
>
> To my way of thinking, the best of art exists where there is a joining
> of or an tension between those aspects which Lee refers to as particular
> and universal.
There is more exact Sanskrit terminology, but not appropriate in
mixed company. ;^)
> Fortunately, the discussion of such ideas is essentially the subject of
> philosophy and has little to do with the motivations of those who spend
> their lives making "art".
It really depends upon who you are talking about and when
they worked. I came to pottery precisely because of philosophical
concerns.
You can read about them here:
http://journals.fotki.com/togeika/Mashiko/entry/rkgdktbsdk/
An Online Friend asked me how I came to study in Mashiko
The short version is, the founder of the zen school I
am a student of, Eihei Dogen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogen,)
brought the first tenmoku bowl from Tien-mu-Shan, "mountain of the Eye
of Heaven," a mountain in Chechiang province China, to Japan. A
monk that traveled with him, Kato Shirozaemon, brought technology to
build the first high fired glazed kiln ware kilns in Seto. So these
two guys helped me get started as a potter.
>The range of such motivations are as broad as
> the population of artists. They are all very personal.
The motivations are certainly broader today, and to a large
extent, focused upon expressing the personal. But this is a new
occurrence and is only a blip in the history of human creativity.
For the most part, art has been a devotional pursuit, where
the art uses the personality to express something greater than the
"small sense of self" expressed by the individual. Non-personal,
archetypal expression does not deny the validity of "self expression",
but neither does the individual or self expression deny the validity
of Muse inspired work.
>They also have
> nothing to do with any judgment (in Kant's sense) of that which the
> artist created. Personal angst or even the feel of throwing with a fine
> clay may be the motivation but we still assign aesthetic value to the
> work based on our judgment as to whether has the characteristics of
> beauty (Kant) or truth (Aristotle).
This is theapproach in postmodern fine art that dominates
both coasts. It is less of a focus in craft movement inspired
craft, in places like the Midwest.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
| |
|
