mel jacobson on sun 25 may 03
i have thought and discussed this phenomenon for
years. as a doer of art and craft for almost 50 years,
it seems to me, that, we do art, we do craft, we think
and then others tell us what we just did.
the most amazing thing to me is; that the one's that
tell us what we just did, or categorized us, are people
that have never done art or craft. they talk and write
about art and craft. i really prefer critique from people
that have done more art than i have.
i know, that the world needs both of them, doers and
talkers, but i like to think that doers start the `ball rolling`.
and, doers let the process of art direct their lives. we as
doers do not sit around hour after hour thinking great thoughts.
`well, let us see if my work fits into the cosmos and sense
of modernity in this century.` no, i think we get after it...we
let the materials and ideas come to us. it is the process of
doing that makes the work happen.
i know for sure, that when i paint and draw, i do not have great
thoughts. i spend my time `looking`. things that happen in the
painting direct me. often i feel the painting has a life of it's own.
i am just the mediator.
it is of great value to artists to have a dialogue with other
artists and people of value. it does stimulate us to communicate.
but saying that, helps me realize that when i do art work and craft
my mind is on the task....it is about a series of work. change is slow
and deliberate. the process dictates what is happening.
i find the talkers are a bother in most cases.
they assume knowledge, that they seldom know little
about. they put words in the mouth of artists...often
treating them as children. museum curators do this, literally all
the time. i have a great deal of first hand knowledge of this. it can
be predicted. the talking heads rule. and, they truly believe this.
historians are a different story. their role is to study the past, analyze
and compare from history what has gone before us. they usually do
not assume knowledge of the thoughts of dead folks.
artists historically have not been writers. they are visual folks and the
written word may be difficult. andy goldsworthy said it very clearly in
his movie...`i don't like to talk very much, i don't like people around
very much, i like to get involved in my work.` others try and tell us
what he is, what he does, and what he is thinking. i just look at the
work. it does speak for itself, very well.
one does not have to discuss the work of shimaoka with me. just look
at the pots. they scream quality.
i look at the paintings of mattise, diebenkorn, gustin, and i know
that no one has to explain them to me. just look.
well, it is a big and long, wordy topic.
just what we do not like to do. talk about
art. think i will get some clay and make some
stuff. it makes me happy.
mel
a message from the farm at hay creek
Ann Brink on sun 25 may 03
Mel wrote: (snip):
. we as doers do not sit around hour after hour thinking great thoughts.
`well, let us see if my work fits into the cosmos and sense
of modernity in this century.` no, i think we get after it...we
let the materials and ideas come to us. it is the process of
doing that makes the work happen.
I once made a series of small sculptures (whose basic shape continues to
intrigue me) and (to me) the shape can be a metaphor for all kinds of ideas
about polarity, balance, transformation, dual meanings, etc. BUT this is
not what was in my mind when I started playing with the shape. Something
unexpected happened when I joined two of the pieces- an object resulted that
I had not visualized- totally surprised me. OK- laugh if you like, but the
object that evoked my interest was the twisted orange slice on my plate at a
chinese restaurant Join two cut-to-the-center disc shapes and see the
result. I know, it doesn't take much to delight me!
I don't tell people about the inspiration for these sculptures- it's not
apparent- but it's a small example for my clayart family of what Mel said:
"It is the process of doing that makes the work happen"
Good firings!
Ann Brink in Lompoc
Paul Lewing on sun 25 may 03
on 5/25/03 6:12 AM, mel jacobson at melpots@PCLINK.COM wrote:
> the most amazing thing to me is; that the one's that
> tell us what we just did, or categorized us, are people
> that have never done art or craft. they talk and write
> about art and craft. i really prefer critique from people
> that have done more art than i have.
Mel, another way of saying this is one of my favorite analogies about art
criticism, which is not original with me. It is, "Art criticism is to
artists what ornithology is to birds". Meaning that art criticism is always
after the fact, describing stuff that's already happened. It has absolutely
nothing to do with what goes on when art is being created.
And artists should pay as much attention to art criticism as birds do to
ornithology. Remember- they can't read.
Of course, there is a distinction between contemporaneous art criticism and
art history. You should obviously be familiar with the history of your art
form. But what contemporary critics say should have no effect whatsoever on
what you make.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Burness Speakman on mon 26 may 03
Amen, amen, amen. ditto, ditto.
Ain't this the truth!!!!!!
Bunny
| |
|
