Earl Brunner on fri 18 apr 03
Vince, read my last two sentences. I SAID it HAS to SPEAK to me.....
I didn't say all conceptual art is bad, just suspect. In the back of my
mind I'm always just a bit reluctant to give it ALL the same weight as a
Hamada pot, or a Laura Andreson, or a Richard Aerni. There are some
pots that I just have to touch, hold, feel. Gallery Directors don't
understand potters, and often don't like us at their exhibits. They
glue down the lids so we won't pick them up, put the pots in acrylic
boxes so we can't touch....
e.e.cummings ROCKS!
Vince Pitelka wrote:
>>I often think that the really bizarre stuff that some "artists" do in
>>the name of art is an attempt at a short cut to the top. If I can be
>>controversial, I don't have to be good. That is what I object to more
>>than anything. I respect hard work and dedication and mastery. And I
>>believe that in the long run these qualities will win out and identify
>>those works of art that are truly universal and lasting in nature. I
>>can only go by what draws a response from within me. Some kind of a
>>connection has to take place.
>
>
> Earl -
> It is too easy to say that. What are we suppose to do here? Should we
> evaluate each work of conceptual art based on whether or not the artist
> first gained legitimacy in traditional pictorial realism? You might not be
> able to tell by looking at these works whether or not the artist is working
> from a broad framework of artistic proficiency. But that is beside the
> point. The only thing that matters is the experiential power of the work -
> whether or not it SPEAKS to you. If you approach conceptual artwork with
> preconceived notions as represented by the generalization above, it is
> unlikely that the work will speak to you. Seems to me a rather drastic
> self-imposed handicap.
> 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.
>
Carhart, David on fri 18 apr 03
Vince wrote:
>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.
The problem that I have with this argument is that it assumes that pushing
the envelope results in an upward, not downward spiral. To put it on a
personal level, I may have the desire to drink groundbreaking amounts of
beer. If I embrace that desire, it may lead to greater freedom, looseness
and creativity or it may lead to alcoholism and a totally messed up life. I
restrain my desire to drink a case of beer a day because I suspect that if I
do it will make me less fulfilled, not more. I limit the expression of my
own desires because some choices seem better than others regardless of
whether I am drawn to them. I do not have to become a homeless alcoholic in
the interest of pushing the envelope or expressing every urge I have.
In the same way society and culture are full of forces that can be unhealthy
and destructive. There has to be a balance between celebrating and
protecting the freedom of expression and following it downward into the
darker depths of the human experience. Sometimes this means objecting or
protesting or even banning. It seems like by your reasoning we should let
every whim of every artist run its course as part of the "healthy and
natural artistic/cultural evolution." It sounds good but at some point we
have to oppose what is twisted and wrong with the world.
There are plenty of heroes who pushed the boundaries and threw off the
shackles of conventional wisdom to bring positive change just as there are
those who threw off the shackles of conventional wisdom to run the car into
the tree at 100 mph.
There has to be some means for a society to say "this one goes too far". We
have laws because we agree that some behavior is unacceptable. It seems
like it should at least be possible to say that an artist's expression is
unacceptable -- not just on a personal level but as a whole society.
Dave Carhart
Earl Brunner on fri 18 apr 03
I often think that the really bizarre stuff that some "artists" do in
the name of art is an attempt at a short cut to the top. If I can be
controversial, I don't have to be good. That is what I object to more
than anything. I respect hard work and dedication and mastery. And I
believe that in the long run these qualities will win out and identify
those works of art that are truly universal and lasting in nature. I
can only go by what draws a response from within me. Some kind of a
connection has to take place.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Carhart,
David
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:16 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Broken Art -- keep beating the topic just in case.
There are plenty of heroes who pushed the boundaries and threw off the
shackles of conventional wisdom to bring positive change just as there
are
those who threw off the shackles of conventional wisdom to run the car
into
the tree at 100 mph.
There has to be some means for a society to say "this one goes too far".
We
have laws because we agree that some behavior is unacceptable. It seems
like it should at least be possible to say that an artist's expression
is
unacceptable -- not just on a personal level but as a whole society.
Dave Carhart
________________________________________________________________________
______
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 fri 18 apr 03
> The problem that I have with this argument is that it assumes that pushing
> the envelope results in an upward, not downward spiral.
Carl -
In the long run, there is no possibility that pushing the envelope results
in anything but positive outcome. It is a very good thing. How could it
possibly be otherwise, unless you choose to impose and enforce a stagnant
status quo?
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/
Vince Pitelka on fri 18 apr 03
> I often think that the really bizarre stuff that some "artists" do in
> the name of art is an attempt at a short cut to the top. If I can be
> controversial, I don't have to be good. That is what I object to more
> than anything. I respect hard work and dedication and mastery. And I
> believe that in the long run these qualities will win out and identify
> those works of art that are truly universal and lasting in nature. I
> can only go by what draws a response from within me. Some kind of a
> connection has to take place.
Earl -
It is too easy to say that. What are we suppose to do here? Should we
evaluate each work of conceptual art based on whether or not the artist
first gained legitimacy in traditional pictorial realism? You might not be
able to tell by looking at these works whether or not the artist is working
from a broad framework of artistic proficiency. But that is beside the
point. The only thing that matters is the experiential power of the work -
whether or not it SPEAKS to you. If you approach conceptual artwork with
preconceived notions as represented by the generalization above, it is
unlikely that the work will speak to you. Seems to me a rather drastic
self-imposed handicap.
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/
Lee Love on sat 19 apr 03
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carhart, David"
> There has to be some means for a society to say "this one goes too far". We
> have laws because we agree that some behavior is unacceptable. It seems
> like it should at least be possible to say that an artist's expression is
> unacceptable -- not just on a personal level but as a whole society.
Yes! Absolutely! Speak up! Write about it, Make GREAT art in response.
But for heaven's sake, don't kill all art and creativity, just because
of a few narcissistic idiots. :^) Don't stop funding education and culture.
Education is our only protection against the moneyed interest that are foisting
the "art crap" on the public, just for their own profit.
I can't help but think that opposition against arts awards and grants is
a partially function of our current society's preference for "democratic
mediocracy." We've become very iconoclastic. We've been trained to not like
people more gifted than ourselves (we only accept the "financially gifted", who
we believe even the mediocre can emulate. We are told to be happy with our
"things" and to forget our worries by consuming. Our culture is going the way
of the Roman Empire. It is dying from "consumption."
Below is a little quote from one of my favorite art critics, the Aussie
Robert Hughes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Hughes, Time magazine art critic, discussed the importance of the
government as a patron of the arts. "The NEA is a vital catalyst to
non-government money for the arts," he said. "For as a rule, corporate money
likes prestige ventures, proven successes; whereas it's essential to the NEA's
mandate to care for what is unproven, what cannot yet -- or cannot ever --
succeed in the marketplace."
Hughes calls for arts "elitism":
Hughes had said, "I think the job of democracy, in the field of art, is to make
the world safe for elitism. Not an elitism based on race or money or social
position, but on skill and imagination."
But he added, "I am also a populist in that I believe these standards can and do
make sense to anyone who is prepared to pay enough attention."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We need to support education and arts education. This will help keep
moneyed interests from foisting "bad art" on the public.
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@hachiko.com
About FolkCraft:
mingei-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Share Photos Of the Akita Dog:
akita-g-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Zen Practice:
http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~ikiru/ezendo.html
or email to: E-zendo-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
| |
|
