Jeanie on tue 15 apr 03
Dear Vince, Thanks for your rant. I enjoyed it immensely, and agreed
with most of it. I'm often puzzled when my fellow potters disclaim the
identity of artists. After all, we spend intense time and energy to
make ob jects whose reason for existing is to be imbued with meaning
and to create the experience of shared meaning when people appreciate
and use what we make.We bring all the integrity and faithfullness to the
task that we can muster, and the objects that we make are Always a
mirror of the context in which they are made. What is that if not art?
Why would we want it mistaken for anything else? The fact that pottery
is seen as more accessable and less threatening than some other art
forms,has to do with its cultural context. Accessability and lack of
threat are not its defining characteristics. I think its timewe
cowboyed up and embraced our identity. In our own communities our work
does often embody the Art Experience. You don't like the latest choices
the N E A has made? Step into the nearest phone booth, shuck the muddy
clothes, velcro a big A on your chest and change the world. Why not?
Just my humble opinion and I know I'll get slapped down, but I don't
think anything will change if we dont't enter the arena. If you want
art to play a bigger role in society we need to point out that it lives-
its the potter next door. You know, that guy with the big A on his
chest. That potter....
Jeanie in Pennslyvania on a perfect day
Vince Pitelka on tue 15 apr 03
> Mayor Mel is dead on target! What passes for "art" in this country, and
> most of the rest of the world, is junk.
I do not mean to aim this at Marcy Dupre, but his message just set me off.
I cannot believe the tone of most of the responses to the "Broken Art"
theme. Sure there is a lot wrong with our contemporary culture, and it is
reflected in the young people today. But let's get real here. It is not
the fault of the young people and the artists. It is OUR GODDAMN FAULT. We
let it happen. Marcy is correct when he says it is all our problem, every
one of us. But contemporary art is not part of th eproblem. It is healthy
evidence of the solution in progress. It is to be supported and encouraged
at every opportunity.
And I have said the following many times on Clayart. Art responds to the
time and place in which it is created. Our contemporary society is very
screwed up, and that is reflected in the behavior of young people, and it is
reflected in the work created by contemporary artists. If art STOPS
reflecting the time and place in which it is created, it dies a quick and
painful death. Are there artists and artwork that are about
hype/scam/ripoff? Of course there are, because there is abundant
hype/scam/ripoff in our culture today. What could be more appropriate? Are
there artists who work hard to milk the system? Of course there are,
because there are always people trying to milk any system. Again, it is a
reflection and illumination of problems in our contemporary culture.
Hey, I'm an optimist and idealist, and generally a cheerful one, believe it
or not! But I have a lot of trouble with people who whine about something
that is so damn obvious. Ever since freedom became a reality, artists of
all kinds have reveled in freedom of expression. That is one of the things
that artists do, and thank god for that. They use freedom of expression to
test the boundaries of art, culture, and society. We NEED for artists to do
that.
The leading edge of the avant garde has always confused people and pissed
them off. No one likes to see their established values challenged and
supplanted. But are we so culturally paranoid that we cannot handle that
challenge? Sure there is a lot of art out there that is worthless bullshit.
It might make a big noise at the exhibition opening, but it will quickly and
silently slip into the dustbin of history. But you and I cannot tell which
work is important. That's the key. Its contribution and brilliance might
fit into a context far broader that our own understanding, and we damn well
better allow for that possibility.
I certainly don't expect you to agree with me regarding which art is good or
important. In fact I appreciate it when we disagree on that. Out of such
disagreement comes new information that fuels the evolution of culture and
society.
Thank god there are artists out there doing artwork that is groundbreaking
and/or revolutionary and/or outrageous and/or offensive and/or obscene
and/or confrontational and/or anarchistic. You talk like they are our
nemesis, when in fact they may be our salvation. And thank god there are
grant-funding agencies like the NEA that encourage artists to take risks and
challenge the staid conservatism that would impose closeminded tradition and
status quo in place of healthy and natural artistic/cultural evolution.
I get so sick and tired of people endlessing dredging up Serano's "Piss
Christ" and other such RARE examples in their misdirected attempts to defame
the NEA. Face it, those examples represent an extremely small presentage of
funded works, viewed among the broad range of very important and worthwhile
artwork supported by the NEA. Thank god we DO have government agencies that
help fuel risk-taking in the arts. That is a VERY HEALTHY thing in any
culture.
The cliche "Either you are part of the problem or you are part of the
solution" applies to so many things. In this case, there are serious
problems in society, and contemporary art responds to and reflects those
problems, and therefore is part of the solution. By actively supporting the
idea of revolutionary contemporary art, we are also part of the solution.
Okay, done with my rant. Thanks and best wishes -
- 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/
Dean Walker on wed 16 apr 03
Vince, Please explain to me why we should not only "thank God" for the
creation of "obscene and offensive art", but we should consider this art as
our "possible salvation." If you could make the explanation simple for me I
would appreciate it.
At this point, I consider this to be an intellectually lazy and narcissistic
way of expression. Most of it is predictable and boring at this point. But
then I have been around the block a few times concerning art and art
education. We have had one freak display after another. The only people that
would be shocked or repulsed anymore are the regular guys out there just
trying to make a living and have brief encounters with art. Unfortuantly,
those are the people that want to end the funding for art.
Please help me to understand, so I can explain it to my non-artists
regular, hard working, family oriented friends.
Dean
San Antonio, Tx
Ned Ludd on wed 16 apr 03
Vince wrote
> > Mayor Mel is dead on target! What passes for "art" in this country, and
> > most of the rest of the world, is junk.
>
>I do not mean to aim this at Marcy Dupre, but his message just set me off.
>I cannot believe the tone of most of the responses to the "Broken Art"
>theme. Sure there is a lot wrong with our contemporary culture, and it is
>reflected in the young people today. But let's get real here. It is not
>the fault of the young people and the artists. It is OUR GODDAMN FAULT. We
>let it happen.
Exactly. We tolerate it... and it gets worse...we keep tolerating it,
wincing .. it gets worse ... in the end we either throw in the towel
and put up with EVERYTHING, having let our standards and expectations
get dumbed-down to where we are unshockable. At that point we would
find we were immovable and incapable of art. It would be dead. WE
would be dead inside, running on empty as we chugged our Prozac and
Viagra just to keep going through the motions. Not that the economy
would notice much change. Art might die, but stuff is forever. :-/
Or, we lash out in anger and say to hell with this, not with _my_ tax money.
>Marcy is correct when he says it is all our problem, every
>one of us. But contemporary art is not part of th eproblem. It is healthy
>evidence of the solution in progress. It is to be supported and encouraged
>at every opportunity.
I kind of like your optimism, but on what is it based? You say
contemporary art is "healthy evidence of the solution in progress."
Why should we believe you? On what grounds do you make this claim?
I only ask to see evidence that art celebrated as 'modern' _is_
actually making a positive contribution to our culture. That we ARE
the better for it.
That, say, if it vanished from the face of the earth tomorrow we
WOULD mourn its loss keenly, feel it as a catastrophe, feel at least
as stricken as we are over the wholesale looting of the Baghdad
museum, the art crime of this new century ... if we are lucky. :-(
>And I have said the following many times on Clayart. Art responds to the
>time and place in which it is created. Our contemporary society is very
>screwed up, and that is reflected in the behavior of young people, and it is
>reflected in the work created by contemporary artists.
I agree.
>If art STOPS
>reflecting the time and place in which it is created, it dies a quick and
>painful death. hype/scam/ripoff? Of course there are, because
>there is abundant
>hype/scam/ripoff in our culture today. What could be more appropriate? Are
>there artists who work hard to milk the system? Of course there are,
>because there are always people trying to milk any system. Again, it is a
>reflection and illumination of problems in our contemporary culture.
>
>Hey, I'm an optimist and idealist, and generally a cheerful one, believe it
>or not! But I have a lot of trouble with people who whine about something
>that is so damn obvious. Ever since freedom became a reality, artists of
>all kinds have reveled in freedom of expression.
Without limits? Without responsibility? It is only in our
dyfunctional modern society that artists have said that there are no
limits to what they can express in the name of art, and that this is
more important than whether the community that supports them likes
it, desires it, or not.
> That is one of the things
>that artists do, and thank god for that. They use freedom of expression to
>test the boundaries of art, culture, and society. We NEED for artists to do
>that.
Freedom WITHOUT responsibility, without restraint, is a fake freedom.
It's the freedom of the idiot to spray gasoline and play with
matches. Yes, I'm thinking of the scene in the movie 'Zoolander'
where the oh-so-cool if somewhat IQ-challenged male models have their
last frolic, free-expressing themselves at the gas station...
>The leading edge of the avant garde has always confused people and pissed
>them off. No one likes to see their established values challenged and
>supplanted
Not necessarily. I do, when it's for the better. Go ahead, change my
values! I can actually stand improvement
However, I alone will be the judge of that. Nobody else is going to
tell me what is good art in violation of my own senses.
I believe that a community has the right to define what graces or
dis-graces it, what it consents to take in and what to exclude. Even
ideas. In fact, especially ideas, as our philosophies lead directly
to how we live in and impact the world. As our dominant philosophy
is, so goes our world. We don't just suffer from environmental
failure, we are in the grip of a insane philosophy that sure as night
follows day MADE it happen.
Denying this right weakens and destroy communities. Imagine the
government telling the Amish, for example, what to accept inside
their culture, that they had to start tolerating ideas that they had
rejected. It awes me how they have kept their way of life going on so
long, and their land is still in such good shape. They still get
together and raise barns.. it's beautiful and instructive. Heck, who
else does that these days? It was common once. They have a level of
togetherness and mutual help that is hard to find elsewhere in north
America. I believe that without their firm NO to what they will not
accept inside their community, they would not have the power to shape
their lives together as they wish. Their YES to what they affirm and
live by depends on that NO.
We have to learn to say our NO and mean it. Wisely.
>But are we so culturally paranoid that we cannot handle that challenge?
Reality check: in every known culture, anything that threatens, or
seems to, peoples' core values WILL elicit paranioa. Disrespect in
the extreme - shown by the Serrano and Chris Ofili works (excrement
on and around sacred images) - is bound to be felt as threatening.
Only someone inured to disrespect of what they held most dear, or not
holding the art's subject in any regard at all, would not feel
offended. This is why it is vital the artist must come from love as
much as creativity, love and enlightened intention, in order to deal
with the anxieties or fears of his supporters and keep the basic
trust of the community.
>Sure there is a lot of art out there that is worthless bullshit.
>It might make a big noise at the exhibition opening, but it will quickly and
>silently slip into the dustbin of history. But you and I cannot tell which
>work is important. That's the key. Its contribution and brilliance might
>fit into a context far broader that our own understanding, and we damn well
>better allow for that possibility.
>
>I certainly don't expect you to agree with me regarding which art is good or
>important. In fact I appreciate it when we disagree on that. Out of such
>disagreement comes new information that fuels the evolution of culture and
>society.
Right on.
>Thank god there are artists out there doing artwork that is groundbreaking
>and/or revolutionary and/or outrageous and/or offensive and/or obscene
>and/or confrontational and/or anarchistic. You talk like they are our
>nemesis, when in fact they may be our salvation. And thank god there are
>grant-funding agencies like the NEA that encourage artists to take risks and
>challenge the staid conservatism that would impose closeminded tradition and
>status quo in place of healthy and natural artistic/cultural evolution.
>
>I get so sick and tired of people endlessing dredging up Serano's "Piss
>Christ" and other such RARE examples in their misdirected attempts to defame
>the NEA. Face it, those examples represent an extremely small presentage of
>funded works, viewed among the broad range of very important and worthwhile
>artwork supported by the NEA. Thank god we DO have government agencies that
>help fuel risk-taking in the arts. That is a VERY HEALTHY thing in any
>culture.
>
>The cliche "Either you are part of the problem or you are part of the
>solution" applies to so many things. In this case, there are serious
>problems in society, and contemporary art responds to and reflects those
>problems, and therefore is part of the solution.
Reflects those problems, yes, I agree. But therefore is part of the solution?
Please explain this.
At this point let me say I have no problem with the principle of
state-sponsored art, which has existed since the first community art
was created, thousands of years ago.
>By actively supporting the
>idea of revolutionary contemporary art, we are also part of the
>solution.
Not necessarily, but we sure would be part of its perpetuation.
Your view seems to be that modern art is self-correcting, and leads
inevitably to the 'solution'. That there is some sort of positive
feedback process going on that is leading us to better and better art
through the garbage.
I do not believe it. Again, where is the evidence? Enlighten us, please.
Now Vince, I have right here my sturdy, patented, PPA-approved,
teflon-coated anti-BS umbrella (49.99; 69.99 for two!) so please
don't wear yourself out thundering "bullshit!" broadsides at me,
Prof. It has not escaped me that this is your, ah, typical
up-and-at-'em tactic, employed when you're backed into a corner, or
just in a baaaaad mood.
I like to tweak people I like, by the way ;-)
best wishes
Ned
who had kid-sitting time today, so just had to get into deep clayart
doo-doo, like a twit. Will he never learn? Sigh!
***
> I have found that all ugly things are made by those who strive
> to make something beautiful, and that all beautiful things are
> made by those who strive to make something useful.
>
> Oscar Wilde
***
> We would prefer not to call what we are experiencing social
> disintegration... We are capable, really, only of the forcible
> integration of centralization-economic, political, military and
> educational-and always at the cost of social and cultural
> disintegration. Our aim, it would appear, is to "integrate"
> ourselves into a limitless military-industrial city in which we
> all will be lost, and so may do as we please, in the freedom
> either to run wild until we are caught or killed, or to do "all
> the things that other people do."
***
> .. Our place of safety can only be the community, and not just
> one community, but many of them everywhere. Upon that depends
> all that we still claim to value: freedom, dignity, mutual help
> and affection, undestructive pleasure, and the rest. Human life,
> as most of us still would like to define it, is community life...
Wendell Berry, from 'The Art of the Common Place'
***
Gerald O'Sullivan on wed 16 apr 03
I am thinking of Peter Voulkos and Paul Soldner and imagine all the old
potter-fogies of those days shaking their heads sorrowfully, saying "Oh,
isn't it awful, what a lot of rubbish, not like in our day, no respect for
tradition, this isn't art, its junk, disgraceful waste. Not proper pots at
all, all misshapen, can't pour tea from that. Bernard Leach would turn in
his grave, bless him (sigh)"
Jeez, guys, this debate is like a stuck record. People stormed out of
Stravinsky's ballets, thought Jackson Pollock was just spilt paint, James
Joyce was obscene. Vince Pitelka is absolutely spot on - art which is worth
anything embodies not just the creative spirit of its creator, but also the
spirit of the times - the zeitgeist.. If the art is disturbing and if it
troubles you, then it has struck a nerve, because the world is a disturbing,
troublesome place.
Whether or not "Piss Christ" stands the test of time, the whole point of the
avant garde is that it is out there - by definition - in front, the advance
party, the scouts in unfamiliar territory. Maybe they will be headed off at
the pass or get lost in the artistic wilderness, but if Soldner had ignored
the just-go-with-the-flow spirit of the late-fifties/early-sixties, he would
not have plunged a red-hot pot into a bunch of pepper leaves and raku would
never have moved beyond tea bowls.
Feel the times and look at the art. Are we moving forward or are we trying
to force the boiling, chaotic present into the strait-jacket of a
barely-remembered, idealised past? We are not obliged to like what we see,
but as creative people we are obliged to look, think, wonder, and
occasionally we will marvel, and be moved.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: Broken Art - Jeese, what a bunch of old fogies
> > Mayor Mel is dead on target! What passes for "art" in this country, and
> > most of the rest of the world, is junk.
>
> I do not mean to aim this at Marcy Dupre, but his message just set me off.
> I cannot believe the tone of most of the responses to the "Broken Art"
> theme. Sure there is a lot wrong with our contemporary culture, and it is
> reflected in the young people today. But let's get real here. It is not
> the fault of the young people and the artists. It is OUR GODDAMN FAULT.
We
> let it happen. Marcy is correct when he says it is all our problem, every
> one of us. But contemporary art is not part of th eproblem. It is
healthy
> evidence of the solution in progress. It is to be supported and
encouraged
> at every opportunity.
>
> And I have said the following many times on Clayart. Art responds to the
> time and place in which it is created. Our contemporary society is very
> screwed up, and that is reflected in the behavior of young people, and it
is
> reflected in the work created by contemporary artists. If art STOPS
> reflecting the time and place in which it is created, it dies a quick and
> painful death. Are there artists and artwork that are about
> hype/scam/ripoff? Of course there are, because there is abundant
> hype/scam/ripoff in our culture today. What could be more appropriate?
Are
> there artists who work hard to milk the system? Of course there are,
> because there are always people trying to milk any system. Again, it is a
> reflection and illumination of problems in our contemporary culture.
>
> Hey, I'm an optimist and idealist, and generally a cheerful one, believe
it
> or not! But I have a lot of trouble with people who whine about something
> that is so damn obvious. Ever since freedom became a reality, artists of
> all kinds have reveled in freedom of expression. That is one of the
things
> that artists do, and thank god for that. They use freedom of expression
to
> test the boundaries of art, culture, and society. We NEED for artists to
do
> that.
>
> The leading edge of the avant garde has always confused people and pissed
> them off. No one likes to see their established values challenged and
> supplanted. But are we so culturally paranoid that we cannot handle that
> challenge? Sure there is a lot of art out there that is worthless
bullshit.
> It might make a big noise at the exhibition opening, but it will quickly
and
> silently slip into the dustbin of history. But you and I cannot tell
which
> work is important. That's the key. Its contribution and brilliance might
> fit into a context far broader that our own understanding, and we damn
well
> better allow for that possibility.
>
> I certainly don't expect you to agree with me regarding which art is good
or
> important. In fact I appreciate it when we disagree on that. Out of such
> disagreement comes new information that fuels the evolution of culture and
> society.
>
> Thank god there are artists out there doing artwork that is groundbreaking
> and/or revolutionary and/or outrageous and/or offensive and/or obscene
> and/or confrontational and/or anarchistic. You talk like they are our
> nemesis, when in fact they may be our salvation. And thank god there are
> grant-funding agencies like the NEA that encourage artists to take risks
and
> challenge the staid conservatism that would impose closeminded tradition
and
> status quo in place of healthy and natural artistic/cultural evolution.
>
> I get so sick and tired of people endlessing dredging up Serano's "Piss
> Christ" and other such RARE examples in their misdirected attempts to
defame
> the NEA. Face it, those examples represent an extremely small presentage
of
> funded works, viewed among the broad range of very important and
worthwhile
> artwork supported by the NEA. Thank god we DO have government agencies
that
> help fuel risk-taking in the arts. That is a VERY HEALTHY thing in any
> culture.
>
> The cliche "Either you are part of the problem or you are part of the
> solution" applies to so many things. In this case, there are serious
> problems in society, and contemporary art responds to and reflects those
> problems, and therefore is part of the solution. By actively supporting
the
> idea of revolutionary contemporary art, we are also part of the solution.
> Okay, done with my rant. Thanks and best wishes -
> - 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/
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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 wed 16 apr 03
> Vince, Please explain to me why we should not only "thank God" for the
> creation of "obscene and offensive art", but we should consider this art
as
> our "possible salvation." If you could make the explanation simple for me
I
> would appreciate it.
Sure Dean, it's my pleasure to clarify things for you. Since obscenity,
pornography, and violence exist in our culture, it is imperative that
artists be able to recognize and reflect those qualities, and it is a good
thing when they do. No one is saying that this work has to be exhibitied on
the streets or in public schools, but it damn well needs to be created and
exhibited. The attempt to suppress such art is just another manifestation
of the inclination to collectively bury our heads in the sand and ignore the
serious problems in our culture, as so many people seem to be doing these
days. Art is like the press. In order for it to be effective, it must be
unfettered and uncensored.
Best wishes -
- 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/
Dean Walker on thu 17 apr 03
So let me understand, Vince. What you are saying is ...If we as artists
don't reflect obscenity pornography and violence...then no one will know
these things exist ? And if we don't reflect these things, nothing will be
done about these problems? If we don't show people how disgusting these
things really are then they won't know any better and they will just keep on
doing them ? So, by producing an image of a naked helpless woman being
strangled with a pair of panty hose we are helping to end violence against
women. I feel like I have let society down as an artist....How is everyone
going to know if I don't tell them. No wonder the world is in such bad shape.
That must be why all these rapists and child molesters have all these
pornographic images around themselves. They are trying to prevent themselves
from raping and molesting.
Thanks, I get it now.
Dean
Tom Sawyer on fri 18 apr 03
Maybe what we ought to be discussing is "what is good art". Not being
well schooled in the topic, I would fain hazard a definition. But, I can
recognize some elements that are important to me: form, color, balance,
proportions, technique and meaning to mention a few. There is certainly
room for a crucifix in urine or the smearing of feces in my lexicon if
some or all of the other criteria are subsumed. Someone once said beauty
is in the eye of the beholder; I would say the same of art. The whole
idea of good and bad are human constructs. If I am asked to define what
is good, I'll probably define it in terms of what makes me look or feel
good. I would agree with whoever it was that said in the course of this
discussion that "most art" today is crap. BUT, I do recognize that it is
my definition of crap. Certainly one can always appeal to history and
custom and argue that good art has been defined as follows........ da da
da .......... based on deceased or living so called experts or critics;
for example, the Greeks determined the "ideal proportion" to be such and
such. Personally, I like their proportions but I have noticed that when
people are surveyed and their answers plotted on graph paper, it's a
bell shaped curve. Have you ever wondered what the outliers are looking
at? People get too hung up on the idea that their values are somehow
superior for all of the rest of us. My advice is to cool it.
As to government support, the works of past ancient masters would not
now be our legacy if it weren't for government support to have had them
created and preserved. Who supported the artisans whose works were
featured in the Baghdad Museum? Who paid for the museum and the
collection and purchase of the artifacts it contained? Big Bad
Government. Human life is not only just about surviving, its also about
enjoying. I personally believe it is the responsibility, or at least it
should be, for government to foster whatever it is that creates a better
life. Science makes life possible; Art makes it worth while. Saying that
government shouldn't support the arts is like saying government
shouldn't support medical research or education; let the doctors,
hospitals and drug companies do the research; if you have children why
should I pay for their education? Home school. Why do we need colleges?
We have the internet. Tough love. Tough citizenery that's what we need.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
| |
|
