Rod on wed 2 apr 03
After having a interesting discussion with a friend about essence. I thought
I might broach this subject on Clay Art and see what else I may learn about
peoples perceptions on this subject.
First this seems to be the most common definition of essence.
essence n. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to
characterize or identify something.
The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.
An extract that has the fundamental properties of a substance in
concentrated form.
Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
A perfume or scent.
One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if highly concentrated:
a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
Something that exists, especially a spiritual or incorporeal entity
Some synonyms could be sprit, core, heart, soul, fundamental nature, and
there is quintessence
quintessence The pure, highly concentrated essence of a thing.
The purest or most typical instance: the quintessence of evil.
In ancient and medieval philosophy, the fifth and highest essence
after the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, thought to be
the substance of the heavenly bodies and latent in all things. essence"
is.
These are all still very abstract but with the definition of "quintessence"
we start to get closer to
the core of the discussion I had with my friend and I think closer to
something that is somewhat less abstract than the word "essence". I believe
that the key word here is "latent" but first I need to
the point of why I have brought this up.
How often have we sat with a friend(s) at an opening, listening to a
symphony, etc. and commented to each other that the peace held some "essence
of being" or "there is some magic to this piece." These kind of comments and
many more like them are these human "gut" feelings about why one piece of
art has "essence" and another does not. We can use a million definitions, we
can look at the technical merit of the piece and it's maker - and still not
be any closer to what it is that gives this piece that sense of magic,
majesty, and essence over something else.
This has bothered me for some time. After looking all over for discussions
of "essence" which not surprisingly there are many from ancient Greece to
today's philosophers. Some of which are discussed in Giuseppe Del Rey's book
"The Cosmic Dance" (very technical reading not for the lighthearted), Robert
Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" an inquiry into value,
and Carl Sagan's many books and writings.
Essence! What is it? How do you create work that has it? Why do some find it
easily and others seemingly make piece after piece that is heartless and
devoid of all essence? Here is what I would like to discuss if any are
interested!
Essence is directly related to complexity. There can be some extremely
simple articles of work that have essence and some extremely complex pieces
that have none. So how is complexity related at all to essence?
If you remember from above when we read the definition of "quintessence" I
highlighted one word and that was "latent". Let's continue ....
In any system (material) the system is based above simpler building blocks.
For example with clay there are the individual molecules of kaolin's,
feldspars, ball clays, silica, etc. When they are all combined with water
and bacteria etc. suddenly a more complex substance is created. Complex
indeed! So when making anything we are dealing with added layers of
complexity. One more example to make my point and then let us hopefully have
a discussion.
For example if I extracted some DNA from myself, with today's science I
could be cloned; Correct? But would that clone have the essence of me? We
all know that there is not a chance of that happening because I am the
direct result of many complex external and internal forces that have modeled
me during my life. This is where the word "latent" comes in.
With each layer of complexity there are complex relationships that are
formed with the layers above and the layers below. I use a hierarchy to
illustrate the concept but of course it does not need to be so. It could
very well be the complex interactions in a glaze; a disordered matrix.
It is within these complex relationships that we find essence.
"Essence is found in the latent information that is conveyed through these
complex inter-relationships."
So when a piece of work has essence it is in fact, if we are paying close
attention- conveying latent information to us through the
inter-relationships of the medium, the form, colour, subject matter,
personality of the maker, etc.
So my question is to those that may be interested is what do you think of
this definition? Could it be expanded? How? What other factors may be at
play here. Basically anything that could be added to further our
understanding of essence and how we may be able to achieve it in our work -
if we are looking for this type of definition in our work.
everything is possible,
Rod Wuetherick
RedIron Studios
David Hendley on mon 7 apr 03
Since Rod spent so much time composing his thoughts, and no
one (that I read, anyway) responded, here are my thoughts, which
might inspire more discussion.
I would agree that the essence of a good pot is the relationship
of all the simple parts that make a complex whole. However, by far
the most important "part" has to be the personality, or spirit, of
the maker. A successful pot will reveal something about the maker,
just as all successful art will allow the personality of the artist,
writer, or player to be partially revealed.
This, after all, is the difference between art and lifeless work.
Technical expertise is important only because it is the "language"
of a visual artist, and it helps to be fluent in a language to express
yourself.
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod"
> After having a interesting discussion with a friend about essence. I
thought
> I might broach this subject on Clay Art and see what else I may learn
about
> peoples perceptions on this subject.
>
> First this seems to be the most common definition of essence.
>
> essence n. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to
> characterize or identify something.
> The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
> The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of
things.
>
> An extract that has the fundamental properties of a
substance in
> concentrated form.
> Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
> A perfume or scent.
> One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if
highly concentrated:
> a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
> Something that exists, especially a spiritual or
incorporeal entity
>
> Some synonyms could be sprit, core, heart, soul, fundamental nature, and
> there is quintessence
>
> quintessence The pure, highly concentrated essence of a thing.
> The purest or most typical instance: the quintessence of
evil.
> In ancient and medieval philosophy, the fifth and highest
essence
> after the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water,
thought to be
> the substance of the heavenly bodies and latent in all
things. essence"
> is.
>
> These are all still very abstract but with the definition of
"quintessence"
> we start to get closer to
> the core of the discussion I had with my friend and I think closer to
> something that is somewhat less abstract than the word "essence". I
believe
> that the key word here is "latent" but first I need to
> the point of why I have brought this up.
>
> How often have we sat with a friend(s) at an opening, listening to a
> symphony, etc. and commented to each other that the peace held some
"essence
> of being" or "there is some magic to this piece." These kind of comments
and
> many more like them are these human "gut" feelings about why one piece of
> art has "essence" and another does not. We can use a million definitions,
we
> can look at the technical merit of the piece and it's maker - and still
not
> be any closer to what it is that gives this piece that sense of magic,
> majesty, and essence over something else.
>
> This has bothered me for some time. After looking all over for discussions
> of "essence" which not surprisingly there are many from ancient Greece to
> today's philosophers. Some of which are discussed in Giuseppe Del Rey's
book
> "The Cosmic Dance" (very technical reading not for the lighthearted),
Robert
> Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" an inquiry into
value,
> and Carl Sagan's many books and writings.
>
> Essence! What is it? How do you create work that has it? Why do some find
it
> easily and others seemingly make piece after piece that is heartless and
> devoid of all essence? Here is what I would like to discuss if any are
> interested!
>
> Essence is directly related to complexity. There can be some extremely
> simple articles of work that have essence and some extremely complex
pieces
> that have none. So how is complexity related at all to essence?
> If you remember from above when we read the definition of "quintessence" I
> highlighted one word and that was "latent". Let's continue ....
>
> In any system (material) the system is based above simpler building
blocks.
> For example with clay there are the individual molecules of kaolin's,
> feldspars, ball clays, silica, etc. When they are all combined with water
> and bacteria etc. suddenly a more complex substance is created. Complex
> indeed! So when making anything we are dealing with added layers of
> complexity. One more example to make my point and then let us hopefully
have
> a discussion.
>
> For example if I extracted some DNA from myself, with today's science I
> could be cloned; Correct? But would that clone have the essence of me? We
> all know that there is not a chance of that happening because I am the
> direct result of many complex external and internal forces that have
modeled
> me during my life. This is where the word "latent" comes in.
>
> With each layer of complexity there are complex relationships that are
> formed with the layers above and the layers below. I use a hierarchy to
> illustrate the concept but of course it does not need to be so. It could
> very well be the complex interactions in a glaze; a disordered matrix.
>
> It is within these complex relationships that we find essence.
>
> "Essence is found in the latent information that is conveyed
through these
> complex inter-relationships."
>
> So when a piece of work has essence it is in fact, if we are paying close
> attention- conveying latent information to us through the
> inter-relationships of the medium, the form, colour, subject matter,
> personality of the maker, etc.
>
> So my question is to those that may be interested is what do you think of
> this definition? Could it be expanded? How? What other factors may be at
> play here. Basically anything that could be added to further our
> understanding of essence and how we may be able to achieve it in our
work -
> if we are looking for this type of definition in our work.
>
> everything is possible,
> Rod Wuetherick
> RedIron Studios
>
Hendrix, Taylor J. on mon 7 apr 03
If one were to suspend a pot capable of holding some quantity of
something at arms length, eye level then release it allowing gravity to
take hold, the resulting pile of shards were once a good pot/good art if
the moment of impact lacked a certain satisfaction more commonly
associated with cleaning house. In addition, there is a direct
relationship to the amount of revenue lost and the level of artiness
previously embodied in the pieces in question.
Sumpin' to think about.
Taylor, in Waco
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Kaiser [mailto:janet@THE-COA.ORG.UK]=20
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:13 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Essence of a good pot good art\craft
Oh, dear Rod. What a complicated series of mental acrobatics! I am not
sure
a simple soul like me can keep up with you! Let's face it, if
philosophers
ancient and modern had difficulty with the concept, what chance have
I/we?
...
Julie W. on mon 7 apr 03
Hear hear! I agree with David wholeheartedly. Art - no matter whether it
be music, painting, pottery, or writing - is a way to express the nature of
one's self, or one's essence. There is no technique you can learn to make
something that has essence, it has to just come naturally from the artist.
Some people are natural artists and their essence flows into their art
unrestrained, while other people are too concerned about the quality of
their art, and need time to become comfortable letting their essence shape
their work and not their technique. Like David says, the medium and
technique is just the language an artist uses - the art itself is a
reflection of its maker.
As a musician, I have been to many music festivals and watched small
children step up to the stage to perform extremely difficult piano pieces.
Their technique was impeccable - certainly 100 times better than mine - and
they were somehow still capable of delivering volume and reaching the whole
keyboard with ease, but the music somehow lacked spirit. The same piece
played by an adult could move you to tears. The judges are often hard
pressed to explain why the adult's rendition of the piece was better, but I
believe it comes down to essence. The adult has had life experiences that
have shaped him and allow him to identify with the music in a way that the
child simply can't. His essence blends freely with the music, while the
child is concentrating on the technique. It's like the old saying "Anyone
can learn to play the notes, but you have to be a musician to create
music." (substitute any kind of artform in that!) It takes more than
technique and skill to create art.
I also remember some old high school exercises my English teacher made us
do. I spent weeks developing a poem that I wanted to be extremely profound
and moving. It just had to be perfect. In the end, it reminded me of a
terrible B-rated movie. By contrast, this same teacher sprung a writing
exercise on us that we had 45 minutes to complete. I wrote a fantastic
tale that earned me compliments of "literary merit" from her. It was
because I wrote what was in me at the moment, uncensored for what I thought
would be "flaws". What we sometimes see as "flaws" are still accurate
reflections of ourselves, and can be beautiful in a piece of artwork we
create. In fact, our artwork wouldn't be beautiful without those flaws,
because it would be like an artificial version of ourselves - thereby
lacking essence.
This is an interested topic Rod, I'd like to see what other people have to
say about it too!
Julie
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:22:49 -0500, David Hendley wrote:
>Since Rod spent so much time composing his thoughts, and no
>one (that I read, anyway) responded, here are my thoughts, which
>might inspire more discussion.
>I would agree that the essence of a good pot is the relationship
>of all the simple parts that make a complex whole. However, by far
>the most important "part" has to be the personality, or spirit, of
>the maker. A successful pot will reveal something about the maker,
>just as all successful art will allow the personality of the artist,
>writer, or player to be partially revealed.
>This, after all, is the difference between art and lifeless work.
>Technical expertise is important only because it is the "language"
>of a visual artist, and it helps to be fluent in a language to express
>yourself.
>
>David Hendley
>Maydelle, Texas
>david@farmpots.com
>http://www.farmpots.com
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rod"
>
>
>> After having a interesting discussion with a friend about essence. I
>thought
>> I might broach this subject on Clay Art and see what else I may learn
>about
>> peoples perceptions on this subject.
>>
>> First this seems to be the most common definition of essence.
>>
>> essence n. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to
>> characterize or identify something.
>> The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
>> The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of
>things.
>>
>> An extract that has the fundamental properties of a
>substance in
>> concentrated form.
>> Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
>> A perfume or scent.
>> One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if
>highly concentrated:
>> a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
>> Something that exists, especially a spiritual or
>incorporeal entity
>>
>> Some synonyms could be sprit, core, heart, soul, fundamental nature, and
>> there is quintessence
>>
>> quintessence The pure, highly concentrated essence of a thing.
>> The purest or most typical instance: the quintessence of
>evil.
>> In ancient and medieval philosophy, the fifth and
highest
>essence
>> after the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water,
>thought to be
>> the substance of the heavenly bodies and latent in all
>things. essence"
>> is.
>>
>> These are all still very abstract but with the definition of
>"quintessence"
>> we start to get closer to
>> the core of the discussion I had with my friend and I think closer to
>> something that is somewhat less abstract than the word "essence". I
>believe
>> that the key word here is "latent" but first I need to
>> the point of why I have brought this up.
>>
>> How often have we sat with a friend(s) at an opening, listening to a
>> symphony, etc. and commented to each other that the peace held some
>"essence
>> of being" or "there is some magic to this piece." These kind of comments
>and
>> many more like them are these human "gut" feelings about why one piece of
>> art has "essence" and another does not. We can use a million definitions,
>we
>> can look at the technical merit of the piece and it's maker - and still
>not
>> be any closer to what it is that gives this piece that sense of magic,
>> majesty, and essence over something else.
>>
>> This has bothered me for some time. After looking all over for
discussions
>> of "essence" which not surprisingly there are many from ancient Greece to
>> today's philosophers. Some of which are discussed in Giuseppe Del Rey's
>book
>> "The Cosmic Dance" (very technical reading not for the lighthearted),
>Robert
>> Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" an inquiry into
>value,
>> and Carl Sagan's many books and writings.
>>
>> Essence! What is it? How do you create work that has it? Why do some find
>it
>> easily and others seemingly make piece after piece that is heartless and
>> devoid of all essence? Here is what I would like to discuss if any are
>> interested!
>>
>> Essence is directly related to complexity. There can be some extremely
>> simple articles of work that have essence and some extremely complex
>pieces
>> that have none. So how is complexity related at all to essence?
>> If you remember from above when we read the definition of "quintessence"
I
>> highlighted one word and that was "latent". Let's continue ....
>>
>> In any system (material) the system is based above simpler building
>blocks.
>> For example with clay there are the individual molecules of kaolin's,
>> feldspars, ball clays, silica, etc. When they are all combined with water
>> and bacteria etc. suddenly a more complex substance is created. Complex
>> indeed! So when making anything we are dealing with added layers of
>> complexity. One more example to make my point and then let us hopefully
>have
>> a discussion.
>>
>> For example if I extracted some DNA from myself, with today's science I
>> could be cloned; Correct? But would that clone have the essence of me? We
>> all know that there is not a chance of that happening because I am the
>> direct result of many complex external and internal forces that have
>modeled
>> me during my life. This is where the word "latent" comes in.
>>
>> With each layer of complexity there are complex relationships that are
>> formed with the layers above and the layers below. I use a hierarchy to
>> illustrate the concept but of course it does not need to be so. It could
>> very well be the complex interactions in a glaze; a disordered matrix.
>>
>> It is within these complex relationships that we find essence.
>>
>> "Essence is found in the latent information that is conveyed
>through these
>> complex inter-relationships."
>>
>> So when a piece of work has essence it is in fact, if we are paying close
>> attention- conveying latent information to us through the
>> inter-relationships of the medium, the form, colour, subject matter,
>> personality of the maker, etc.
>>
>> So my question is to those that may be interested is what do you think of
>> this definition? Could it be expanded? How? What other factors may be at
>> play here. Basically anything that could be added to further our
>> understanding of essence and how we may be able to achieve it in our
>work -
>> if we are looking for this type of definition in our work.
>>
>> everything is possible,
>> Rod Wuetherick
>> RedIron Studios
>>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>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.
Vince Pitelka on mon 7 apr 03
> Since Rod spent so much time composing his thoughts, and no
> one (that I read, anyway) responded, here are my thoughts, which
> might inspire more discussion.
> I would agree that the essence of a good pot is the relationship
> of all the simple parts that make a complex whole. However, by far
> the most important "part" has to be the personality, or spirit, of
> the maker. A successful pot will reveal something about the maker,
> just as all successful art will allow the personality of the artist,
> writer, or player to be partially revealed.
> This, after all, is the difference between art and lifeless work.
> Technical expertise is important only because it is the "language"
> of a visual artist, and it helps to be fluent in a language to express
> yourself.
This is pretty fine. David Hendley very effectively said in the above
paragraph what I might have said in three times as much space. Appropriate
economy of language. That can also be part of the essence of beautiful
pots. David knows that.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Office - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 x111, FAX 615/597-6803
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
john elder on mon 7 apr 03
Rod, let me give you my point of view and share some quotes that I have
kept.
I constantly strive for that "latent" quality that you refer to as
essence.....I think......well, I know when I feel it...it is gone as soon as
I think about it. I can talk....around it...but that is not feeling it.
discourse for discourse sake, I guess.
Here goes.......
American painter Hans Hoffman, " the relation of two given realities
always produces a higher, a purely spiritual third. The spiritual third
manifests itself as pure effect......
The quality of the work (pot) originates in this transposition of reality
into the purely spiritual."
Don Reitz talking to a group of potters in Edmonton, Alberta, 1996
"We're poets, we don't have time to make dishes. We have machines to do
that! It (potting) is a spiritual pursuit...don't rationalize...just do it
from the heart."
Warren MacKenzie, "Out of a kiln load of many hundreds of pots only a few
continue to ring true after several years. These are the ones to learn from
since they tap a source beyond the personal and deal with universal
experience.
I rely on intuition and feeling rather than intellectual argument and
analysis. Some pots just feel right and a person who is open will know them
if given time to absorb the inner nature of the work and its maker."
Can't remember which potter said this about creating, "make stuff in the
"zone", because at the same time the stuff is making us!"
A Jazz musician when asked to define "Jazz"....If I got'a tell you, you'll
never know!
Ron you mentioned when you are at a concert you "feel the magic", a gut
response, YOu are in the moment! that's the place...go with it, because as
soon as you go to analyze IT, it is gone.
I have been potting for 30 years and I am still searching. You are asking
the right questions, enjoy your search.
John Elder,
Cary,NC
soon to be back in Edmonton, Alberta
>From: David Hendley
>Reply-To: Clayart
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: Re: Essence of a good pot good art\craft
>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:22:49 -0500
>
>Since Rod spent so much time composing his thoughts, and no
>one (that I read, anyway) responded, here are my thoughts, which
>might inspire more discussion.
>I would agree that the essence of a good pot is the relationship
>of all the simple parts that make a complex whole. However, by far
>the most important "part" has to be the personality, or spirit, of
>the maker. A successful pot will reveal something about the maker,
>just as all successful art will allow the personality of the artist,
>writer, or player to be partially revealed.
>This, after all, is the difference between art and lifeless work.
>Technical expertise is important only because it is the "language"
>of a visual artist, and it helps to be fluent in a language to express
>yourself.
>
>David Hendley
>Maydelle, Texas
>david@farmpots.com
>http://www.farmpots.com
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rod"
>
>
> > After having a interesting discussion with a friend about essence. I
>thought
> > I might broach this subject on Clay Art and see what else I may learn
>about
> > peoples perceptions on this subject.
> >
> > First this seems to be the most common definition of essence.
> >
> > essence n. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to
> > characterize or identify something.
> > The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
> > The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of
>things.
> >
> > An extract that has the fundamental properties of a
>substance in
> > concentrated form.
> > Such an extract in a solution of alcohol.
> > A perfume or scent.
> > One that has or shows an abundance of a quality as if
>highly concentrated:
> > a neighbor who is the essence of hospitality.
> > Something that exists, especially a spiritual or
>incorporeal entity
> >
> > Some synonyms could be sprit, core, heart, soul, fundamental nature, and
> > there is quintessence
> >
> > quintessence The pure, highly concentrated essence of a thing.
> > The purest or most typical instance: the quintessence
>of
>evil.
> > In ancient and medieval philosophy, the fifth and
>highest
>essence
> > after the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water,
>thought to be
> > the substance of the heavenly bodies and latent in all
>things. essence"
> > is.
> >
> > These are all still very abstract but with the definition of
>"quintessence"
> > we start to get closer to
> > the core of the discussion I had with my friend and I think closer to
> > something that is somewhat less abstract than the word "essence". I
>believe
> > that the key word here is "latent" but first I need to
> > the point of why I have brought this up.
> >
> > How often have we sat with a friend(s) at an opening, listening to a
> > symphony, etc. and commented to each other that the peace held some
>"essence
> > of being" or "there is some magic to this piece." These kind of comments
>and
> > many more like them are these human "gut" feelings about why one piece
>of
> > art has "essence" and another does not. We can use a million
>definitions,
>we
> > can look at the technical merit of the piece and it's maker - and still
>not
> > be any closer to what it is that gives this piece that sense of magic,
> > majesty, and essence over something else.
> >
> > This has bothered me for some time. After looking all over for
>discussions
> > of "essence" which not surprisingly there are many from ancient Greece
>to
> > today's philosophers. Some of which are discussed in Giuseppe Del Rey's
>book
> > "The Cosmic Dance" (very technical reading not for the lighthearted),
>Robert
> > Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" an inquiry into
>value,
> > and Carl Sagan's many books and writings.
> >
> > Essence! What is it? How do you create work that has it? Why do some
>find
>it
> > easily and others seemingly make piece after piece that is heartless and
> > devoid of all essence? Here is what I would like to discuss if any are
> > interested!
> >
> > Essence is directly related to complexity. There can be some extremely
> > simple articles of work that have essence and some extremely complex
>pieces
> > that have none. So how is complexity related at all to essence?
> > If you remember from above when we read the definition of "quintessence"
>I
> > highlighted one word and that was "latent". Let's continue ....
> >
> > In any system (material) the system is based above simpler building
>blocks.
> > For example with clay there are the individual molecules of kaolin's,
> > feldspars, ball clays, silica, etc. When they are all combined with
>water
> > and bacteria etc. suddenly a more complex substance is created. Complex
> > indeed! So when making anything we are dealing with added layers of
> > complexity. One more example to make my point and then let us hopefully
>have
> > a discussion.
> >
> > For example if I extracted some DNA from myself, with today's science I
> > could be cloned; Correct? But would that clone have the essence of me?
>We
> > all know that there is not a chance of that happening because I am the
> > direct result of many complex external and internal forces that have
>modeled
> > me during my life. This is where the word "latent" comes in.
> >
> > With each layer of complexity there are complex relationships that are
> > formed with the layers above and the layers below. I use a hierarchy to
> > illustrate the concept but of course it does not need to be so. It could
> > very well be the complex interactions in a glaze; a disordered matrix.
> >
> > It is within these complex relationships that we find essence.
> >
> > "Essence is found in the latent information that is conveyed
>through these
> > complex inter-relationships."
> >
> > So when a piece of work has essence it is in fact, if we are paying
>close
> > attention- conveying latent information to us through the
> > inter-relationships of the medium, the form, colour, subject matter,
> > personality of the maker, etc.
> >
> > So my question is to those that may be interested is what do you think
>of
> > this definition? Could it be expanded? How? What other factors may be at
> > play here. Basically anything that could be added to further our
> > understanding of essence and how we may be able to achieve it in our
>work -
> > if we are looking for this type of definition in our work.
> >
> > everything is possible,
> > Rod Wuetherick
> > RedIron Studios
> >
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Billie Mitchell on tue 8 apr 03
i agree with david on what makes a good pot. after working and working
with my pots it took me a long time to figure out what was me. when i
got my spirit into my pot so to speak i finally made some good work. it
has to come from within yourself. i find that i loose myself into my work
and when i do thats when i had a good pot. most any good potter can sit
down to a wheel a put out a good pot. but what makes a great pot is when
a potter can sit down and make something that comes from within. find
their own niche so to speak. their are plenty of copy cats out there who
can copy anyones work but to find their own way they lack the imagination
or the drive to make something that is just their own. when a potter finds
the heart and spirit of themselves thats when they become a good and great
potter. not that i am that good yet but i am on my way because i have
found my spirit and the heart of myself as a potter. i try to give something
of myself into all of my work and its beginning to show. cant wait to see
what i will do in the future when i am as good as the of great potters on
clayart.
later
billie mitchell
artistswc@bellsouth.net
Ruth Ballou on tue 8 apr 03
I'm reading Possession by A. S. Byatt. An experienced writer gives
advice to a young writer, saying " A writer only becomes a true writer
by practising his craft, by experimenting constantly with language, as
a great artist may experience with clay or oils until the medium
becomes second nature, to be moulded however the artist may desire."
This resonates with me.... the essence of a good pot, painting, or any
artist endeavor is found in the tangible expression of the artist's
seamless union with the chosen medium. This implies a lot of practice
that leads to an awareness of the details. The artist's energy and
vision is then most effectively communicated to the viewer (or user,
in the case of pots). We can appreciate this essence even in works that
are not compatible with our personal tastes.
Thought provoking topic....
Ruth Ballou
Silver Springing, MD ---- for a while longer
iandol on tue 8 apr 03
Dear Julie,
Your comparison of children playing music is an interesting one, but the =
contrast may be approached by remembering that mature musicians have a =
freedom to interpret which is not open to an accomplished learner who is =
being judged in competition.
One of the ways accomplished artists do this is to make almost =
imperceptible changes to the timing or the phrasing of the passages. =
Considerable time is needed for the subconscious mind to overcome =
inhibitions of Ego. Music is then played without conscious thought of =
physical motion. Arms, Hands and Fingers, not Brain control the =
instrument. Mind controls Time.
Best regards,
Ivor.
David Beumee on tue 8 apr 03
I'd like to respond to Billie's comments.
Hamada was fond of saying "the clay teaches us",
and I know it is true. Billie said it took a long time to figure out
what was in himself. I don't think it has to do with trying in such a way,
or even that great pots come from some special place within yourself.
Majic happens when I'm able to get out of the way of myself.
The form that looked great as the first or second in a series
gets rewedged after I look at the fifth or sixth.
When it's the moment of brush decoration, no matter how much I practice,
there is a time later on when the wax flows off the brush differently.
I remember Mel said something about just keep making,
and it'll work out. That gets very close to it.
David Beumee
Earth Alchemy Pottery
4/8/03 7:26:11 AM, Billie Mitchell wrote:
>i agree with david on what makes a good pot. after working and working
>with my pots it took me a long time to figure out what was me. when i
>got my spirit into my pot so to speak i finally made some good work. it
>has to come from within yourself. i find that i loose myself into my work
>and when i do thats when i had a good pot. most any good potter can sit
>down to a wheel a put out a good pot. but what makes a great pot is when
>a potter can sit down and make something that comes from within. find
>their own niche so to speak. their are plenty of copy cats out there who
>can copy anyones work but to find their own way they lack the imagination
>or the drive to make something that is just their own. when a potter finds
>the heart and spirit of themselves thats when they become a good and great
>potter. not that i am that good yet but i am on my way because i have
>found my spirit and the heart of myself as a potter. i try to give something
>of myself into all of my work and its beginning to show. cant wait to see
>what i will do in the future when i am as good as the of great potters on
>clayart.
>
>later
>billie mitchell
>artistswc@bellsouth.net
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
>
Janet Kaiser on tue 8 apr 03
Oh, dear Rod. What a complicated series of mental acrobatics! I am not sure
a simple soul like me can keep up with you! Let's face it, if philosophers
ancient and modern had difficulty with the concept, what chance have I/we?
But even they came up with the idea that four elements made up everything
in the world and the heavens, plus the fifth "unknown" substance or X
factor. Hence the word quintessence. The illusive or unknown fifth part
which they recognised and therefore wished to define.
One could argue that essence is considered an outmoded concept in current
art culture, which is not concerned with process or content, so much as the
concept itself i.e. conceptual art. It is not the object, but the idea
which is considered meritorious (or otherwise). Or is that the X-factor? Is
the idea alone the essence?
Those who ARE concerned with process being an integral part of creating art
or objets d'art, such as potters and clay artists are more likely to
perceive the presence of such a concept as "essence", however you care to
define it, because there is such a fine line between what is considered
good and bad in their field. Once past the quantifiable aspects which one
can measure objectively, the remaining factor is regarded as the X-factor.
The subjective part we think of as like/dislike which we cannot define but
react to "instinctively".
That was all my first "gut reaction" to your post and I am quite glad it
was lost in the cyber glitch at Acers, because I gave the whole matter
considerably more thought over the weekend and I must admit that my premiss
unsticks at some point. I extended the whole idea to considering music (for
example) and found that it does not follow. It is therefore probably unfair
when considering visual art too, but being a trained artist (not a theorist
or historian) I am an unfit judge!
Let me try to explain... I have great difficulty when it comes to what is
called "modern classical" music. Where there is no perceivable melody, beat
or whatever that I understand using my limited vocabulary, knowledge and
experience of music. I simply do not "get it" nor do I get any enjoyment or
any other sort of feeling, message or sensual reaction. No quickening of
pulse, hair raising on the back of my neck, etc. etc. which classical music
always evokes. But I know from talking to living composers, musicians and
performers that this cutting edge modern classical music is very exciting
and imparts what other music does not and never could. They of course have
a full vocabulary and are trained to understand the discourse, just as I am
trained to understand what "modern art" is all about.
What "modern music" and "modern art" have in common, is the inability of
the untrained ear/eye/senses to appreciate the essence or X-factor the
creator obviously imbued the piece with. There must be an essence present
in every piece ever created, but it remains undetectable to those who have
not been sensitised to it. Extend that to thoughts on "good" and "evil" and
the same applies... Some are aware of auras, spirits, presences or whatever
they care to call them in places, building, relics, etc. as well as in
fellow living creatures. Others simply are not. The latter will say these
phenomena simply do not exist and deny any presence they cannot see, hear
and touch. This is the same right across the board of human experience,
especially in what I consider and think of as "the godlike in man"... i.e.
the creative spark.
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
*** From: Rod
*** E-address: rod@REDIRONSTUDIOS.CA
*** Sent: 02/04/03 Time: 07:01
>After having a interesting discussion with a friend about essence. I
thought
>I might broach this subject on Clay Art and see what else I may learn
about
>peoples perceptions on this subject.
>
>snip<
*** THE MAIL FROM Rod ENDS HERE ***
http://www.blairingbush.fsworld.co.uk
**********************************************************************
TRUTH is too precious to tell every fool who asks for it...
****** This post was sent to you today by Janet Kaiser *******
The Chapel of Art / Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent, Criccieth LL52 0EA, Wales, UK
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523570 URL: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
**********************************************************************
clennell on tue 8 apr 03
David H wrote
> I would agree that the essence of a good pot is the relationship
> of all the simple parts that make a complex whole. However, by far
> the most important "part" has to be the personality, or spirit, of
> the maker. A successful pot will reveal something about the maker,
> just as all successful art will allow the personality of the artist,
> writer, or player to be partially revealed.
David: I like the essence of a good pot put forth by Lee Love. Hamada I
think said _" A good pot is one that I like".
If I said that you'd all call me a egotistical jerk. A wise Japanese
national treasure says it and it's wisdom combined with humour.
This jerk would have liked ole Hammy.
Cheers,
Tony
Tony and Sheila Clennell
Sour Cherry Pottery
4545 King Street
Beamsville, Ontario
CANADA L0R 1B1
http://www.sourcherrypottery.com
clennell@vaxxine.com
http://www.sheridanc.on.ca/academic/arts/craftsdesign/workshops
Susan Setley on wed 9 apr 03
In a message dated 4/9/03 10:24:56 AM, iandol@TELL.NET.AU writes:
...
As you describe truly playing with expression, you are describing the ability
to surpass motor memory. The repetition (How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
Practice, practice, practice!) builds the motor memory so the cognitive part
of the brain is free to easily provide subtle variation to those motor
movements.
I think the same thing is true in pottery. The best idea in the world isn't
worth much without technical skills. I have until recently been at that point
-- my ideas where ahead of my skills. Now they're in closer proximity, which
is very freeing.
I know it's boring, but it really is good practice to take weighed balls of
clay of the same size, and attempt to make the same thing over and over. No,
it's not creative. It frees the person for greater creativity to develop
those skills to such a fine degree that mechanics no longer dominate creation.
| |
|
