pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sun 25 may 03
to Tony's comments
Hi Vince, et al...
Is it no longer possible for an ( especially 'college'
educated) person to (have permission to) see, or (especially
IF they have been 'taught' Art-appreciation,) or
to suppose it possible, oweing to some purported of some
'body-of-work (or read I suppose, anticeedant 'solds' over
fourty years or something...)
...that the real esoteric 'statement' here, the real
"message", the real intent, the real inspiration or 'muse'
as is being honored, the thing as is being wrought and
expressed of Koie's long 'experience', and his life-long
steeping in his native, esoteric, arcane, Oriental aesthetic
complexity and it's attending presumed facility for
idiomatic delicacy, allusion and depth...
...might just be, that he is simply trying to sell shoddy
mugs to whoever will buy them
for..."two-hundred-and-seventy-five-american-dollars-plus-sh
ipping-and-handleing..." ?
...as ( may we not conceed?) are given
a fatuous justification for themselves (by incorporateing a
faint, cursory mention of 'sept 11'...but much more so,
having his 'name' in BIG 'bold' Roman Capital Letters on two
sides of each mug...)
...?...
That can not be 'it'?
(Good naturedly, please know...and...in earnest...)
Phil
las vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition - Tony's comments
> > If I need to know an artist's background, bio,
influences, etc, to
> > understand his or her work, then the work has failed in
my opinion with
> the
> > exception of that artist's friends and collectors.
>
> This is fine as a personal decision, Tony, but please
don't imply that
> anyone else should limit themselves this way. Of course
it's okay for you
> or anyone else to go entirely on how the work strikes you,
given only the
> piece itself without any documentation or background.
There is nothing
> wrong with that, but remember that true appreciation of
art as a purposeful
> endeavor has little to do with whether or not you like the
work. It has to
> do with understanding the work and the context of its
creation.
>
> But think of it this way: if you always observe and
appreciate art based
> only on what is in the artwork itself, your appreciation
is based entirely
> on what you already know - on your present context for
understanding and
> appreciation. So you deny yourself the opportunity to
expand on that
> knowledge and therefore on your capacity for the
appreciation and
> understanding of art. Why in the world would you do that?
>
> > If the artist needs to explain the work so we "get it,"
the artist attempt
> > at making a statement has failed as well.
>
> Who says the artist needed to explain anything? He did so
for the benefit
> of those of us who are open to a broader understanding and
interpretation.
> I'd say that was a very considerate thing to do. Without
the explanation
> you might understand the work and you might not, but to
deny yourself the
> opportunity to investigate further, to find out what the
artist was trying
> to accomplish, seems an unproductive self-limitation.
>
> > If a work is dependant on an artists career and what
they have done in the
> > past to understand it, it is also a failure.
>
> Huh? You better explain this one. Every artist's work
is dependent on
> their career and what they have done in the past, and it
is ALWAYS
> instructive to learn that information. Again, why in the
world would you
> deny yourself this opportunity?
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
Katey on tue 27 may 03
to Tony's comments
You know, I find this discussion odd. Each side seems to be presuming
something about the other:
Those that like the Koie work seem to be assuming that those that don't
are either culturally dense or intellectually lazy. Those that don't
like the work seem to be suggesting that there's some sort of "scam"
afoot on the part of the artist due to the high price of his work.
Why should either be the case? Couldn't it just be that Koie (a
well-known and capable potter) is making work that pleases him. He
charges what he thinks he can get for it. The end. The work will either
sell well or it won't.
And couldn't it also be that those that hate the work simply do not like
it. Not all work will be successfull. I disagree that one needs to
know "where the artist is coming from" in order to feel comfortable in
deciding whether they like a body of work or not. You either like it
or you don't. I don't think it's necessary to be "educated" to have a
legitimate opinion. Sure, it may be instructive or interesting to learn
about the artist, or a particular body of work, but it isn't necessary.
Such a notion seems to be suggesting a sort of elitist idea of who art
is for and who is capable of appreciating it.
I for one find the artist interesting but I don't find these works
appealing. It's just not doing it for me. I do love Japanese pottery
though.
-Katey
(art student)
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>Hi Vince, et al...
>
>Is it no longer possible for an ( especially 'college'
>educated) person to (have permission to) see, or (especially
>IF they have been 'taught' Art-appreciation,) or
>to suppose it possible, oweing to some purported of some
>'body-of-work (or read I suppose, anticeedant 'solds' over
>fourty years or something...)
>
>...that the real esoteric 'statement' here, the real
>"message", the real intent, the real inspiration or 'muse'
>as is being honored, the thing as is being wrought and
>expressed of Koie's long 'experience', and his life-long
>steeping in his native, esoteric, arcane, Oriental aesthetic
>complexity and it's attending presumed facility for
>idiomatic delicacy, allusion and depth...
>
>...might just be, that he is simply trying to sell shoddy
>mugs to whoever will buy them
>for..."two-hundred-and-seventy-five-american-dollars-plus-sh
>ipping-and-handleing..." ?
>
>...as ( may we not conceed?) are given
>a fatuous justification for themselves (by incorporateing a
>faint, cursory mention of 'sept 11'...but much more so,
>having his 'name' in BIG 'bold' Roman Capital Letters on two
>sides of each mug...)
>
>...?...
>
>That can not be 'it'?
>
>(Good naturedly, please know...and...in earnest...)
>
>Phil
>las vegas
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vince Pitelka"
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 1:14 PM
>Subject: Re: Koie Ryoji On-line Exhibition - Tony's comments
>
>
>
>
>>>If I need to know an artist's background, bio,
>>>
>>>
>influences, etc, to
>
>
>>>understand his or her work, then the work has failed in
>>>
>>>
>my opinion with
>
>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>exception of that artist's friends and collectors.
>>>
>>>
>>This is fine as a personal decision, Tony, but please
>>
>>
>don't imply that
>
>
>>anyone else should limit themselves this way. Of course
>>
>>
>it's okay for you
>
>
>>or anyone else to go entirely on how the work strikes you,
>>
>>
>given only the
>
>
>>piece itself without any documentation or background.
>>
>>
>There is nothing
>
>
>>wrong with that, but remember that true appreciation of
>>
>>
>art as a purposeful
>
>
>>endeavor has little to do with whether or not you like the
>>
>>
>work. It has to
>
>
>>do with understanding the work and the context of its
>>
>>
>creation.
>
>
>>But think of it this way: if you always observe and
>>
>>
>appreciate art based
>
>
>>only on what is in the artwork itself, your appreciation
>>
>>
>is based entirely
>
>
>>on what you already know - on your present context for
>>
>>
>understanding and
>
>
>>appreciation. So you deny yourself the opportunity to
>>
>>
>expand on that
>
>
>>knowledge and therefore on your capacity for the
>>
>>
>appreciation and
>
>
>>understanding of art. Why in the world would you do that?
>>
>>
>>
>>>If the artist needs to explain the work so we "get it,"
>>>
>>>
>the artist attempt
>
>
>>>at making a statement has failed as well.
>>>
>>>
>>Who says the artist needed to explain anything? He did so
>>
>>
>for the benefit
>
>
>>of those of us who are open to a broader understanding and
>>
>>
>interpretation.
>
>
>>I'd say that was a very considerate thing to do. Without
>>
>>
>the explanation
>
>
>>you might understand the work and you might not, but to
>>
>>
>deny yourself the
>
>
>>opportunity to investigate further, to find out what the
>>
>>
>artist was trying
>
>
>>to accomplish, seems an unproductive self-limitation.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If a work is dependant on an artists career and what
>>>
>>>
>they have done in the
>
>
>>>past to understand it, it is also a failure.
>>>
>>>
>>Huh? You better explain this one. Every artist's work
>>
>>
>is dependent on
>
>
>>their career and what they have done in the past, and it
>>
>>
>is ALWAYS
>
>
>>instructive to learn that information. Again, why in the
>>
>>
>world would you
>
>
>>deny yourself this opportunity?
>>Best wishes -
>>- Vince
>>
>>
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
>
>
>
>
| |
|
