Wes Rolley on sun 23 may 04
If one wants to become a better potter, look at a lot of the very best=20
pots. I does not do any good to look at less than the best. Since I want=
=20
to become a better critic, I have been reading a lot of the best art=20
criticism, Ruskin, Clement Greenberg, Arthur C. Danto.
In the first essay of Danto's book, Encounters and Refelctions, he gets=20
right to a point that frustrates many of us. If success is measured by=20
recognition, then Danto finds that there are two classes of unsuccessful=20
artists. The first are those who chase the "salon art" of the moment. Just=
=20
as knock-off manufacturers take the latest fashion from Vogue or Elle and=20
fill the discount shops with erstwhile copies, many aspiring artists taken=
=20
the latest art magazine (CM?) and fill the summer fair circuit with stuff=20
that looks a lot like the latest cover. The second class are those who=20
labor for the love of what they do, known only to themselves, their family=
=20
and personal acquaintances. They never get the recognition that they feel=
=20
they deserve, but Danto agrees that "at least they have their artistic=20
integrity intact." (Hear that Arti, if you are reading the list!)
Danto lays part of the blame on the gallery owners who presume too=20
much. He cites a director of Pace, a major New York City gallery as=20
proclaiming that "there are not undiscovered artists. If a work is good, it=
=20
will announce itself and we will know about it." To which Danto asks "how=
=20
would you know if it were good if you did not get out of your gallery and=20
go see it?"
There are a lot of potters who feel that they are in this second class and=
=20
we should feel grateful for the few gallery owners who might actually get=20
out of the gallery and go visit a few studios or otherwise invite in some=20
who don't fit into the latest salon fashion.
In the same essay, Danto also comments that the major advances in art were=
=20
not made by those who arrived, fully announced with a flash of new car=20
smell, advertising agency polished brilliance. They were made by mature=20
artists who had learned enough, absorbed enough of the tradition of their=20
art that they now found it confining and moved on to something=20
different. There were years of non-abstract Jackson Pollacks.
We should also be thankful for those critics who find a way to tell the=20
truth.
"I find I have a great lot to learn =96 or unlearn. I seem to know far too=
=20
much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am=20
getting on." -- Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wesley C. Rolley
17211 Quail Court
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408)778-3024
Ivor and Olive Lewis on mon 24 may 04
Dear Wes,
Perhaps you are right.
Perhaps
Perhaps the situation is such that to make better pottery, worse
pottery must be made and then realised as being so. Then go to the
museums and try to persuade curators to let us handle the pots which,
because of their selection, are considered "Better Pots". Perhaps.
But I think I would get more value by being critical and perceptive to
establish why Pots I make are Worse and what I have to do to make "My
Pots" become superior pots
So the question is left hanging. Which Pots are Superior and Why?
Perhaps you might stop looking at pots and get down to the real task
of Creating Pots without any further input than your own sensory
perception, your own intuition and your own manual skills.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Potters Council Member
Wes Rolley on mon 24 may 04
At 04:07 PM 5/24/04 +0930, you wrote:
>Dear Wes,
>Perhaps you are right.
>So the question is left hanging. Which Pots are Superior and Why?
Dear Ivor,
I am sure that we are both right. And the key question is Why? as you=20
capitalize it. I still find much wisdom in the words of Rosanjin: "My aims=
=20
as a potter are all drawn from studying superlative works of=20
antiquity...But I do not try to imitate them in any superficial way. I try=
=20
to go straight to their inner value, their essence and spirit."
And, after that, you are, of course, correct. But it is easier to gain some=
=20
degree of aesthetic distance when considering the work of others without=20
the ego involvement of looking at your own work. It would seem to me that=
=20
it takes a special mix of humility and confidence to truly progress. And=20
then the feeling that your best work is yet to come will come.
"I find I have a great lot to learn =96 or unlearn. I seem to know far too=
=20
much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am=20
getting on." -- Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wesley C. Rolley
17211 Quail Court
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408)778-3024
Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 25 may 04
Dear Wes Rolley,
Sure thing.
I just trust that you are following through your deep reading of
Ruskin and the others by using their concepts of criticism. Have you
found "their inner value, their essence and spirit." after the fashion
of Rosanjin.
You are writing critiques of real works as you prepare yourself to
become a critical writer of critiques ?
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Potters Council Member
Wes Rolley on tue 25 may 04
At 02:19 PM 5/25/04 +0930, you wrote:
>You are writing critiques of real works as you prepare yourself to
>become a critical writer of critiques?
Dear Ivor Lewis,
Yes I am and I plan to do some more. For example, I noted a superficial=20
simlarity between some of the large scale sculptural works of Jun Kaneko=20
and the minimalist paintings of American Frank Stella (I am not sure if you=
=20
can see Stella's work in S.A., but I did see several in the lobby of an=20
office building in Sydney). In some cases, the glazed patterns on a Kaneko=
=20
work seem as if a flat Stella painting had been warped into 3D.
The works in question are Kaneko's large "Dangos" glazed with spiral lines=
=20
in contrasting colors, weave patterns, etc., and Stellas Minimalist hard=20
edged bands of color. Since both Kaneko and Stella will be exhibited in=20
San Francisco within the month, I plan to visit both exhibits. In=20
preparation for looking at them, I have been reading Susan Peterson's book=
=20
"Jun Kaneko" and Stella's book, "Working Spaces," which was presented as=20
part of the Charles Eliot Norton Series of lectures at Harvard in the=20
mid-1980's.
While they came to produce works with great similarity, the process of how=
=20
they got there is very different. In my reading, I find that they are both=
=20
very concerned with spaces. This is a very interesting concept for a=20
potter or sculptor working with ceramics. The concern that most potters=20
have is with form in the sense of monumentality or with form as it encloses=
=20
volume. Kaneko, though his works are monumental, weighing tons, requiring=
=20
in one case 37 days for a glaze firing, is very much concerned with space,=
=20
the spaces between things being as important as the thing itself.
Stella has expanded his work by painting his abstract patterns on sheets of=
=20
aluminum that are curved into 3D space. Again, when I have seen these=20
large scale, dynamic works of Stella's (including a major exhibition at the=
=20
Kawamura Museum in Chiba-ken, Japan some 12 years ago) I found them=20
satisfying, energetic, but without a good sense of the WHY, or how they=20
connected with the history of painterly abstraction, or any other=20
intellectualized appreciation of what was going on.
So, I now have a better understanding of what these artists are trying to=20
do and that which was intuitively similar has at least part of an=20
explanation. And yes, I do plan to write a critique and have someone=20
interested in printing it.
I also find it valuable to take the concept of the "spaces between things"=
=20
and to turn it back on my own work, using it try to find a proper=20
understanding of why intuitively I find a particular work to be relatively=
=20
successful in comparison to others that are not.
Wes
"I find I have a great lot to learn =96 or unlearn. I seem to know far too=
=20
much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am=20
getting on." -- Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wesley C. Rolley
17211 Quail Court
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408)778-3024
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 26 may 04
Dear Wes,
Thank you for your interesting exposition about the concepts of two
artists.
Having read what you have written I am confused. What principles of
Critical Analysis are you applying to form your essay? Are these
principles defined by Ruskin or the other great names in Criticism? I
am trying to reconcile "Criticism" with your description. You write as
though you were answering a "Compare and Contrast" question in an
examination. In essence this is not criticism but it may be a
compilation of the similarities and differences between works. Or it
could be a similar essay about the personal philosophies of similar or
dissimilar artists.
I am at a loss to find any general information about the "Process of
Criticism" except that it involves, in general; a Detailed
Description of the Work, an Analysis of Elements of which the work is
composed, Relationships among those Elements, Evaluation of those
Relationships, Synthesis of Concepts implied by the elements and
eventually Judgements of the Effect or Influence of the Work or Works.
Perhaps I am wrong in this description of the Critical Process. But if
I am, I, and no doubt many other people would wish to know why, and to
be given a general framework we can apply to our critical thought
about works in Clay. Perhaps Forrest Snyder can help out here since he
publishes under the banner of "Critical Ceramics".
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Potters Council Member
Wes Rolley on wed 26 may 04
At 03:35 PM 5/26/04 +0930, you wrote:
>What principles of
>Critical Analysis are you applying to form your essay? Are these
>principles defined by Ruskin or the other great names in Criticism?
There are no formulae or principles that provide a method of determining=20
the validity of writing on aesthetic issues. It is clear that the best=20
writers were thoroughly immersed in the writings of philosophers who dealt=
=20
with aesthetic issues, Kant, Hume, Hegel, Wittgenstein. But, there is=20
clearly no scientific method of reasoning from fixed principles for=20
aesthetic discourse. In his Critique of Aesthetic Judgement, Kant directly=
=20
addressed this problem: "It is chiefly in those estimates that are called=20
aesthetic, and which relate to the beautiful and sublime, whether of nature=
=20
or of art, that one meets with the above difficulty about a principle (be=20
it subjective or objective). And yet the critical search for a principle of=
=20
judgement in their case is the most important item in a critique of this=20
faculty."
Take, for example, the question of taste. What is taste? Is it=20
objective? Can taste be developed through education? There are quotations=
=20
from Hamada that indicated that he felt taste NOT to be important at=20
all. Clement Greenberg argued that taste is critical to the appreciation=20
and discussion of art. It is not clear that they were applying the same=20
meaning to the term. To cite Greenberg: "WELL TASTE! TASTE is a word that=20
became compromised during the 19th century. It was in good standing in the=
=20
18th, when a philosopher like Kant, and English philosophers of aesthetics=
=20
took for granted that that's the faculty you exerted in experiencing art=20
and experiencing anything aesthetically. And then in the 19th century it=20
wore down into something that had to do with food, clothes, furniture,=20
decoration, and so forth, and became very much compromised." I would then=
=20
bring up the question of what is going on when one might say that "I=20
recognize this as good art, but it is not to my taste." (This is something=
=20
that I might say about a Ming Blue and White vessel, for example).
So, I may offer only the suggestion that by explaining my judgement about a=
=20
work of art and doing what I can to add to the general understanding of=20
what that work is, or is about, I am practicing Criticism as it would have=
=20
been understood by Kant and Greenberg. In my comments on Kaneko and Stella,=
=20
I have not made such a judgement, only provided some background=20
(understanding) that should be part of experiencing something aesthetically.
"I find I have a great lot to learn =96 or unlearn. I seem to know far too=
=20
much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am=20
getting on." -- Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wesley C. Rolley
17211 Quail Court
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408)778-3024
Ivor and Olive Lewis on thu 27 may 04
Dear Wes,
If what you have written is true, then energy imparted to the task of
Criticism becomes wasted effort, for ". And yet the critical search
for a principle of judgement in their case is the most important item
in a critique of this faculty..." and "There are no formulae or
principles that provide a method of determining the validity of
writing on aesthetic issues.." appear to be contradictory statements
Back to the drawing board.......Is there a "Framework" or a
"Structure" to the "Process of Criticism"?
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Potters Council Member
Wes Rolley on thu 27 may 04
At 03:44 PM 5/27/04 +0930, you wrote:
Dear Ivor,
That is my mistake for not being as precise in my language as I should=20
have...might have been...with a good editor. I should have said that=20
"there are no UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON formulae..." In that case, the=20
comment from Kant then still holds that the "critical search for a=20
principle of judgement in their case is the most important item..." Maybe=
=20
the benefit is in the search more than in actually finding it.
There is not even an agreed upon definition of what art is or what makes=20
one object a work of art and another just industrial design. Kant was=20
talking about "the beautiful and sublime". Danto defines art as a carrier=
=20
of meaning. At least, it is meaning that allows him to determine that a=20
Duchamp "readymade" is a work of art and its factory equivalent is not,=20
though the observer can not "see" a difference.
In contrast, Bergson felt that "Art has no other object than to set aside=20
the symbols of practical utility, the generalities that are conventionally=
=20
and socially accepted, everything in fact which masks reality from us, in=20
order to set us face to face with reality itself." He believed that there=20
were two methods of knowing, intellectual and intuitive and the intuitive=20
was more important, had more direct connection with reality. Bergson may=20
not have understood much of the post-modern, de-constructed, conceptual=20
installations that have been labeled art in the last 2=20
decades. De-construction is an intellectual process. Read A. S. Byatt's=20
"The Biographer's Tale" for a humorous, realistic view of de-construction.
So, I am back to the beginning. I see the practice of criticism, as it=20
applies to that which we call art, as being a search, a process of=20
understanding, of making value judgements or aesthetic judgements=20
concerning that which we see and then finding ways to use, justify or=20
explain those judgements for the benefit of others that may not have had=20
the same experience of that art. If I were really good, I would that with=
=20
eloquence.
>If what you have written is true, then energy imparted to the task of
>Criticism becomes wasted effort, for ". And yet the critical search
>for a principle of judgement in their case is the most important item
>in a critique of this faculty..." and "There are no formulae or
>principles that provide a method of determining the validity of
>writing on aesthetic issues.." appear to be contradictory statements
>
>Back to the drawing board.......Is there a "Framework" or a
>"Structure" to the "Process of Criticism"?
"I find I have a great lot to learn =96 or unlearn. I seem to know far too=
=20
much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am=20
getting on." -- Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wesley C. Rolley
17211 Quail Court
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408)778-3024
Ivor and Olive Lewis on fri 28 may 04
Dear Wes,
Thank you for the courtesy you are according me in this discussion. I
must admit I have not read the authors you quote no been drawn to seek
them out. So I am not aware of the value of their contributions in
directing our minds in the search for an understanding of the
Processes of Criticism.
I accept your comment about Duchamp and his ready made, though not
only did Duchamp change context, he added to the elements of the
original urinal by altering the composition. My opinion is that the
display of such a device in the setting where it was presented at the
time this was done was most probably offensive to some people of his
era. This engagement incited their emotions in ways language would
not. That is one of the functions of the things we choose to call
"Works of Art". Another point that concerns me is Reproduction. Is a
facsimile of a "Picasso" "Art" or does it have no place as "Art"
I believe your statement, no, your manifesto.....
<it applies to that which we call art, as being a search, a process of
understanding, of making value judgements or aesthetic judgements
concerning that which we see and then finding ways to use, justify or
explain those judgements for the benefit of others that may not have
had the same experience of that art. If I were really good, I would
that with eloquence. >>
.......To be excellent, but that is my Value Judgement and other's
might disagree. And though I might ask "what are the processes which
enable you to do this" I wish you every success in your venture.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis. Redhill, South Australia
Potters Council Member
| |
|
