iandol on sun 21 dec 03
Dear Lee Love,=20
You are saying emotions are learned behaviours <<..But we are =
enculturated with this perspective...>> Perhaps not if you take a global =
view of human experience.
What is Rawson's message here? Seems to me he is telling us that what it =
means is what we wish it to mean and universality makes it banal.
I would immediately disagree with his opinion of Clay. Clay is Dynamic. =
Our sensory perceptions of its qualities excite emotions. This, in my =
opinion, is a biological imperative, a response to a stimulus, as potent =
as food when you are hungry, as fear when you are threatened, or as sex =
when you are enticed.
I would prefer your own analysis of Rawson rather than liberal =
quotations. What do you really find when you get into the meat and =
vegies of his expressions?
Best regards and enjoy the Festive season,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia=20
Lee Love on mon 22 dec 03
----- Original Message -----
From: "iandol"
Iandol, This is a more complete quote:
Iandol>Have you ever thought that objects produced as Craft are considered
Iandol>utilitarian while those made
Iandol>as Art always evoke a spectrum of strong emotions.
Lee> You seem to agree with Lehman's Mr. Addicott. But we are
enculturated
Lee>with this perspective. It is not at all universal. For the most
part,
Lee>functional pottery is accessible to a larger part of society because its
Lee>meaning comes out of its imbedded use within a culture. Functional
work
Lee>has nothing to apologize for in its ability to transmit human
understanding.
Again:
Iandol> You are saying emotions are learned behaviours <<..But we are
enculturated
Iandol> with this perspective...>> >Perhaps not if you take a global view
of
Iandol> human experience.
No, that our cultural attitude, that Art is superior to functional
craft in being able to "evoke a spectrum of strong emotions", is learned and
it is a newly learned attitude. Throughout most of human history, in most
places and times, we have not seen this separation between art and craft.
And we can only see this from a global view of human experience.
Iandol> What is Rawson's message here? Seems to me he is telling us that
what it means
Iandol> is what we wish it to mean and universality makes it banal.
No. That an artificial separation of art from everyday life
makes pushes it toward irrelevance.
>I would immediately disagree with his opinion of Clay.
Which opinion?
>Clay is Dynamic. Our sensory
>perceptions of its qualities excite emotions. This, in my opinion, is a
biological imperative,
> a response to a stimulus, as potent as food when you are hungry, as fear
when you are
> threatened, or as sex when you are enticed.
Rawson would agree.
>I would prefer your own analysis of Rawson rather than liberal quotations.
What do you really
>find when you get into the meat and vegies of his expressions?
If he says it better, I'll let him. :^) I am working on a book
related to these topics (I won't say, 'You have to buy the book to get the
recipes.') I'm working on a shorter magazine article that speaks to these
issues. Right now, my Akita Taiko needs her evening walk.
And greetings to you in these Fiesty Holidays! ;^)
--
Lee In Mashiko, Japan
http://Mashiko.org
Web Log (click on recent date):
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/calendar
| |
|
