John Jensen on tue 30 dec 03
Vince;
I hope you read this. I do thank you for sticking your nose to the
shredder to explain your understanding of the meaning of this little
word (narrative).
I've been enjoying the conversation between you and Janet and would
like to make one small point to support one of her positions. While you
assert that "artspeak" is transparent (when appropriately used), Janet
has her doubts.
Now, my point is this: While I am seriously interested in knowing
just what would constitute narration on a pot, I still am confused and
unsure...despite your best effort to explain. And I am not a very good
example of the general public, inasmuch as I have spent most of my adult
life practicing and studying art.
I fear that Janet may be right in much of what she says and at the
same time I want very much for your point of view to be accurate and
true. In my own experience, I do feel I see a certain amount of what I
would call pretty worthless art which finds it's way into the shows by
virtue of what I would call bullshit (in the form of credentials and
artspeak) surrounding it. The work itself and the artists don't
particularly bother me, but it does make me lose a bit of trust in the
culture which puts them forward. On the other hand I admire and love
the way artspeak can be used to very specifically describe an esthetic
or otherwise artistic reality in a way that normal street language could
never do.
I don't really think artspeak is transparent. Rather I think it is a
very specialized language which takes a lot of careful study to
understand. It is very disturbing to think of the ways in which it can
be used to confuse, befuddle, misrepresent, etc....
Seasons greetings and best to all.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
mudbug@toadhouse.com , http://www.toadhouse.com
iandol on wed 31 dec 03
I like this idea of a transparent language. You can see clear right =
through it. Makes thing clear as daylight, be it read or heard.
All the best,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Vince Pitelka on wed 31 dec 03
John -
There's a couple of good questions in your recent message, and I'll try to
do them
justice. First, part of what I was trying to explain is the difference
between "narrative" and "narrative art." The latter is traditionall
considered to be art where the primary intent is to communicate some sort of
narrative information (information that tells a story). The former can be
as little as the implication of some sort of information related to a story.
In other words, in much contemporary art, I think narrative is not so much
explained (although it certainly can be) as it is implied. When you make
art or craft which contains visual cues, symbols, signifiers, whatever you
want to call them, you are creating the skeletal framework of a narrative,
and it is the responsibility of the viewer/user to expand upon that
framework, if they are willing and able.
On to your comments about artspeak. I am trying to differentiate between
carelessly-used artspeak, and responsibly-used academic art language. To
me, there is a world of difference. For anyone with a reasonable grasp of
academic art language, carelessly-used artspeak is transparent. It is used
by people who are afraid to be clear and coherent, because they know that
their work lacks enduring substance and significance, so they try to talk it
up with artspeak.
So, to me, the stuff that is used to effectively describe an artistic
reality, as you put it so well, is academic art language, not artspeak.
When art language is used to in gymnastic convolutions to pump up bad
artwork, it is artspeak.
Let me know if any of this still isn't clear, because I really do strive for
clarity.
And have a great New Year -
- 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/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
| |
|
