Malcolm Schosha on wed 30 jun 04
Back in the 1960's the chief art critic for the NYTimes was John
Canaday. In an article, sometime in 1966 he described a letter he got
from a very unhappy woman. The woman's husband had been a salesman
for some product or other in NYC, and the year before he had a
nervous breakdown. He was sent to a psychologist who recommended, as
part of treatment, that he take art classes. This guy loved the art
classes, and really got into oil painting. Pretty soon his friends
and relatives were telling him that he should have an art exhibit. So
he did. John Canaday reviewed the exhibit, did not like the
paintings, and said so in strong terms. The 'artist' could not handle
the criticism, fell apart psychologically and needed hospitalization.
The man's wife blamed Canaday.
Canaday's reply was that the people who have art exhibits are
considered to be professional artists, and they are expected to be
tough enough to take harsh criticism when it comes their way. This is
a tradition that goes back a long way.Those who can not take
criticism should not exhibit their art. How was Canaday to know this
particular artist was was different, and in any case there was no way
a critic can give one artist special handling without being unfair to
other artists reviewed. The people at fault were the psychologist,
and the man's relatives and friends who urged him on.
It has always been my view that a person involved in creative
activity needs a rather Stoic attitude toward adverse opinions. It is
impossible to please everyone, and we should not expect that
criticism will never come our way. Life just has its bad moments. But
there is a more important point too.
There are schools of psychology that encourage developing the view
that all human activity is playing a role. We may have a part in the
play that we like, and certainly we try to play our part well. But
the part we play is not actually our essence as a human being. In
fact everyone has several parts over time, (child, adult, father,
mother, student, teacher, potter, etc.) Many of our parts change over
time.
Although it is normal to try to play our part in life well, painful
problems can arise if we identify our essence as a human with the
part we are playing. Sometimes we will experience some criticism of
how we play our part. If we have fully invested our identity in the
part, the criticism will be very painful in proportion to the extent
we identify with the part. So, you have been criticized....so what?
You are still the same person, still trying to do your part as well
as possible. The critic has his/her part too. Many of the best plays
have cruel villains, and if that part were removed all that would be
left of the play would be bland and uninteresting.
Moreover, every play comes to an end, and not all parts reach the end
of the play. Many times potters are injured, or become too ill, or
life circumstances demands something else. Rather than blame the
Playwright, take the new role and play that as well as possible.
It is necessary to understand that we are separate from the part we
play. Has some idiot (such as me) criticized how you are playing your
part as a potter? Well, it is not you, but just your part; and your
essence is a good as ever. If you remember that, then you understand
that your part has not suffered harm either.
Malcolm Schosha
Maurice Weitman on wed 30 jun 04
Welcome back, Malcolm,
I guess your resurfacing will put to rest the rumors that you and
Ababi were really the same person playing good potter/evil potter.
Context is everything. Your seeming non sequitur message today might
be taken as an explanation of why your "critical" (and in some eyes,
cruel) mentions of certain clayarters' works should not result in
their feelings being hurt or being insulted.
Having been a New Yorker in the '60s, I have read and learned from
John Canaday.
To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Benson, sir, you are no John Canaday.
And just because someone given credit for knowing something about art
has his words published does not mean they are worth much.
John Canaday was noted for his acute, often cutting remarks. Among
his snippy quotes which time and history have not been kind to is
this:
"The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum is a war between architecture and
painting in which both come out badly maimed."
It is a gift to be able to consider the source of criticism. But
saying that one should be thick-skinned enough to be immune to being
hurt by every moron saying hurtful things does not give another the
right to be cruel.
Regards,
Maurice
At 14:55 +0000 on 6/30/04, Malcolm Schosha wrote:
>Back in the 1960's the chief art critic for the NYTimes was John
>Canaday. [...]
> Has some idiot (such as me) criticized how you are playing your
>part as a potter?
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on wed 30 jun 04
Hi Malcolm, all...
We re all liable to distill different morals-of-the-story,
no matter what the story is.
Probably in this instance, he should better have gone to see
Arthur Miller ( or Eugene O'Neal, -sp?- I suppose, or even
Truman Capote for that matter, who would have understood
better than any of the players to which they had
resorted...)
But left to our own devices here, or for me anyway, in this
instance, is to suspect, in a
sleepy-just-got-up-and-off-the-cuff-kind-of-way... that the
victim here, had nothing of his own, includeing, or
especially, agency.
He was a 'salesman' ( of other's products...which is or can
be 'fine'...if other things are intact...)
He was 'sent' to a psychiatrist...(a kind of 'judge' in
effect, or, another kind of 'salesman' actually,) who
recommended taking 'Art' classes...(that is, recommended he
buy someone else's institutionally contextualized
'product'...possibly as a means of seeing if the victim
might discover something-of-his-own, in his use of the
product...or in the instution's use of him even...)
His friends and relatives (salesmen, judges,) were 'telling
him'...(selling him) to exhibit (in effect, offer for sale)
the resultant paintings ( products of doubious ownership at
this point, but a naive foray in approximatly the 'right'
orientation's direction)...in a 'Gallery' (his approximately
'own' products, in some-one-else's space, for which, one way
or another, he would be obliged to pay, or, that they, in
effect, were selling the use of some space to him...)
An 'Art' reviewer or Art-Critic (salesman, judge, parasite
on 'Art' producers...) pronounces evaluations (reflux of
digestive fluid processes) which...
Occasion for the man, a priest-class affirmation of his
status as victim, and as condemned victim...and oblige him
to seek final recourse for further judgement and
pronouncements and penences, in a context of being entirely
cared for by others, in their space, ( in a special, removed
from personal responsibilities or autonomies, of
circumstance and setting)...
...'needing' (in effect, we are told) to be in Hospital.
(That is, at the mercy of salesmen in an institution-store,
dominated by priest-class salesmen, or parasites on the
invalid-victim class...where, such salesmen are calculated
to enjoy among the highest order of advantage for selling
their products and services, whose customers may only
seldom, at all, say 'no thank you'...but, are obliged to
'buy' what is unilaterally sold to them...then to recieve a
'bill' which allways comes 'later'. No ,atter their pleasure
or satisfaction with any of it, or with the outcome. )
The 'wife' (parasite on a salesman I suppose, in this
instance, and sometimes 'judge' one must suppose, as well,
an incidental reflux provider of various digestive fliud
processes, ) blames (condems finally, insists in effect,
her husband to the role/status of victim)...blames the 'Art'
Critic ( bought his product instead of her husbands, or
bought his product of 'victim' anyway...)
And...
So...
We learn nothing of course from these abstracts, about what
the fellow had maybe once or ever ('really') wanted for
himself, or what at one time, he may have done about
it...nor the forms it may have once sought to find
satisfactions in...we learn only of those forms as suggest
it having been defeated or lost or compromised into an
oblivian of other-determined values and reactive self-hood's
compromise.
It sounds like he had been robbed, or tricked out of
himself, long before...and what we hear of in these
vicissitudes, are the latter tragic labilities of old
habits...compromises, consequenses, ironies maybe, or, their
logical, poetic, dramatic, culminations.
Sounds like he had plenty of dough saved up tho'...to afford
all that, or especially in 'New York'...
If nothing else...
I hope...he used some of that dough, or all of it he could
lay his hands on on short notice...and...bought a single,
one-way Bus Ticket, out 'West'...and (privately) said,
turning for just that moment...as he paused to enter the
Bus...
"Good Bye you Galoots!"
(Like Pat Hingle said in the old film, "The Last Angry
Man"...)
Ya never know...
Maybe he did...
Phil
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Schosha"
> Back in the 1960's the chief art critic for the NYTimes
was John
> Canaday. In an article, sometime in 1966 he described a
letter he got
> from a very unhappy woman. The woman's husband had been a
salesman
> for some product or other in NYC, and the year before he
had a
> nervous breakdown. He was sent to a psychologist who
recommended, as
> part of treatment, that he take art classes. This guy
loved the art
> classes, and really got into oil painting. Pretty soon his
friends
> and relatives were telling him that he should have an art
exhibit. So
> he did. John Canaday reviewed the exhibit, did not like
the
> paintings, and said so in strong terms. The 'artist' could
not handle
> the criticism, fell apart psychologically and needed
hospitalization.
> The man's wife blamed Canaday.
>
> Canaday's reply was that the people who have art exhibits
are
> considered to be professional artists, and they are
expected to be
> tough enough to take harsh criticism when it comes their
way. This is
> a tradition that goes back a long way.Those who can not
take
> criticism should not exhibit their art. How was Canaday to
know this
> particular artist was was different, and in any case there
was no way
> a critic can give one artist special handling without
being unfair to
> other artists reviewed. The people at fault were the
psychologist,
> and the man's relatives and friends who urged him on.
>
> It has always been my view that a person involved in
creative
> activity needs a rather Stoic attitude toward adverse
opinions. It is
> impossible to please everyone, and we should not expect
that
> criticism will never come our way. Life just has its bad
moments. But
> there is a more important point too.
>
> There are schools of psychology that encourage developing
the view
> that all human activity is playing a role. We may have a
part in the
> play that we like, and certainly we try to play our part
well. But
> the part we play is not actually our essence as a human
being. In
> fact everyone has several parts over time, (child, adult,
father,
> mother, student, teacher, potter, etc.) Many of our parts
change over
> time.
>
> Although it is normal to try to play our part in life
well, painful
> problems can arise if we identify our essence as a human
with the
> part we are playing. Sometimes we will experience some
criticism of
> how we play our part. If we have fully invested our
identity in the
> part, the criticism will be very painful in proportion to
the extent
> we identify with the part. So, you have been
criticized....so what?
> You are still the same person, still trying to do your
part as well
> as possible. The critic has his/her part too. Many of the
best plays
> have cruel villains, and if that part were removed all
that would be
> left of the play would be bland and uninteresting.
>
> Moreover, every play comes to an end, and not all parts
reach the end
> of the play. Many times potters are injured, or become too
ill, or
> life circumstances demands something else. Rather than
blame the
> Playwright, take the new role and play that as well as
possible.
>
> It is necessary to understand that we are separate from
the part we
> play. Has some idiot (such as me) criticized how you are
playing your
> part as a potter? Well, it is not you, but just your part;
and your
> essence is a good as ever. If you remember that, then you
understand
> that your part has not suffered harm either.
>
> Malcolm Schosha
>
>
____________________________________________________________
__________________
> 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.
| |
|
