Louis Katz on sat 9 oct 04
I can accept John Roger's definition seeing that it is just for him. I
think he is talking about "good art". I have a broader definition, I
too recognize that it is just for me. If i can interpret the object it
is good art for me. If it is dead, its probably still art, its just not
good for me. If I derive meaning from a trashcan oil pump, or picnic
table it is good art.
I have nothing against technique. I teach it every weekday and most
weekends. How do you get a good handle attachment before pulling it.
Why lips should be round and usually beefier than the wall of the pot.
At the same time I teach this, I ask, which one has a better feel, a
better look. Which pot will look better with glaze on it. Is this pot
more dainty or robust. How could you make a foot that looks like it
belongs. Teaching how to trim with no concern over what it will look
like may have value, but I suspect that the process will be deadening.
Even when teaching how to pull cylinders I try to infuse quality,
value, beauty. I also want good throwing.
The street sweepers need to sweep the street in a way that expresses
themselves, as well as getting the street clean. Too many dead jobs on
this planet.
My teacher used to say as I played scales on the violin, "make music".
Louis
>
>> Art is only a tool. If craft is just good skill, if it is not the
>> ability to put meaning into work, we should just buy at Walmart.
>
> My teacher used to say to us: "You do be an artisan first, then an
> artist."
>
> Kathy
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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.
>
>
Louis Katz
Flamin Pipe Organ (needs Quicktime and high speed acess):
http://www.tamucc.edu/~lkatz/cs/
Marcia Selsor on sat 9 oct 04
My co-op partner, Rhett Moak, is in a great show at Rocky Mountain
College.
It is based on two families' experiences (with children) over more than
a decade or two of spending the entire season in Lookout towers in very
remote and primitive places. It is the best art show I have seen in
ages. The two adult pairs of parents and their 6 children all have
contributed to this show. They spend May to Sept. in remote mountain
tops without electricity, plumbing, etc. An example is the evolution of
the children's walking sticks to scare off mountain lions.The
sophistication of their mental development is awe inspiring. I loved
the entire show. The statements are sincere, clear, and quite human as
well as totally profound.
Marcia Selsor
Gil Quintanilla on sat 9 oct 04
hi mel,
i've noticed that there seems to be a genuine concern among the =
membership of clayart about the state of contemporary art. i thought =
these links might be interesting.
http://www.jessieevans-dongray.com/essays/essay001.html
http://www.sierra-arts.net/CommentaryWhyOKNotToLikeMAMay03.html
i'm not in total agreement with the essays but i still found them both =
to have alot of truth in them.
thanks,
gil quintanilla, phoenix
Louis Katz on sat 9 oct 04
For the sake of clarity I will accept the art/craft pseudo-dichotomy
for this discussion. I like many others think its bogus and brings
about a ridiculous split in peoples minds.
"Good" clean craft is dry. I look at it, admire the craft and come back
and admire the craft and see it in two weeks and admire the craft. If
craft is all it is, it is dead after the first viewing. Cardew is not
pure "craft". There is the pursuit of beauty in his work, there are the
traces of his personal history, there are numerous signs of the
traditions he works within. All of these things may be concious or
subconcious but they express ideas that go way beyond craft.
I have two Linda Christianson (sp) cups. One is clunky made by a
younger thrower, the other more recent, light, a better sense of
breath. The lasting thoughts on these cups in my mind are the
similarities in form and surface and what they say about late 20th
centruy ceramics, not the craft. And I do prefer the older cup. It has
a sense of searching. Craft is only a tool.
Art is only a tool. If craft is just good skill, if it is not the
ability to put meaning into work, we should just buy at Walmart.
In my opinion most handmade pottery is without much meaning, ugly and
poorly made. I do not say that all pots are without meaning, ugly and
poorly made.
In my opinion most modern art is without much meaning, ugly and poorly
made. I do not say that all modern art is without meaning, ugly and
poorly made.
get real.
Louis Katz
Metaphor Maker, Craftsman, Artist, Potter,incredibly bad organist.
Oh yes, I have read The Painted Word by Tom Wolf I agree with much of
it. I think it should be required reading in College Art programs.
On Oct 8, 2004, at 3:31 PM, mel jacobson wrote:
>
> i really don't give a rat's ass about
> artist, image, modernity, and of course
> the best one...`metaphor maker`.
On Oct 9, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Gil Quintanilla wrote:
> hi mel,
>
> i've noticed that there seems to be a genuine concern among the
> membership of clayart about the state of contemporary art. i thought
> these links might be interesting.
> http://www.jessieevans-dongray.com/essays/essay001.html
Kathy Forer on sat 9 oct 04
On Oct 9, 2004, at 2:31 PM, Louis Katz wrote:
> Art is only a tool. If craft is just good skill, if it is not the
> ability to put meaning into work, we should just buy at Walmart.
My teacher used to say to us: "You do be an artisan first, then an
artist."
Kathy
John Rodgers on sat 9 oct 04
I am not an artist. I just make pots. I sell pots. I make pots. I sell
pots, I make pots. I sell pots. I am not an artist. I am a potter.
I am not learned about art. I have never studied and learned the
language of "artspeak" I don't hang around in art groups (but for this
mixed clayart bunch!). I have no specific training about art
appreciation. I have read some about "The Masters", but not that much
... I might recognize a Rodin, or a Picasso or Cezzane ...... maybe. I
have had many ideas over the years about what art is, and I have been
through many changes in my efforts to come to an understanding as to
what is art, and what is not. I have found my definitions of art to be
ephemeral at best.
In the end, for me, it has come down to this. If the object d'art is
truly such, it will, in one way or another, grab me by my emotions, hold
me spellbound --- by one or more aspects of it's being. If it does not
elicit that emotional response, I do not consider it to be art.
For all the fine and fancy interpretations .........I am the final
judge of what is art, and what is not ...... for me. And if that
emotional hook is not there, then no matter who made it, where I am
concerned, "It ain't art!"
Regards,
John Rodgers
Chelsea, AL
Gil Quintanilla wrote:
>hi mel,
>
>i've noticed that there seems to be a genuine concern among the membership of clayart about the state of contemporary art. i thought these links might be interesting.
>http://www.jessieevans-dongray.com/essays/essay001.html
>
>http://www.sierra-arts.net/CommentaryWhyOKNotToLikeMAMay03.html
>
>i'm not in total agreement with the essays but i still found them both to have alot of truth in them.
>
>thanks,
>gil quintanilla, phoenix
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
>
>
>
Ivor and Olive Lewis on sun 10 oct 04
Dear John Rodgers,
You say <made it, where I am concerned, "It ain't art!">>
A statement which gives us both the clue and the key to understanding
the diversity of opinions which might be expressed on this subject.
Best regards.
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Kate Johnson on sun 10 oct 04
> Dear John Rodgers,
> You say <> made it, where I am concerned, "It ain't art!">>
> A statement which gives us both the clue and the key to understanding
> the diversity of opinions which might be expressed on this subject.
Agreed! As John said, "where I am concerned," and that's pivotal in this
definition. We all respond emotionally to different things, in art, in
craft, whatever. I found a few pieces from an exceptional potter in my
local antiques mall--no way to contact him or her, but I did snap up two big
mugs and an vase-like pot-pourri holder (I suppose that's what it is),
because the shapes sang to me, the details were _exquisite_, the glazes were
rich and subtle, glorious shades of brown and green. The emotional hook was
THERE.
I took them to show my potter friend at school, who in fact describes
himself as a sculptor rather than a potter (though he makes gorgeous bowls,
etc.), and he just didn't get it. Not his kind of thing. So...definitely
and unquestionably art, to me, but not to him.
I'm in several artists' groups, too...and know very well that some peoples'
paintings sing to me and some don't. Doesn't mean those that don't are not
art, just that they don't sing to ME.
And it's almost impossible to say why some do and some don't. I love some
abstracts, and dislike others almost as profoundly. I love some paintings
that might be called photorealistic, while others bore me to death. It's
very, very subjective, isn't it!
Regards,
Kate Johnson
Graphics/Fine Arts
http://www.cathyjohnson.info/
http://www.epsi.net/graphic/
http://www.ebsqart.com/Artists/cmd_1494_profile.htm
| |
|
