Vince Pitelka on tue 30 sep 03
Malcolm wrote:
>The goal in the crafts, and the arts, is naturally the maximum of
> skill and control.
This is an interesting concept. Mastery of materials, processes, and
technique does help provide a vocabulary for efficient visual expression,
but like Lee Love said, if the artist/craftsperson relies ONLY on skill and
controll, the work will be pretty lifeless. The most important thing is the
commitment that arises from the guts and the soul. Without that, the work
will never be very exciting.
In teaching, I always encourage my students to develop broad fluency in
materials, process, and technique, but at the same time I emphasize the
importance of developing individual content and direction that arises from
personal passion and commitment. Without the latter, art doesn't happen at
all.
I do believe that the chances of a great work of art are far greater from
someone with modest skill and control and a huge amount of
emotional/psychological commitment, than from someone with all the skill and
control and little to say.
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/
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 30 sep 03
Hi Vince, Lee, all...
Would the sense of these assertions not derive from the
definition, moreso, the associative connotation, of the
terms 'Skill'' and 'Controll'?
It would never have occurred to me, left to my own devices,
to suppose them to mean some pedantic imposition on things,
nor a dead lifeless innurement to one's results, or some
rote, heavy handed mediocrity...even if that is how Lee or
others may connote the terms.
So maybe there is a confusion as to the kind of, or the
quality of ,so called 'skill' and so called 'controll' as
forgets to appreciate their tenses or qualitative dimensions
or degrees, or, how they may vary with the sensibilities of
who posess (what arrangement of) them and use them in
deference to what.
There seem no end to the disjunctions as arise or confuse
from our connotations...!
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
> Malcolm wrote:
> >The goal in the crafts, and the arts, is naturally the
maximum of
> > skill and control.
>
> This is an interesting concept. Mastery of materials,
processes, and
> technique does help provide a vocabulary for efficient
visual expression,
> but like Lee Love said, if the artist/craftsperson relies
ONLY on skill and
> controll, the work will be pretty lifeless. The most
important thing is the
> commitment that arises from the guts and the soul.
Without that, the work
> will never be very exciting.
>
> In teaching, I always encourage my students to develop
broad fluency in
> materials, process, and technique, but at the same time I
emphasize the
> importance of developing individual content and direction
that arises from
> personal passion and commitment. Without the latter, art
doesn't happen at
> all.
>
> I do believe that the chances of a great work of art are
far greater from
> someone with modest skill and control and a huge amount of
> emotional/psychological commitment, than from someone with
all the skill and
> control and little to say.
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
Paul Gerhold on wed 1 oct 03
I believe it was Harvey Littleton who said in talking about his own work that
"technique is cheap"
Michael Wendt on wed 1 oct 03
To add to Vince's statement, I believe that most (if not all) of the
techniques we use today arose from the need for expression. New methods and
techniques constantly arise when creative people with something to say
invent new ways of espressing those ideas. Where else would the techniques
come from?
>Vince wrote:
I do believe that the chances of a great work of art are far greater from
someone with modest skill and control and a huge amount of
emotional/psychological commitment, than from someone with all the skill and
control and little to say.
Best wishes -
>- Vince
Regards,
Michael Wendt
wendtpot@lewiston.com
Malcolm Schosha on wed 1 oct 03
Phil,
I would like to add a few words to what you said. It is the general
assumption, made by all those who disagree with my views concerning
skill and control, that in my training and work in know no other way.
Not so. I started out studying sculpture, painting and printmaking at
a time when spontinaity, and the Abstract Expressionist movement,
were in their asendency. After three years of study at the Art
Students League, in NYC, I decided that aproach was going to lead me
nowhere, and went to Italy to see if I could find a sculpture teacher
who could teach the traditional skills. I did not find such a teacher
for sculpture, but did find the State School for Ceramics in Sesto
Fiorentino (six miles from Florence); which did teach traditional
skills for pottery, but not sculpture. I took the opportunity, and
think it was a good decision to switch fields.
So, for me switching to pottery was a chance to learn to do something
in the visual arts the right way; that is with the training necessary
to create what I intended to make. This aproach does not at all rule
out spontinanity, in fact for me it made intuitive impules easier to
incorporate in my work. I do not expecy much agreement on this point.
Certainly, anyone who thinks that a painting by Frantz Klein, or Mark
Rothko, has an artistic value equal to Botecelli or Raphello, will
not agree.
There are quite a number of well established potters on this forum
who have built their careers on an aproach to pottery, and to
artistic creation in general, that I feel is quite mistaken. Such
potters, with their careers and income based on their current
aproach, will not stand up and declare that their lives were a
mistake. And why should they? It could be that they are right and I
am wrong. What I do hope for is that some young potters, who are
still early in their studies, will at least give a little thought to
other possibilities based on mastery of traditional Classical skills.
Malcolm Schosha
Brooklyn, NY
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, pdp1@E... wrote:
> Hi Vince, Lee, all...
>
>
>
> Would the sense of these assertions not derive from the
> definition, moreso, the associative connotation, of the
> terms 'Skill'' and 'Controll'?
>
> It would never have occurred to me, left to my own devices,
> to suppose them to mean some pedantic imposition on things,
> nor a dead lifeless innurement to one's results, or some
> rote, heavy handed mediocrity...even if that is how Lee or
> others may connote the terms.
>
> So maybe there is a confusion as to the kind of, or the
> quality of ,so called 'skill' and so called 'controll' as
> forgets to appreciate their tenses or qualitative dimensions
> or degrees, or, how they may vary with the sensibilities of
> who posess (what arrangement of) them and use them in
> deference to what.
>
>
> There seem no end to the disjunctions as arise or confuse
> from our connotations...!
>
>
>
> Phil
> Las Vegas
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vince Pitelka"
>
>
> > Malcolm wrote:
> > >The goal in the crafts, and the arts, is naturally the
> maximum of
> > > skill and control.
> >
> > This is an interesting concept. Mastery of materials,
> processes, and
> > technique does help provide a vocabulary for efficient
> visual expression,
> > but like Lee Love said, if the artist/craftsperson relies
> ONLY on skill and
> > controll, the work will be pretty lifeless. The most
> important thing is the
> > commitment that arises from the guts and the soul.
> Without that, the work
> > will never be very exciting.
> >
> > In teaching, I always encourage my students to develop
> broad fluency in
> > materials, process, and technique, but at the same time I
> emphasize the
> > importance of developing individual content and direction
> that arises from
> > personal passion and commitment. Without the latter, art
> doesn't happen at
> > all.
> >
> > I do believe that the chances of a great work of art are
> far greater from
> > someone with modest skill and control and a huge amount of
> > emotional/psychological commitment, than from someone with
> all the skill and
> > control and little to say.
> > Best wishes -
> > - Vince
> >
> > Vince Pitelka
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
________
> Send postings to clayart@l...
>
> 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@p...
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on wed 1 oct 03
Hi Malcom,
I am sorry, but I do not seem to understand what you are
talking about here.
It makes sense to me, sometimes, if 'sense' it is at all, to
criticise pretenses or false fronts as one sees to fool the
gullible, or as seem to exploit them or to exploit someone
at a
disadvantage, but, or and, there are some fine lines with
this, with that, and some as are not so fine too..
It does not make sense to me to worry about the variety of
styles or approaches which private people, Artists or
Craftsman or Artisans may pursue as suit their tastes or
moods or aspirations of technique.
It does make sense to me for one to follow what they
construe to be their own tastes or desires or aspirations or
vision
in their Work or in their Arts...and...to note that others
do or may do likewise for themselves. Or to note the kind of
deferences as may seem to be expressed in someone's Work.
So...what are we talking about here?
For me, I have enjoyed making things.
I have never studied Art academicly, and do not care to do
so. Hence, many references are lost on me.
References as also may be conjectured to sometimes interfere
with the excercise of abilities, permissions to do, or the
clearity to do it, as others may wish to have, but will not
have, for having studied Art too much.
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Schosha"
> Phil,
>
> I would like to add a few words to what you said. It is
the general
> assumption, made by all those who disagree with my views
concerning
> skill and control, that in my training and work in know no
other way.
> Not so. I started out studying sculpture, painting and
printmaking at
> a time when spontinaity, and the Abstract Expressionist
movement,
> were in their asendency. After three years of study at the
Art
> Students League, in NYC, I decided that aproach was going
to lead me
> nowhere, and went to Italy to see if I could find a
sculpture teacher
> who could teach the traditional skills. I did not find
such a teacher
> for sculpture, but did find the State School for Ceramics
in Sesto
> Fiorentino (six miles from Florence); which did teach
traditional
> skills for pottery, but not sculpture. I took the
opportunity, and
> think it was a good decision to switch fields.
>
> So, for me switching to pottery was a chance to learn to
do something
> in the visual arts the right way; that is with the
training necessary
> to create what I intended to make. This aproach does not
at all rule
> out spontinanity, in fact for me it made intuitive impules
easier to
> incorporate in my work. I do not expecy much agreement on
this point.
> Certainly, anyone who thinks that a painting by Frantz
Klein, or Mark
> Rothko, has an artistic value equal to Botecelli or
Raphello, will
> not agree.
>
> There are quite a number of well established potters on
this forum
> who have built their careers on an aproach to pottery, and
to
> artistic creation in general, that I feel is quite
mistaken. Such
> potters, with their careers and income based on their
current
> aproach, will not stand up and declare that their lives
were a
> mistake. And why should they? It could be that they are
right and I
> am wrong. What I do hope for is that some young potters,
who are
> still early in their studies, will at least give a little
thought to
> other possibilities based on mastery of traditional
Classical skills.
>
> Malcolm Schosha
> Brooklyn, NY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, pdp1@E... wrote:
> > Hi Vince, Lee, all...
> >
> >
> >
> > Would the sense of these assertions not derive from the
> > definition, moreso, the associative connotation, of the
> > terms 'Skill'' and 'Controll'?
> >
> > It would never have occurred to me, left to my own
devices,
> > to suppose them to mean some pedantic imposition on
things,
> > nor a dead lifeless innurement to one's results, or some
> > rote, heavy handed mediocrity...even if that is how Lee
or
> > others may connote the terms.
> >
> > So maybe there is a confusion as to the kind of, or the
> > quality of ,so called 'skill' and so called 'controll'
as
> > forgets to appreciate their tenses or qualitative
dimensions
> > or degrees, or, how they may vary with the sensibilities
of
> > who posess (what arrangement of) them and use them in
> > deference to what.
> >
> >
> > There seem no end to the disjunctions as arise or
confuse
> > from our connotations...!
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil
> > Las Vegas
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vince Pitelka"
> >
> >
> > > Malcolm wrote:
> > > >The goal in the crafts, and the arts, is naturally
the
> > maximum of
> > > > skill and control.
> > >
> > > This is an interesting concept. Mastery of materials,
> > processes, and
> > > technique does help provide a vocabulary for efficient
> > visual expression,
> > > but like Lee Love said, if the artist/craftsperson
relies
> > ONLY on skill and
> > > controll, the work will be pretty lifeless. The most
> > important thing is the
> > > commitment that arises from the guts and the soul.
> > Without that, the work
> > > will never be very exciting.
> > >
> > > In teaching, I always encourage my students to develop
> > broad fluency in
> > > materials, process, and technique, but at the same
time I
> > emphasize the
> > > importance of developing individual content and
direction
> > that arises from
> > > personal passion and commitment. Without the latter,
art
> > doesn't happen at
> > > all.
> > >
> > > I do believe that the chances of a great work of art
are
> > far greater from
> > > someone with modest skill and control and a huge
amount of
> > > emotional/psychological commitment, than from someone
with
> > all the skill and
> > > control and little to say.
> > > Best wishes -
> > > - Vince
> > >
> > > Vince Pitelka
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________
__________
> ________
> > Send postings to clayart@l...
> >
> > 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@p...
>
>
____________________________________________________________
__________________
> 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.
Hollis Engley on wed 1 oct 03
----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Schosha
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Skill and control as a goal of art/craft
> Phil,
>
There are quite a number of well established potters on this forum
> who have built their careers on an aproach to pottery, and to
> artistic creation in general, that I feel is quite mistaken. Such
> potters, with their careers and income based on their current
> aproach, will not stand up and declare that their lives were a
> mistake.
Honest to God, Malcolm, reading stuff like this is like slowing down on the
highway to stare at the aftermath of a head-on collision. I don't want to
read it, but I can't help myself. I mean, really, this "lives were a
mistake" business is hilarious. You can't expect anyone to take that
seriously. Really, you can't. Do you? I can just see all the Leach- and
Hamada-influenced potters prostrating themselves after they read (to quote
Joe Pesci in "My Cousin Vinnie") "this ... ridiculous thing," finally
realizing their huge mistake, too late, turning to selling life insurance or
day-old bread, shattered, all day long muttering "no more anagamas, no more
loose pots, no more quarter-inch walls, Lord, please, no more ... "
You crack me up.
Hollis Engley
Hatchville Pottery
Falmouth, Mass.
hengley@cape.com
Lois Ruben Aronow on wed 1 oct 03
>This aproach does not at all rule out spontinanity, in fact=20
>for me it made intuitive impules easier to incorporate in=20
>my work. I do not expecy much agreement on this point.
>Certainly, anyone who thinks that a painting by Frantz Klein, or Mark
>Rothko, has an artistic value equal to Botecelli or Raphello, will
>not agree.
Actually, I do agree. Once one has the physical skills and know-how
to make and the mental/creative skills to see, the work can then flow.
>
>There are quite a number of well established potters on this forum
>who have built their careers on an aproach to pottery, and to
>artistic creation in general, that I feel is quite mistaken.=20
This is where you lose me - say what?! =20
>Such potters, with their careers and income based on their current
>aproach, will not stand up and declare that their lives were a
>mistake. And why should they? It could be that they are right and I
>am wrong. What I do hope for is that some young potters, who are
>still early in their studies, will at least give a little thought to
>other possibilities based on mastery of traditional Classical skills.
>
Why would they think "their lives were a mistake"? Please explain - I
am curious.
************
www.loisaronow.com
=46ine Craft Porcelain and Pottery
New Work for Summer 2003
New Show and Retail information
Steve Slatin on wed 1 oct 03
Malcolm --
You're still missing the point.
You honor one ancient pottery tradition out of many. Your teacher
taught it to you, and you believe in it. But the fact that you call it
" ... traditional skills for pottery" shows that you actually know very
little about pottery.
There are many different pottery traditions. Each tradition has
"traditional skills."
Hamada and Leach studied and learned traditional skills for pottery. In
the process they absorbed much of the aesthetic (if you believe as do
some here, Hamada was born with it). The tradition they followed is
long-lived. It is still being practiced. That makes it a "classic
tradition."
It appears that after learning from one school of pottery, failed to
study in any other. I'd suggest that you study with a potter who isn't
at all like the potter you studied with in Italy, and learn something
about the other classic styles and traditions, and the other techniques
and processes used to make pottery.
Lots of us have identified our aesthetic here, in response to you --
follow the links or look up the citations; see the pots. We know what
we like, and why. So far, you still haven't (1) shown us anything you
have made, (2) anything you admire, (3) described why you admire what
you do. Naturally, that leads us to doubt that your skills and your
aesthetic are at all developed.
And if you expect everyone who disagrees with you to sit meekly by and
not reply to you, why do you post replies to messages you dislike? That
smacks of a double standard, and I suspect that you wrote that message
without thinking of its consequences.
Again, then, let us know what you have done, or have liked, and why. Or
at least don't act surprised when people poke holes in your arguments.
Norman van der Sluys on wed 1 oct 03
Malcom
I am glad you finally told us something of the background of your strong
opinions.
I too studied art during the ascendency of abstract expressionsim, at
American University. The art department there started as the Phillips
Collection School with the likes of Jack Tworkov and Robert Motherwell.
There was, however, a healthy respect for traditional aproaches,
particularly when it came to drawing, so I think we were lucky enough to
have a rather balanced course of instruction. If your curriculum at the
Art Students League was heavily weighted towards "automatic writing" and
the like, and you were not exposed to the broader range of art in art
history classes either, I can see how your frustration could result in
some rather rigid opinions.
While that abstract expressionist aproach was a limited one I am
confident that the program you discovered in Italy was limited as well,
just in another direction. Perhaps a more in-depth and objective study
of those you rejected in your youth will lead you to a more universal
appreciation.
> I started out studying sculpture, painting and printmaking at
> a time when spontinaity, and the Abstract Expressionist movement,
> were in their asendency. After three years of study at the Art
> Students League, in NYC, I decided that aproach was going to lead me
> nowhere, and went to Italy to see if I could find a sculpture teacher
> who could teach the traditional skills.
--
Norman van der Sluys
Benona Pottery
Near the shore of Lake Michigan, where the weatherman warns of the first
killing frost tonight.
Lori Leary on wed 1 oct 03
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Schosha"
>
> There are quite a number of well established potters on this forum
> who have built their careers on an aproach to pottery, and to
> artistic creation in general, that I feel is quite mistaken. Such
> potters, with their careers and income based on their current
> aproach, will not stand up and declare that their lives were a
> mistake.
Malcolm,
How do you know this? How about backing up this statement?
I have this image of you chuckling and snorting at the keyboard every time
you send off one of these little bombs to clayart. I can't imagine anyone
to be so lacking in social skills, so this must be a form of entertainment
for you.
Are you having fun yet, Malcolm?
Lori L.
Earl Brunner on wed 1 oct 03
But Malcolm can prove it. Because they won't stand up and declare that
their lives were a mistake, thereby "proving" his point. But then the
key is, that Malcolm "feels" that their aproach has been a mistake. We
don't have to agree with his opinion, after all it is only HISopinion,
he says. But then he wants us to stand up and agree with him by
declaring our WHOLE lives a mistake. How curious.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Lori Leary
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:40 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Skill and control as a goal of art/craft
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Schosha"
>
> There are quite a number of well established potters on this forum
> who have built their careers on an aproach to pottery, and to
> artistic creation in general, that I feel is quite mistaken. Such
> potters, with their careers and income based on their current
> aproach, will not stand up and declare that their lives were a
> mistake.
Malcolm,
How do you know this? How about backing up this statement?
I have this image of you chuckling and snorting at the keyboard every
time
you send off one of these little bombs to clayart. I can't imagine
anyone
to be so lacking in social skills, so this must be a form of
entertainment
for you.
Are you having fun yet, Malcolm?
Lori L.
Ron Roy on thu 2 oct 03
>To add to Vince's statement, I believe that most (if not all) of the
>techniques we use today arose from the need for expression. New methods and
>techniques constantly arise when creative people with something to say
>invent new ways of expressing those ideas. Where else would the techniques
>come from?
>>Vince wrote:
>I do believe that the chances of a great work of art are far greater from
>someone with modest skill and control and a huge amount of
>emotional/psychological commitment, than from someone with all the skill and
>control and little to say.
>Best wishes -
>>- Vince
>Regards,
>Michael Wendt
I think Michael's statement is brilliant.
When we - as potters - come up with ideas we need to find the ways to do
it. It is part of the creativity - especially in clay and glazes.
Vinces statement implies (again) that excellent control is somehow a
disadvantage. It is certainly not for the creative souls that work in clay.
If I can use a glaze as an example. Years ago I decided that a shino glaze
would be useful in some of my ideas. The trouble is - none of the available
glazes were right - and there are hundreds of them around.
I used calculation software to analyse as many as possible - and paid
careful attention to which looked the best to me. This gave me the clues I
needed to develop my shino - which is unique and what I want.
You can see a picture of that glaze on page 291 of Hoppers redo of Rhodes
"Clay and Glazes for the potter."
You can also see examples of my creativity at -
http://digitalfire.com/education/people/ronroy.htm
What I am saying here is - having control for the creative potters adds to
that creativity. If you are the type of person who is seduced by technique
and control then it can be a disadvantage - unless of course - you have the
discipline to ignore it when it is not useful.
If you are only interesting in duplicating others pots then you must have
good technique - and that is why so many find themselves unable to make
their own pots - it becomes a trap. Again - control is not the problem - it
is the person without enough creativity and courage to break free.
If creativity and making your own pots is the aim - pay less attention to
all those wonderful pots we potters love to look at and hold - and pay more
attention to what you want - and get the control you need to do it.
It is not the control that is the problem - it is the person. If you are
afraid of becoming addicted to control then only learn what you need to get
by. If you are creative - get as much as you can - it can only enhance your
chances of success.
RR
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
Vince Pitelka on thu 2 oct 03
> Vinces statement implies (again) that excellent control is somehow a
> disadvantage. It is certainly not for the creative souls that work in
clay.
Dearest Ron -
I would certainly appreciate it if you would not be so ready to misinterpret
me. My statement did not imply in any way that excellent control is somehow
a disadvantage, in fact, in a previous email message I made it perfectly
clear that I always teach my students that good art is most likely to come
from thorough fluency in materials, process, and technique. How much more
clear can I be about this? Actually, I think you and I agree completely on
this.
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 fri 3 oct 03
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Pitelka"
> > Vinces statement implies (again) that excellent control is somehow a
> > disadvantage. It is certainly not for the creative souls that work in
> clay.
>
>My statement did not imply in any way that excellent control is somehow
> a disadvantage, in fact, in a previous email message I made it perfectly
> clear that I always teach my students that good art is most likely to come
> from thorough fluency in materials, process, and technique. How much more
> clear can I be about this? Actually, I think you and I agree completely
on
> this.
I had thousands of yunomi deemed "unacceptable" before I was allowed
to make them without the Forman's inspection. I learned control.
After I started making my own work again, it took a conscious
effort to shake this ridgidity and allow the liveliness back into my work.
It is a great way to learn skill, but you have to let it go a little bit, if
your work is going to have life. Demanding control all the time can stomp
the life out of the work. Sometimes you have to let the materials and the
process effect you. This is a general law of nature in the real world:
it is nature's feedback system.
Lee In Mashiko
Ron Roy on mon 6 oct 03
Hi Vince,
I think you are exactly right - we do agree on this.
I must have been very tired the night I posted that message - took the low
road - not a considerate post - just shows my fustration at seeing a number
of posts with examples of highly skilled potters not having any creativity
in thier pots and thought I should insert some balance.
I'm not excusing myself - just trying to explain my feeling about this.
Please accept my appologies.
Best regards - Ron.
>> Vinces statement implies (again) that excellent control is somehow a
>> disadvantage. It is certainly not for the creative souls that work in
>clay.
>
>Dearest Ron -
>I would certainly appreciate it if you would not be so ready to misinterpret
>me. My statement did not imply in any way that excellent control is somehow
>a disadvantage, in fact, in a previous email message I made it perfectly
>clear that I always teach my students that good art is most likely to come
>from thorough fluency in materials, process, and technique. How much more
>clear can I be about this? Actually, I think you and I agree completely on
>this.
>Best wishes -
>- Vince
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
| |
|
