Eleanor on tue 6 jan 04
Vince wrote:
>Please do not imply for a minute that
>> such a close-minded and limited/limiting statement should apply to anyone
> > else.
Craig Dunn Clark wrote:
> The reactions that a particular piece evokes
>are entwined in the direct experiences of the viewer
Whoa, Vince! And Mr Clark (I think you agree with me somewhat but
don't know it).
I'm an old lady, going on 73, and I've been experiencing Art since
childhood--by listening to (classical) music, reading literature,
looking at art and making "art". When I travel, if my destination has
an art museum, I go. And living near NYC, I can go to the Met, MOMA,
Guggenheim, the Craft Museum (I forget its new name) whenever there
is an exhibition that interests me.
I first saw the paintings of Picasso at MOMA in the early 50's. I
stood before Guernica and wept. I understood its message. I knew
nothing about Picasso. He has since become my all-time favorite
artist. I've read 3 biographies. He wasn't a very nice man. That fact
doesn't make me like his work any less nor does it enhance my
understanding of it.
I don't like the work of Jackson Pollock. I saw a movie about him and
read some biographical material. I know how and why he made those
paintings. I still don't like them.
After the Guggenheim opened, in the 50's, I went to an exhibition of
paintings by Wassily Kandinsky. They left me cold. Splashes of paint
on canvas. A few years ago, also at the Guggenheim, I saw his work
again and it fairly SHOUTED at me. I got it. In my gut. I don't know
anything about Kandinsky.
As an adolescent I hated Mozart. "Too many notes". Now he is one of
my favorites. I now know something about his life but that wasn't
what hooked me. It was just LISTENING.
In the Craft Museum there are extensive Artists' statements. I was
reading these and almost forgot to look at the work; I was
distracted. And knowing that the artist was inspired by The Wonders
of Nature or Lore Learned at Grandma's Knee doesn't affect my
"appreciation" of his/her art; it is the art itself which insinuates
itself into my (right) brain, and on an un-, sub-, pre-conscious
level, works its magic. Or doesn't.
My appreciation of Art is the result of experience, percolation and
evolution. I look and listen, and sometimes touch. And something goes
on inside of me, I don't know what, and I react, I respond.
Sometimes, as in the case of Picasso, appreciation is instant;
sometimes, as with Mozart and Kandinsky, it takes years. Knowing
where the artist is coming from has never affected my response.
Sometimes if I'm curious about the artist (or they make a movie),
I'll get some biographical material, sometimes not. It makes no
difference to me. Art is Art.
If I counted correctly, a la Kelly, there are 47 personal pronouns:
I; me; my... in the above "essay". And that is my point. This is how
I "appreciate" Art. And in no way, shape or form do I insist that you
appreciate Art the way I do. Different brush strokes for different
folks! :-)
Eleanor Kohler
Centerport, NY
Teresa Testa on wed 7 jan 04
Well said Eleanor...
Teresa, Windancer Studio,
Las Vegas, NV
Lucy Reuther on thu 8 jan 04
Eleanor,
Great comments. I especially like your statement that you look, listen
and touch, really experience the work before judging it. Sorry you
don't like Pollock.
LucyLee
Vince Pitelka on sat 10 jan 04
> What I was reacting to was my own continuing difficulties with what I
> often percieve as pretentious and academic discussions concerning ART
> without so much as a word in the direction of an agreeable definition.
> After all, and this is the first question posited in any philosophy of
> art class, what is ART anyway?
Yes, Craig, the first question asked, and the last one answered. In fact,
it cannot be answered, because to define what art is just limits what it can
be. I know how frustrating that seems. But it is the reality of art in the
contemporary world, and thank god for that. It opens up a universe of
possibilities. So please do not bemoan the lack of an agreeable definition.
God forbid we should ever come with an agreeable definition of art.
Personally, I think that agreeable definitions of art only appear when an
indidual or a select group are put in a position of such power that they are
allowed to agree upon their own definition, and the masses are forced to
accept that definition without question, as was the case with the
propagandistic art of the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, and
post-Cultural-Rebellion Communist China.
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/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Craig Dunn Clark on sat 10 jan 04
Eleanor, now that I understand what you are saying better I find that I
am in agreement with your profound sentiments. My reaction was more of the
knee-jerk variety (someting that I am prone to do.) Indeed, as you point
out, your multiple uses of personal pronouns exemplify the point that I was
making.
If I am not mistaken I believe that your position is that if a piece of
art is to be judged, by whomever, the "art" will need to stand on it's own
regardless of the story/message/statement or biographical history of the
artist (be it good or bad.) I am in complete agreement!
What I was reacting to was my own continuing difficulties with what I
often percieve as pretentious and academic discussions concerning ART
without so much as a word in the direction of an agreeable definition.
After all, and this is the first question posited in any philosophy of
art class, what is ART anyway?
Thankyou for the memory of Geurnica. I saw it the first time when I was
about 4yrs old, with my mother who passed on many years ago, while the
painting was still in New York. Didn't see it again for about twenty years
when I was practically falling asleep in an art history class and it flashed
up on the screen. I said something to the effect of ....."man, that's cool,
howcome I think I've seen it before?"
After a few quick questions the prof determined that I had seen the real
thing (later verified by my father) many years prior to. That is a profound
image! Can't really think of many others that have moved me to that degree
with the exception of Newmans' Broken Obelisk. It literally stopped me in my
tracks the first time I layed eyes on it. I've been back to see it time and
time again.We have one here at Rothko Chapel in Houston!
I believe that Kandinsky was attempting visually interperet music with
his color.
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
a forty something male who may actually start enjoying reading and talking
about art again!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eleanor"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:27 PM
Subject: art is art
> Vince wrote:
> >Please do not imply for a minute that
> >> such a close-minded and limited/limiting statement should apply to
anyone
> > > else.
>
> Craig Dunn Clark wrote:
> > The reactions that a particular piece evokes
> >are entwined in the direct experiences of the viewer
>
> Whoa, Vince! And Mr Clark (I think you agree with me somewhat but
> don't know it).
>
> I'm an old lady, going on 73, and I've been experiencing Art since
> childhood--by listening to (classical) music, reading literature,
> looking at art and making "art". When I travel, if my destination has
> an art museum, I go. And living near NYC, I can go to the Met, MOMA,
> Guggenheim, the Craft Museum (I forget its new name) whenever there
> is an exhibition that interests me.
>
> I first saw the paintings of Picasso at MOMA in the early 50's. I
> stood before Guernica and wept. I understood its message. I knew
> nothing about Picasso. He has since become my all-time favorite
> artist. I've read 3 biographies. He wasn't a very nice man. That fact
> doesn't make me like his work any less nor does it enhance my
> understanding of it.
>
> I don't like the work of Jackson Pollock. I saw a movie about him and
> read some biographical material. I know how and why he made those
> paintings. I still don't like them.
>
> After the Guggenheim opened, in the 50's, I went to an exhibition of
> paintings by Wassily Kandinsky. They left me cold. Splashes of paint
> on canvas. A few years ago, also at the Guggenheim, I saw his work
> again and it fairly SHOUTED at me. I got it. In my gut. I don't know
> anything about Kandinsky.
>
> As an adolescent I hated Mozart. "Too many notes". Now he is one of
> my favorites. I now know something about his life but that wasn't
> what hooked me. It was just LISTENING.
>
> In the Craft Museum there are extensive Artists' statements. I was
> reading these and almost forgot to look at the work; I was
> distracted. And knowing that the artist was inspired by The Wonders
> of Nature or Lore Learned at Grandma's Knee doesn't affect my
> "appreciation" of his/her art; it is the art itself which insinuates
> itself into my (right) brain, and on an un-, sub-, pre-conscious
> level, works its magic. Or doesn't.
>
> My appreciation of Art is the result of experience, percolation and
> evolution. I look and listen, and sometimes touch. And something goes
> on inside of me, I don't know what, and I react, I respond.
> Sometimes, as in the case of Picasso, appreciation is instant;
> sometimes, as with Mozart and Kandinsky, it takes years. Knowing
> where the artist is coming from has never affected my response.
> Sometimes if I'm curious about the artist (or they make a movie),
> I'll get some biographical material, sometimes not. It makes no
> difference to me. Art is Art.
>
> If I counted correctly, a la Kelly, there are 47 personal pronouns:
> I; me; my... in the above "essay". And that is my point. This is how
> I "appreciate" Art. And in no way, shape or form do I insist that you
> appreciate Art the way I do. Different brush strokes for different
> folks! :-)
>
> Eleanor Kohler
> Centerport, NY
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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.
marcia selsor on sun 11 jan 04
Dear Eleanor and Craig,
I agree with both of you. I also found Guernica very profound. I saw it in NYC
and again in Madrid after Franco's influence was gone. He had exiled the painting.
We all respond to art in a subjective way. I am drawn to Kandinsky's work.
It is the dry meaningless academic discussions which I find more trying.
Marcia Selsor
| |
|
