Cindy in SD on wed 8 jun 05
I am musing on this. I think, maybe, that to say that art is essential
to society may not be entirely correct. It is an aspect of society; it
always accompanies society; it is an inevitable characteristic of
society, but I'm not certain that society 'requires' art. To say that
art is essential to society may be analogous to saying that wet is
essential to water. A fine distinction, I suppose, but societies never
have existed without art (no, not even ours). Art isn't something apart
or separate, like fuel to a car. Art is to society more like hard is to
rocks or cold is to ice.
Just my thoughts, for what they're worth. ;)
Cindy in SD
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> David Gallagher wrote:
>
>> "Art IS essential" I wonder about this... essential to what/who? Is art
>> essential to the creator or the consumer? The guy that lives next to me
>> doesn't need one of my pots, or Leach's, or a Botticelli. Is art
>> essential to society? Is a painting of a cambels soup can the fabric
>> that
>> holds or society together?
>
>
> David -
> I don't think you can narrow it down to one art form versus another in
> terms
> of which one affects society the most. It is indisputable that art is
> essential to the survival and evolution of society and culture. For
> proof
> of that, we have only to consider the fact that every human culture
> throughout the history of the human race has used art to express
> themselves,
> to decorate objects, surfaces, and ceremonies, and to fill the gaps that
> inevitably appear in life. Given the place, the materials, and the
> opportunity, people will always make art, unless some aberration in
> cultural
> evolution temporarily subserves art below other less noble and worthwhile
> endeavors. That has certainly happened in the United States today,
> but it's
> just a glitch in the cycle.
> - Vince
Louis Katz on thu 9 jun 05
On Jun 9, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> Taylor,
>
> The easiest example of why Louis' definition does not work is the fact
> that many art forms do not create artifacts, unless you record them.
>
> Live dance and music are the best examples.
I would never use the word product , While it may not meet your
definition of artifact I see ideas, emotions, movement and sound as
artifacts.
If art is the communication of aesthetic values it is the communication
regardless of intent. Good, bad , or otherwise styrofoam cups do
communicate aesthetic values.
> It is our
> consumer/investment focus that makes us only see a product.
>
> Art is simply the communication of esthetics values.
Louis Katz
http://www.tamucc.edu/~lkatz
Louis Katz on thu 9 jun 05
If you are going to discuss this you better have an idea of what the
beast is you call art. Do you include T.V. , sofa sized paintings, sofa
fabric, the little deocrations on the surface of new styrofoam cups?
On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:10 AM, Cindy in SD wrote:
> art is essential
> to society
This I see as a truism albeit slightly obtuse.
Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
Louis
Vince Pitelka on thu 9 jun 05
> Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
Louis -
Well, as I have always said, as soon as you define art, you limit what it
can be. How about this definition:
Art: anything.
At least that doesn't exclude any possibility.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Taylor from Rockport on thu 9 jun 05
Louis,
If I were to accept your definition of art, I would have to say, "No, Art
is not essential to society and in fact is often harmful to the
continuation of society."
I am of course thinking, based on Louis's definition, of noisy party
favours, chastity belts, and thermonuclear warheads.
Taylor in Rockport TX, making art on my John Deer.
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 07:50:08 -0500, Louis Katz
wrote:
>If you are going to discuss this you better have an idea of what the
>beast is you call art. Do you include T.V. , sofa sized paintings, sofa
>fabric, the little deocrations on the surface of new styrofoam cups?
>
...>
>Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
...
marianne kuiper milks on thu 9 jun 05
Perhaps reading what, just a few years ago, Socrates
wrote on the subject, we will get a clear picture
about the quality and survival of a people when art is
present or absent.
In addition: we were in east Germany just after the
wall came down. A month or so. Art had been completely
controlled by the government from theme, to size,
placement to material. It was so sad to see the
"strong" fist-balled, square-jawed granite figures as
the only dominant sign of art..impossible to tell one
artist from another. So much lost for so long. I
wonder what all that means now?
Asking whether a society needs art to survive is, to
me, the same issue whether a society (not a small
cluster, perhaps) can survive without democratic
leadership or education.
In our art studio at the U is a framed "Art Is".
Marianne
--- Louis Katz wrote:
> If you are going to discuss this you better have an
> idea of what the
> beast is you call art. Do you include T.V. , sofa
> sized paintings, sofa
> fabric, the little deocrations on the surface of new
> styrofoam cups?
>
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:10 AM, Cindy in SD wrote:
>
> > art is essential
> > to society
>
> This I see as a truism albeit slightly obtuse.
>
> Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
>
> Louis
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Marcia Selsor on thu 9 jun 05
I am reposting this with the correct thread subject heading.
I can't help it, I am one of those academic types.
Ellen Dissanayake explored this topic in several of her books:
What is Art for?
Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes from and Why
Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began
she wrote that there IS art in every society.
She has been a guest speaker at NCECA as well as other national events.
I think reading these books would substantiate arguments that art is
needed by humans.
Also the need to create is necessary by humans.
If you are really interested in this topic, these are excellent
resources for a definite viewpoint.
Marcia Selsor
Professor Emerita, Montana State University-Billings
Louis Katz on thu 9 jun 05
All of these things are expressive, some more so than others. No point
in having this discussion if the premise is " Art is essential to
society". I think it is not only essential but unavoidable. But my
conclusion relies on my definition. I am much more interested in
discussions of quality. The meaning of some things is easier read and
often with this easier reading more deep. Other things are hard to pry
the meaning from, also sometimes deeper.
Depressing as it is I often wonder, "What does a sofa sized painting
mean"? What does it mean about society, people, the makers? What does
it say about the people who don't think about them? Often the ugly
houses on Ocean drive have more to say than the pretty ones.
Those flat gypsum board walls, what do they mean, what do they express,
how do they speak to the human condition.
Its cool with me if you don't like the definition I use. Find one you
like, work on it a while, let me know.
Louis
On Jun 9, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Taylor from Rockport wrote:
> Louis,
>
> If I were to accept your definition of art, I would have to say, "No,
> Art
> is not essential to society and in fact is often harmful to the
> continuation of society."
>
> I am of course thinking, based on Louis's definition, of noisy party
> favours, chastity belts, and thermonuclear warheads.
>
> Taylor in Rockport TX, making art on my John Deer.
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 07:50:08 -0500, Louis Katz
> wrote:
>
>> If you are going to discuss this you better have an idea of what the
>> beast is you call art. Do you include T.V. , sofa sized paintings,
>> sofa
>> fabric, the little deocrations on the surface of new styrofoam cups?
>>
> ...>
>> Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
> ...
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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
http://www.tamucc.edu/~lkatz
Louis Katz on thu 9 jun 05
On Jun 9, 2005, at 7:05 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> Louis Katz wrote:
>
>> On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:10 AM, Cindy in SD wrote:
>>
>>> art is essential
>>> to society
>>
>> This I see as a truism albeit slightly obtuse.
>
> Art is not essential to all societies.
>
> I would say that art is essential to culture and to all societies whose
> culture is alive and growing.
Which ones produce no art?
>
>> Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
>
> Art is the /process/ of intelligence. An expression of
> beauty.
Is all intelligence beauty? I think the things we do are necessarily
expressive.
> The artifact is the results.
No problem here, although I think artifact includes ideas and other non
physical products.
>
> While other creatures make artifacts, they do not
> recognize beauty. ( At least, the ones we have met so far. ) Being
> able recognize beauty is our unique gift. Artifacts that do not
> recognize aesthetic values are not art.
While I recognize that some people work on the art is man made beauty
definitions( a simplification) and i recognize that it has an internal
logic, I prefer expression based definitions. The guy sloggin down the
street because he got no sleep had a bad day and is showing it for me
is dance. I don't demand you buy this definition. The definition I use
is a result of a failure to find any demarcation between art and non
art. If you think there is a delineation let me know where it is at so
I can understand where you are coming from.
As I see it I have seen only a few basic definitions that people speak
about. I categorize them, knowing that the categories are just ways to
try to get a grip on reality as:
Beauty based.
Artistic intent
Expression
Trancendent (often tied to Beauty but not necessarily).
Your definition is(probably) going to structure your response to the
question in the subject line.
Louis
http://www.tamucc.edu/~lkatz/
Lee Love on fri 10 jun 05
Louis Katz wrote:
>
>
> As I see it I have seen only a few basic definitions that people speak
> about. I categorize them, knowing that the categories are just ways to
> try to get a grip on reality as:
> Beauty based.
> Artistic intent
> Expression
> Trancendent (often tied to Beauty but not necessarily).
Yes. Successful art contains all of these. I would also add, that the
most successful expressions will transcend limits of time and culture.
If they don't transcend time and culture, they are simply reduced to
being anthropological artifacts of a place and/or time.
--
李 Lee Love 大
愛 鱗
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
Vince Pitelka on fri 10 jun 05
Not only is art essential to society, it may be one of the most essential
things. It doesn't make much sense to try to define art, because you
cannot, and therefore it is pretty hard to discuss the specifics. Much of
that discussion would center on what art can be. In the contemporary world
the divisions are blurred between traditional fine art forms like painting,
sculpture, printmaking, photography (not so traditional, really), theater
(and now cinema), dance, literature, landscaping, architecture, and music;
traditional fine craft forms like pottery, jewelry, holloware,
blacksmithing, fibers/fashion, armor and weaponry, and furniture; and modern
popular media like advertising and television. If you think of the broad
implications of "the arts," it is impossible to defend any arguement that
art is unessential to society. The human desire to make art is one of the
most powerful instinctive drives, and the degree to which it is supressed or
questioned in contemporary culture is poowerful evidence of cultural ill
health in the Western world.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Louis Katz on fri 10 jun 05
Hi Vince,
Its a good definition. It includes nature. This is something I don't
particularly want as the word then expands into total oblivion for my
uses and I then need a new word. It is one of the definitions I played
with for a while.
I recognize words a tools to hold onto ideas. That the ideas are really
limited by the definition is an illusion. STill we need words.
Louis
On Jun 9, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>> Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
>
> Louis -
> Well, as I have always said, as soon as you define art, you limit what
> it
> can be. How about this definition:
>
> Art: anything.
>
> At least that doesn't exclude any possibility.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
> Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
> vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
> http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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.
>
Lee Love on fri 10 jun 05
Louis Katz wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:10 AM, Cindy in SD wrote:
>
>> art is essential
>> to society
>
> This I see as a truism albeit slightly obtuse.
Art is not essential to all societies.
I would say that art is essential to culture and to all societies whose
culture is alive and growing.
> Art: Any artifact of intellegence.
Art is the /process/ of intelligence. An expression of
beauty. The artifact is the results.
While other creatures make artifacts, they do not
recognize beauty. ( At least, the ones we have met so far. ) Being
able recognize beauty is our unique gift. Artifacts that do not
recognize aesthetic values are not art.
--
? Lee Love ?
? ?
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
Lee Love on fri 10 jun 05
Taylor from Rockport wrote:
>Louis,
>
>If I were to accept your definition of art, I would have to say, "No, Art
>is not essential to society and in fact is often harmful to the
>continuation of society."
>
Taylor,
The easiest example of why Louis' definition does not work is the fact
that many art forms do not create artifacts, unless you record them.
Live dance and music are the best examples. It is our
consumer/investment focus that makes us only see a product.
Art is simply the communication of esthetics values.
- -
李 Lee Love 大
愛 鱗
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
Tom at Hutchtel on sun 12 jun 05
Earl Writes:
>>>Is art essential to society? Every species of mammal that I
know of enjoys play, at least when young. Play is an art
form for it is heavily dependent on imagination and
abstraction. To the cat the moving ball is an abstraction
for prey; the wolf cub pretends that it's sibling is a
rival. Without this play important life sustaining skills
would not be learned and the species would die out.<<<<
I have a theory that every animal has a skill that allows them to survive in
the competitive world of eat and be eaten.
The theory is that man's competitive edge is creativity...making new things
building on old things, using tools, assembling ideas. We have
comparatively (to other animals) poor eyesight, hearing, taste, smell, even
touch.
BUT....
in order for any animal's competitive edge to be a survival strategy, they
must do it with extreme expertise. That's why cats play at fighting and
killing.
So, IF creativity is man's competitive advantage, what is it that makes for
expertise in creativity? Just assembling stuff, which is generally accepted
as creativity and "art" wouldn't, I don't think, meet the criteria of
excellence in creativity.
There must be some standards of excellence, or we're like a cat with bad
balance. And Earl is right, the animal that doesn't have excellence in its
competitive advantage dies...either as an individual or a species.
So what are you doing to develop expertise in creativity? Or maybe we
should first ask....what is excellence in creativity? Elephant dung on a
board?
Tom
URL Krueger on sun 12 jun 05
On Friday 10 June 2005 05:43 am, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> It doesn't make much sense to try to define art, because
> you cannot, and therefore it is pretty hard to discuss
> the specifics.
In many ways art is new to me. I haven't spent a lot of
years studying art or contemplating what the word "art"
means, I have just enjoyed it (or sometimes not), mostly
for the visceral feelings it produces inside me (and maybe
that's as good a definition as any).
However, I will propose that the word "art" describes an
abstract concept that encompasses many things; some
tangible, some ephemeral. It is the abstractness (or is it
abstracticity?) of the meaning of the word that makes it
hard for us to pinpoint a definition.
Is art essential to society? Every species of mammal that I
know of enjoys play, at least when young. Play is an art
form for it is heavily dependent on imagination and
abstraction. To the cat the moving ball is an abstraction
for prey; the wolf cub pretends that it's sibling is a
rival. Without this play important life sustaining skills
would not be learned and the species would die out.
--
Earl K...
Bothell WA, USA
Lee Love on mon 13 jun 05
URL Krueger wrote:
>rival. Without this play important life sustaining skills
>would not be learned and the species would die out.
>
>
I agree, play is important, maybe more important and universal than art.
But is art simply play? Is there metaphysical information transmitted in
art that isn't necessarily found in play? I think, some kind of sense of
self is required for art. While other mammals play, only those closest
to us seem to exhibit any sort of sense of self.
--
李 Lee Love 大
愛 鱗
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
lela martens on mon 13 jun 05
>
>>rival. Without this play important life sustaining skills
>>would not be learned and the species would die out.
>>
>>
>I agree, play is important, maybe more important and universal than art.
>But is art simply play?
The way I read it, he meant play is one form of art. I think there are many.
Is there metaphysical information
>transmitted in
>art that isn't necessarily found in play? I think, some kind of sense of
>self is required for art. While other mammals play, only those closest
>to us seem to exhibit any sort of sense of self.
>
Have you ever lived with a cat? :>)
Lela
Janet Kaiser @ The Chapel of Art on wed 15 jun 05
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
>> Art =3D Any artifact of intellegence.
>>Louis -
>Well, as I have always said, as soon as you define art, you limit what it=
can be. How about this definition: Art =3D anything. At least that doesn't=
exclude any possibility.
>Vince
*** PREVIOUS MAIL ENDS HERE ***
I am afraid your definition awakens the deepest antipathy within my very=
soul, Vince. It smacks of a politically correct inclusivity, which I=
personally abhor and refuse to subscribe to in any shape or form. Of=
course I am a plain old dinosaur, but any entity which is labelled "art"=
needs to earn that elevated epitaph to my simple mind. It is otherwise an=
occurrence, a happening or a simple object of little intrinsic merit or=
worth. I refute the idea that anything made or created by an individual=
can be described as art.
It is not art when a baby fills its nappy, even if it decides to smear said=
content around its environment or make little patties with the same. The=
conscious act of creating something from or in any medium is not in and of=
itself art, nor does any act/action produce art.
Of course it does not actually matter how we define art, because each of us=
has a different conception of what constitutes art informed by our own=
experience, education and culture. Whatever "it" is, art is essential to=
every CIVILISED society and quite a few distinctly uncivilised ones too...=
At least art usually unifies through association of ideas, whereas most=
other human activities are often the cause of conflict. Hence art not=
being along side politics and religion on on the list of subjects best=
avoided when in conversation with strangers or even good friends one=
wishes to retain as such!
The appropriation of all the arts and the manipulation of artists and art=
movements will continue in the future as it has in the past. Anything from=
political gain through to social change has been achieved through the work=
of artists down the ages.
A more pertinent and/or interesting question would be, is art or=
specifically a work of art by an artist a product of manipulated thoughts,=
ideologies and/or a belief system or a symptom of such? A fellow student=
of mine based their final thesis on the premise that society produces=
artists to suit their requirements and not vice versa. It was supported by=
many examples of the swift appropriation of the avant guarde by the=
establishment throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, if not before. By=
the time we enter the C21st, there is no longer such a thing as an enfant=
terrible let alone a cause celebre. Of course it is our loss, but=
inevitable in this world information overload.
Were there artists in Sodom and Gomorra? Most likely... And I do wonder if=
their society was also conned into believing that "anything goes" to the=
same degree we are seeing in our own times. I am not advocating that the=
definition of any art movement as "degenerate" is in the least helpful,=
but the fascist reaction to "non art" is becoming more understandable as=
time goes on and the work being promoted is drifting further away from=
universal accessibility with every dollop of elephant dung and each unmade=
bed. The ironic part is that the Nazis predate the start of the movement=
towards the current state of affairs, where a student can graduate with an=
honours degree in music but neither read music, play an instrument or sing=
and I have spoken to art graduates who have never been required to draw=
since they were in primary school! We shall not even mention the ceramic=
art graduates who know nothing about throwing, firing, glazing, etc.=
"because the technicians did all that".
I personally feel that a completely new word should be found to describe=
people who come up with new ideas and concepts. They may be artistic, but=
they are not artists. They are more closely related to thinkers and=
philosophers than artisans and craftsmen and should go work for think=
tanks instead of cluttering up galleries and museums with countless inept=
interpretations of their thoughts!
I applaud video and film as media, because at least they allow total=
freedom of expression without cluttering up valuable space with dubious=
"things" which are usually extremely distasteful and often smelly! They=
can also be made by a team, indeed one expects them to be team work.=
Unlike works by artists which they merely conceived in theory but were=
actually executed by others... But that is a rant for another day!
SECOND POST Re: Art Essential to Society?
>The theory is that man's competitive edge is creativity...making new=
things
>building on old things, using tools, assembling ideas.
>BUT....
>in order for any animal's competitive edge to be a survival strategy, they
>must do it with extreme expertise. That's why cats play at fighting and
>killing.
>
Which maybe why "creativity" is one of man's unique skills which he feels=
he needs to enact and reinforce. But why should he also be so ruthlessly=
destructive in equal measure?
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Plan visiting The International Potters Path?
Contact: Janet Kaiser
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.6.7 - Release Date: 10/06/2005
Vince Pitelka on wed 15 jun 05
Janet Kaiser wrote:
"I am afraid your definition awakens the deepest antipathy within my very
soul, Vince. It smacks of a politically correct inclusivity, which I
personally abhor and refuse to subscribe to in any shape or form."
Dear Janet -
I thank you for that fine long discussion. You have a wonderful way of
stating things. I think that we agree on most of this. You are struggling
to define some sort of workable parameters for what art is, and I certainly
am doing the same. When I replied to Louis's post and said "Art: Anything"
it was certainly tongue in cheek, but in consciously and purposefully
observing art, I have come to the conclusion that any definition of art
limits what it can be. I agree that you can identify plenty of things that
are NOT art, but how can we define what it IS without saying that it can't
be anything else?
Many people have bemoaned the relaxation of more specific parameters of art
that accompanied the emergence of Modernism and Post-modernism. I don't see
that at all. I welcome the broad range of conceptual work that has no
apparent aesthetic merit, and see it as a necessary expansion of the art
world to accommodate the things that need to be said in contemporary
society. Artists respond to the time, place, and circumstances in which
they live. It is not the role of visual artists to decorate our world. It
is their role to respond to our world with visual statements that comment on
both the good and the bad. Thankfullly, there is a lot of beauty in
contemporary art. But I would much rather see a conceptual artwork
involving elephant dung than an insipid decorative painting by Thomas
Kincaid. That kind of dreck drags down the name of fine art.
Expansion of the world of possibility is always a good thing in art, because
who knows what might appear that really can change the way people think and
act. Only time can sort out what is of lasting value.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
William & Susan Schran User on wed 15 jun 05
On 6/15/05 10:10 AM, "Vince Pitelka" wrote:
> When I replied to Louis's post and said "Art: Anything"
> it was certainly tongue in cheek, but in consciously and purposefully
> observing art, I have come to the conclusion that any definition of art
> limits what it can be.
Perhaps we should just go with what I tell my students when they ask: "what
is art" and my response: "anything you can get away with".
Bill
Janet Kaiser @ The Chapel of Art on wed 15 jun 05
I have been following this thread with interest, because it took a valid=
question and got side-tracked into the same old "what is art?" turmoil.=
Nothing surprising there.
But I WAS most surprised by Lee stating:
>While other creatures make artifacts, they do not
>recognize beauty. (At least, the ones we have met so far.) Being
>able recognize beauty is our unique gift. Artifacts that do not
>recognize aesthetic values are not art.
It is unprovable as well as refutable, because we do not possess enough=
knowledge of sensory reaction to external stimuli in any one animal=
species let alone all animals. Indeed, what very little we know would=
almost prove the opposite. For example research into the "aesthetic=
preferences" of rats found that they all preferred long, thin, skinny=
rectangles to short, fat ones. That is they preferred the exaggerated form=
of the long shape over the slighter form the same basic shape took.
Seen in an anthropomorphic way, the rats found one form "more beautiful"=
than the other. After all "beauty" is simply a preference for one over=
other similar forms and is totally subjective and individual to each of=
us. Our (usual) general consensus of opinion may well be a socio-cultural=
development, but it could equally be a simple response triggered by our=
senses and influenced by our genes as much as our intellect or brain.
Everyone (for example) finds the basic attributes of all animal babies=
(large eyes, small face, big ears, bald or fluffy) irresistible and=
adorable. They prompt both animals and humans into caring for them more=
than ever an adult form of the same animal would.
I do not wish to sentimentalise animal attributes, but it seems to me that=
the old adage "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies to them every=
bit as much as we human animals. They are unable to explain the reasons=
for their preferences and goodness only knows, most of us have extreme=
difficulty in explaining our own!
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Plan visiting The International Potters Path?
Contact: Janet Kaiser
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.6.7 - Release Date: 10/06/2005
Vince Pitelka on thu 16 jun 05
Janet Kaiser wrote:
"Yet this is tempered by what I regard as my own spiritual and/or
intellectual requirements. In simple terms, I do not chose to watch, look
at, read, listen to or generally support artists whose work has been created
to induce shock, horror and disgust in and of itself. It does not matter how
"honourable" their intention may be. We live in such a morally bankrupt and
corrupt world, there is absolutely no need to create more horror than
already exists worldwide, inc. your country and mine. Man's inhumanity to
man and the degradation which the majority of the world live in make the
"creation" of anything which could be termed as "gross" 100% indefensible.
It is obscene in the sickening real sense of the word."
But Janet, that's just not what artists do, or at least some of them.
Certainly there are plenty of artists whose great objective is to make the
perfect painting to decorate the space above the couch in the average
American suburban home. And plenty of very fine artists chose to paint the
the beautiful and scenic, but legions of others have naturally chosen to
paint the ugly, obscene, or violent. If you think of Gericault's "Raft of
the Medusa" or Goya's images painted after Napoleon's armies invaded Spain,
or Daumier's images of suffering peasants, or so many other examples. In
their time, those images were shocking. Now, in the chaos of contemporary
life and popular media, artists really push the attention in order to get
peoples' attention, and that is a natural, intuitive response. It is still
just as valid and important for them to address what is wrong with our
culture - the corruption, violence and obscenity. It is certainly up to the
viewer whether or not they want to look at that artwork but it is extremely
important that the artists be doing this work, establishing an archive of
visual art recording the artist's response to all aspects of contemporary
life.
Artists who do this kind of work are not "using their skills to cause harm
and pain." On the contrary, they are commenting on the harm and pain that
exists in our world, and it is essential that they continue to do that. We
don't need to dictate that, because artists certainly WILL continue to
respond to every aspect of the world in which they live.
Throughout history people have been trying to define art, and no one has
succeeded. I think it is possible to enhance understanding of art through a
collection of guidlines and theories, but as I see it, any specific
definition of art is a dead end.
Sorry that sounded so preachy. I'm back off my soapbox now.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Janet Kaiser @ The Chapel of Art on thu 16 jun 05
Thanks, Vince. As you know, I have difficulty keeping my prose short and=
sweet!
But you see that is the crux of the matter... Elephant dung vs. slick=
populist painting... Poles apart, each at either end of the rainbow with a=
whole mountain of human history and striving in between. And you have made=
a subjective, intellectual, personal choice which end of the rainbow you=
are going to run, to dig for the proverbial pot of gold! You are naturally=
in very good company, along with speculators, collectors and investors=
such as Charles Saatchi and what we call "the establishment".
Do you feel you have the moral edge seeing you are so much more informed by=
fellow artists / academia than ordinary Mr. Joe Egg, who only "knows what=
I like"? Yet when it comes to Ofili vs. Kincaid, I imagine you will be=
outnumbered 9 to 1 amongst the general public at large, a state of affairs=
which is not going to change in our lifetime.
But does that invalidate either your preference or theirs?
I think not, even though I am probably just as much a High Art Snob as you!=
Or was... I have shifted away from Art School fashion, yet I used to be=
enamoured of the whole great plethora of 20th century work. A fan of=
practically all the Izzums, the work of many different artists in all=
media, not least because I was attracted by their subversiveness and=
humour. HOWEVER I am now heartily tired of derivative conceptual work=
which is shallow, of little merit and no skill. It is with the natural=
prejudice of a craftsman and admirer of fine crafts that I speak.
Yet this is tempered by what I regard as my own spiritual and/or=
intellectual requirements. In simple terms, I do not chose to watch, look=
at, read, listen to or generally support artists whose work has been=
created to induce shock, horror and disgust in and of itself. It does not=
matter how "honourable" their intention may be. We live in such a morally=
bankrupt and corrupt world, there is absolutely no need to create more=
horror than already exists worldwide, inc. your country and mine. Man's=
inhumanity to man and the degradation which the majority of the world live=
in make the "creation" of anything which could be termed as "gross" 100%=
indefensible. It is obscene in the sickening real sense of the word.
THAT is why I object to "anything" being classified as art. Artists do not=
need to be a combination of philosophers, priests and moralists who police=
our social conscience and I object to any presumption that they are or=
should be. Social commentators yes, but using their skills to cause harm=
and pain? Definitely not!
And... YES! We all grope for a definition, not least because we wish to=
impress others with our own credentials! Unfortunately many artist/maker=
commentators cannot do so without defaming fellow artists/makers. And at=
the end of the day, most readers/listeners remain singularly unimpressed=
anyway... Which is really a of a bugger, isn't it? LOL!!
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
>I thank you for that fine long discussion. You have a wonderful way of
>stating things. I think that we agree on most of this. You are=
struggling
>to define some sort of workable parameters for what art is, and I=
certainly
>am doing the same.
>>snip<<
>Thankfullly, there is a lot of beauty in
>contemporary art. But I would much rather see a conceptual artwork
>involving elephant dung than an insipid decorative painting by Thomas
>Kincaid. That kind of dreck drags down the name of fine art.
*** PREVIOUS MAIL ENDS HERE ***
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Plan visiting The International Potters Path?
Contact: Janet Kaiser
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.6.7 - Release Date: 10/06/2005
David Gallagher on fri 17 jun 05
Janet,
You contradict your self here.
" Man's inhumanity to man and the degradation which the majority of the world live in make the "creation" of anything which could be termed as "gross" 100% indefensible. It is obscene in the sickening real sense of the word."
then:
"Artists do not need to be a combination of philosophers, priests and moralists who police our social conscience and I object to any presumption that they are or should be. Social commentators yes, but using their skills to cause harm and pain? Definitely not!"
If artists should only be social commentators and the majority of world is inhumane, then shouldn't most of the art reflect that in your thinking?
"Gross" is subjective to the time, at times in history a person would be executed for painting a nude. Would a photo essay (which is considered art by many) of a famine be gross? Rotting people are gross, but is it not valid?
How can art harm a person, cause them pain? unless used as propaganda. Say I took a picture of some one crucified in the middle of broad street, this would surely offend many people. I would be attacked from many angles for sure (or ignored), but my intent would have been to bring meaning to "the crucifixion" to modern day life. But that would not be addressed, I would be said to be intentionally trying to shock people blah blah blah. My point is I don't think most art is created with the intent to just shock. It may be shocking, but shock can be a good thing. It invokes a reaction. If art did not shock (and art has always shocked, what we call classics are classics because they shocked in may cases), then art would be totally irrelevant. It would be kitties and daises all the time(not that there is anything wrong with kitties or daises). People may be offended and repulsed, but that is a result of their perception of a work, not the work. Work made just to shock with no underlying
idea I doubt would be well received in any artistic sense by any one.
I don't think that artist should police the social consciousness, but they should philosophers, priests and moralists. If not, what should they be. To comment one should know what they are talking about. Do you mean by social commentator one who simply puts a mirror up to society? Or, should they comment on only the nice things? That's much more moralistic than being "gross". Art should present and idea. You don't have to agree with that idea, but with out an idea all we have are representations of tangible things. And cameras and video or much better vehicles for that.
Which leads me to a new semi definition for the masses to dissect:
Art: Any thing created with the intent to convey an idea through some kind of visual or auditory medium.
"Janet Kaiser @ The Chapel of Art" wrote:
Thanks, Vince. As you know, I have difficulty keeping my prose short and sweet!
But you see that is the crux of the matter... Elephant dung vs. slick populist painting... Poles apart, each at either end of the rainbow with a whole mountain of human history and striving in between. And you have made a subjective, intellectual, personal choice which end of the rainbow you are going to run, to dig for the proverbial pot of gold! You are naturally in very good company, along with speculators, collectors and investors such as Charles Saatchi and what we call "the establishment".
Do you feel you have the moral edge seeing you are so much more informed by fellow artists / academia than ordinary Mr. Joe Egg, who only "knows what I like"? Yet when it comes to Ofili vs. Kincaid, I imagine you will be outnumbered 9 to 1 amongst the general public at large, a state of affairs which is not going to change in our lifetime.
But does that invalidate either your preference or theirs?
I think not, even though I am probably just as much a High Art Snob as you! Or was... I have shifted away from Art School fashion, yet I used to be enamoured of the whole great plethora of 20th century work. A fan of practically all the Izzums, the work of many different artists in all media, not least because I was attracted by their subversiveness and humour. HOWEVER I am now heartily tired of derivative conceptual work which is shallow, of little merit and no skill. It is with the natural prejudice of a craftsman and admirer of fine crafts that I speak.
Yet this is tempered by what I regard as my own spiritual and/or intellectual requirements. In simple terms, I do not chose to watch, look at, read, listen to or generally support artists whose work has been created to induce shock, horror and disgust in and of itself. It does not matter how "honourable" their intention may be. We live in such a morally bankrupt and corrupt world, there is absolutely no need to create more horror than already exists worldwide, inc. your country and mine. Man's inhumanity to man and the degradation which the majority of the world live in make the "creation" of anything which could be termed as "gross" 100% indefensible. It is obscene in the sickening real sense of the word.
THAT is why I object to "anything" being classified as art. Artists do not need to be a combination of philosophers, priests and moralists who police our social conscience and I object to any presumption that they are or should be. Social commentators yes, but using their skills to cause harm and pain? Definitely not!
And... YES! We all grope for a definition, not least because we wish to impress others with our own credentials! Unfortunately many artist/maker commentators cannot do so without defaming fellow artists/makers. And at the end of the day, most readers/listeners remain singularly unimpressed anyway... Which is really a of a bugger, isn't it? LOL!!
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
>I thank you for that fine long discussion. You have a wonderful way of
>stating things. I think that we agree on most of this. You are struggling
>to define some sort of workable parameters for what art is, and I certainly
>am doing the same.
>>snip<<
>Thankfullly, there is a lot of beauty in
>contemporary art. But I would much rather see a conceptual artwork
>involving elephant dung than an insipid decorative painting by Thomas
>Kincaid. That kind of dreck drags down the name of fine art.
*** PREVIOUS MAIL ENDS HERE ***
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Plan visiting The International Potters Path?
Contact: Janet Kaiser
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.6.7 - Release Date: 10/06/2005
______________________________________________________________________________
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.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
Snail Scott on sat 18 jun 05
At 11:34 AM 6/18/2005 +0900, you wrote:
>...We are
>loosing our tactile vocabulary because we are being surrounded by
>plastic, stainless steel and even our wood is coated with plastic to
>protect us from touch...
In this, Lee, I agree entirely. The sensory nature
of our existence in the world has been cut off from
much of art theory, whle it has been simultaneously
eliminated from much of daily life as well. 'High
art' has become a philosophy exercise, while 'low
art' often involves a remote control, but both end
in the same result - a disconnect with the physical
senses, and isolation from direct tactile experience.
Ironic, no?
-Snail
Lee Love on sat 18 jun 05
David Gallagher wrote:
>Art: Any thing created with the intent to convey an idea through some kind of visual or auditory medium.
>
>
Golly. This totally leaves my work out. I am not
interested in conveying ideas. I am more interested in the
metaphysical aspects of creativity. The primary way of conveying
this meaning is through feeling, touch and use. These aspects are
often destroyed by rationalizing them.
I agree with Tony and I put it this way: All functional
work should be first judged in the hands, with the eyes blindfolded.
If it passes the test of touch and use, then you assess it visually.
Our society is almost totally visually oriented. We are
loosing our tactile vocabulary because we are being surrounded by
plastic, stainless steel and even our wood is coated with plastic to
protect us from touch.
--
Lee Love
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
Vince Pitelka on sat 18 jun 05
> I agree with Tony and I put it this way: All functional
> work should be first judged in the hands, with the eyes blindfolded.
> If it passes the test of touch and use, then you assess it visually.
Lee -
This has so many implications in our world today, but I am not sure which
has to come first - the sight or the touch. When I was selling much of my
work at Craft Fairs and from my own showroom in the 70s and early 80s I'd
occasionally get those questions like "What is it about this piece that
makes it worth $8, when I can get a perfectly serviceable mug at K-Mart for
99 cents?" My response was "Is that the only thing you ask of your mug? -
That it be serviceable? What about beauty, personality, and tactility?"
I'd encourage them to pick up the pot and feel it and then make a decision.
You could see something happening as they handled the piece, running their
hands over the surface, thinking about using the pot.
It seems that this situation is unique to utilitarian craft. I mean, we
often see surfaces we might like to touch in painting and sculpture, but in
many cases we cannot, and we accept that. With those forms, our perceptual
response is activated by the appearance of texture, without having to
actually use the sense of touch.
With craft, throughout the evolution of utilitarian work, aesthetics have
been informed by utility. Decisions that are made for utilitarian reasons
often become precedent for aesthetic choices in later work. With that in
mind, it makes perfect sense that part of our understanding of beauty in
utilitarian form is through touch and feel, but it is certain that much of
our understand of utility is through touch and feel. As I see it, some of
the most exciting utilitarian work being done today is that which is
exciting to see, but when you pick it up, it just sings to you. In your
mind you say "Oh wow, I want to USE this pot."
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Janet Kaiser @ The Chapel of Art on sat 18 jun 05
Thank you, Louis! What a joy to read your post! I suspect most of us have=
not spent very much time thinking about what you have obviously spent a=
great deal of both time and energy contemplating! I would like to add a=
few further thoughts, if I may...?
Firstly, yes, what about "intent". Mark-making is the example you give. A=
child scribbling on the wall is mark making, just as the professor giving=
life-drawing lessons or the architect at his/her drawing board. But is all=
mark-making really art? I hesitate to categorically say yes, because=
beyond the intent of mark making, it must surely be a reasoned act to even=
begin to be considered as "art" by others.
Art must furthermore be a conscious attempt to communicate. I think it is=
reasonable to demand that "art" (as an end product or as an act) is simply=
a means of transferring thoughts, beliefs, ideas, reactions, feelings,=
experiences, memories, dreams and whatever else the human condition spits=
out onto others. Even if what we do is a simple aide memoire for=
ourselves, it is still in the business of communication.
So we have intent, content and communication. Agreed? Now the sticky bit...=
You said:
>Your description of what is art seems to fit what I
>call transcendent definitions. In some way these definitions can be
>cheapened but easily described as, "its only art if it achieves a
>certain level of quality". For one of my friends this quality can be
>described as, G-d-like. For him its not art, just junk, until it
>transcends normal experience.
Yes.. "Quality" is a little out of fashion these days, but generally I=
would agree with your friend. It is becoming increasingly difficult to=
find work which people stand in front of and weep because it moves them to=
their innermost being. We have lost the child-like ability to stand in=
awe, to recognise what is truly awesome in the work of others.
>I find the sliding scale of art that transcendent definitions produce
>reasonable. even productive. Its when these definitions institute a
>hard line, "This is art, this is not". That I have a problem with them.
I imagine most of us do! As Vince has said, it is difficult to define what=
art may be, without saying what it is not!
>I want drywall to have more meaning. I want cloths, nails, gardening,
>even waste disposal to add more meaning to life. Maybe they are not
>capable of much, but they are capable of something. I am heartened by
>the increase in visual quality of stainless coffee mugs. When does it
>stop being art? Choosing the extreme, excrement smearing, doesn't in my
>view help the discussion much.
I am sorry, but you see it is the basic instinct of a child to do that and=
yet that self-same act has been considered art, because it was performed=
by adults or documented by them. As for everything in life being art or=
potentially being art... Well, I am afraid we shall have to disagree=
there! Much is truly "artful", it is also pleasing, decorative, restful or=
upsetting... Indeed all manner of attributes, but that does not in all=
honesty make it art whatever our view of the world. If it were, then the=
knot the hangman ties is also art. Or the mark made on a human body by a=
torturer using a glowing cigarette stub. That is also mark-making with=
intent and no doubt fellow experts would be able to give it marks out of=
ten for quality. Gruesome? Yes, but that is where we progress if every=
human act is to be considered art!
>What about a pencil mark on the wall by a young child. Is there
>meaning to this? When a baby does this, is it expressive, can it add
>meaning to your life? Can it be a mark you can contemplate? At what age
>does the mark suddenly become art. Does it in your eye. Do you define
>art by intent?
I think so, yes. Otherwise we are confusing it with a myriad of other=
attributes or intentions, such as beauty and design, to name just two. A=
child scibbling on the wall cannot truly be defined as art, because there=
is no intent beyond mark-making, probably with little thought of=
communication of meaning. I may rejoice in their spirit of discovery and=
experimentation, but I am not going to contemplate any inappropriate mark=
or act for very long. My thoughts would be anything other than=
philosophical or philanthropic, believe me!
>Art exists in the eye of the viewer as much, probably more than in the
>maker. Some objects are clearly easier to distill meaning from.
Which raises the question; does art always have to be meaningful?=
Furthermore, does art have to fulfil a function? If it does neither, is it=
still art? Or just stuff which is, "of neither use nor ornament", as my=
late Mother would say. Whether the outcome is meritous or mediocre, I=
would agree that the production of anything (objects, music, dance, etc.)=
is potentially making art.
Ha! Yes! "Even pots". LOL!!! I personally have little sympathy for that=
attitude, as I hope I have shown enough in the past. I will continue with=
my truly eclectic and indefinable world view where art is concerned, but I=
honestly cannot and will not contemplate including all human endeavour!=
There are too many foul human beings walking the planet to allow that!
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser -- hoping everyone in LA is OK... News of an earth tremor of 5=
point something was just announced on the radio. Hold onto your pots!
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Plan visiting The International Potters Path?
Contact: Janet Kaiser
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.7.8 - Release Date: 17/06/2005
Jim Willett on sat 18 jun 05
PS: "The mind stands in the way of the eye." (Arthur Stern)
Esoterica: "An artist" said James McNeill Whistler, "is not paid for his
labor, but for his vision." An altered state of seeing can help an artist
better define that vision. Looking back doesn't necessarily bring on a
sense of contentment. It's one of the pro-tools that creators need in
order to better understand what it is they're up to. The idea is to seek
out and kill the banal and ordinary. The idea is to find and honour the
central motif. The idea is to make your vision stronger.
"An artist," says Tom Lynch, "is paid for his vision, not his reporting.
http://www.painterskeys.com
Here is a link to a guy with both oars in the water.......check it
out...either you will understand or you won't.....you who do I salute!
Jim
Out of the Fire Studio
Edmonton, Alberta
http://www.outofthefirestudio.com
Janet Kaiser @ The Chapel of Art on sun 19 jun 05
Which really brings me back to what are perceived as attacks on the halls=
of academe and some individual academics, which some brave souls refute in=
their co-ordinated rebuttals and damage limitation exercises, but which=
appear to me as thinly disguised ass-covering... We note that they are=
those very members of our society, who owe their daily bread to the very=
institutions which are the source of such despair to many working potters=
out in the real world and a few other "interested parties" watching from=
the sidelines... Yes, such as myself!
And beyond the protagonists in the debate, it actually affects everyone in=
society to some degree, because poor art and design is becoming all=
pervasive in everyday life and extremely difficult to ignore let alone=
forgive. But this decline is not in the least surprising given the=
emphasis on the apparent importance of marketing and profit, but=
disinterest in the integrity of individual products right through from=
initial conception to post-sale disposal.
With the shift in production not only from handmade to manufactured but=
also right out of the country, the home of the Industrial Revolution has=
become not only the "Nation of Shopkeepers" which Napoleon would still=
recognise, but the "Service Industry" has become our collective reason=
d'etre. It is our only job as Britons to consume. We are encouraged to=
this by a capitalist system which allows massive personal and national=
debt. To keep the ball rolling ever more stuff has to be invented. Hence=
the role of artists and art being essential...
Industry needs inventive and creative minds, therefore our artists have to=
conceive and design what other lesser mortals shall make, so corporations=
can make large profits... This applies to the bread-and-butter artists,=
right through to the celebrities who conceive work to be made by=
technicians, who should really be seen as the new generation of Unknown=
Craftsmen!
Naturally enough, all the traditional aims of the potter (as well as other=
artist craftsmen) are going to be in conflict with this brave new world...=
The whole of academia has been induced to revolutionise formal further=
education, to substantially reduce the number of delusionary individuals=
wishing to enter these professions to or as near as possible to nil. They=
have been sneaky about it, not attracting any attention, but they have=
almost been able to meet governmental guidelines and objectives, which=
wanted Britain to emulate Singapore by 2010. (i.e. 100% computer-based=
learning with no practical application necessary. At the time of that=
report back around 2000, Singapore did not offer art at any of its=
universities or colleges.) That is the situation in the UK and it would be=
interesting to hear what the official "party line" is elsewhere around the=
world!
Has academia in the UK fought back? Not at all. They have colluded all=
along the line as the plethora of published work debunking all=
craftspeople from William Morris down to Bernard Leach and their=
practices. They have also witnessed colleges and universities rip out=
whole departments of practising artists who were skilled, experienced=
teachers and technicians, as well as remove all the diverse equipment and=
materials formerly available for the free use of all students, only to=
replace them with guest speakers, low-cost (i.e. recently graduated)=
part-time staff of little experience, how-to and do-it-yourself videos and=
last but not least, rooms full of computers and the latest IT technology.=
These have been explained as managerial decisions, but there have been no=
mass protests and little has been done to challenge what appears to be=
governmental social engineering with the collusion of the establishment...=
That includes, but is not confined to academia.
Colleges and universities are still the home to these self-proclaimed=
god-like persons and so they are the ones who have to answer the charges=
made by we poor mortals who do not meet their exalted ideas of=
intelligence or ability! THEY should be fighting pressure from the=
Establishment, not us! Yet there they are navel gazing and attacking the=
very people they have had the temerity to displace. The brass balls of=
some of these so-called academics fairly takes my breath away, but we all=
sit in docile acceptance, which signals tacit approval of what they do and=
a say at all levels!!? What a load of lilly-livered wimps we are for=
letting them get away with it all! It makes me want to spit in their=
collective eye at the very least!
Their utter condescension when forced to acknowledge the rest of us=
(singularly or generally) is the worst aspect. It is naturally learned=
behaviour and a perfect expression of the class attitudes we admit to=
having in the UK, but are strangely denied elsewhere in the world. High=
class, low class. High art, Low art. Academic, non-academic. Anyone unable=
to understand their accent or speak in the same manner are way beneath=
their dignity and definitely not to be taken seriously.
So how dare those with dirt on their hands and clad in overalls seek=
dialogue when we do not even speak the same language for goodness sake?!?!=
The damned cheek of the masses!! "Go away, you silly little potter and=
play with your clay elsewhere. Do not even think of marching in here=
uninvited and unwanted, getting our squeaky clean halls of academe dirty.=
That only happened in the bad old days when students and professors were=
physically present at college and were forever making a mess all over the=
place, cluttering up countless rooms and using up vital resources... Do=
you know we save an annual $5 million on cleaning staff alone since we=
closed the faculty and launched our award-winning on-line degree courses?=
Why should we bother with messy art departments when we have have a 500=
international student intake, earning us over $200 million per annum and=
only have to speak to individuals once per year when they hand over their=
tuition fees. This is in addition to the government grant for researching=
the development potential of widgets in Taiwan. How can the likes of you=
possibly compete in this global market?" Ack! ack! ack!
Yes, there has been an invidious but systematic shift from hands-on=
teaching, where the learning of primary skills is considered an important=
if not primary element, to the absolute removal of all physical=
art-making in preference to a sort of "theory of art" only agenda. A=
market place of and for ideas and how to market them is all that the=
establishment apparently promotes and wants. It is so sad it makes me want=
to weep. Do not try to tell me that this is just a localised symptom of=
Thatcherism which forced all institutions in the UK to think in terms of=
"viability" and "economic use of available resources" which the present=
administration has used to hide their own agenda behind but is irrelevant=
or non-existent elsewhere in the world.
It has reached such a level globally, that a working definition of "art"=
given to students by a college lecturer was recently stated as; "art is=
what you can get away with". It makes me sick that these sort of attitudes=
do not attract the least comment, even on a list such as Clayart!! Yet it=
is just symptomatic of our times.
Just as well so much "art" is a case of the "Emperor`s clothes" because=
there will soon be nobody in a position to create real objects unless they=
are CAD designed widgets in "editions" of a million which come foam=
injected and ready packaged off a conveyor belt... Which is pretty close=
to being Mr. Kincaid's art... It will be "genetically signed" like his=
"workshop paintings" too! LOL!
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser -- I lost the plot slightly in my rambling, but am too cross=
to go back and re-write! It is one of those subjects where the more you=
think about it, the more outrageous the whole situation becomes! "A nice=
mess you got us into", as Laurel and Hardy would say... Same thing too...=
It was always the other guy who got into the mess... We never accept our=
own responsibility, do we?
*** IN REPLY TO SNAIL'S MAIL:
>'High art' has become a philosophy exercise, while 'low
>art' often involves a remote control, but both end
>in the same result - a disconnect with the physical
>senses, and isolation from direct tactile experience.
*** PREVIOUS MAIL ENDS HERE ***
THE CHAPEL OF ART - or - CAPEL CELFYDDYD
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : GB-Wales LL52 0EA
Plan visiting The International Potters Path?
Contact: Janet Kaiser
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523122
http://www.the-coa.org.uk
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 17/06/2005
Lee Love on sun 19 jun 05
Snail and Vince,
This brings up a memory (it first popped up in Sextant's interview, when
he dropped Issey Miyake's name.)
The last opening MacKenzie had in Tokyo, I saw him wearing something out
of the ordinary. In the past I usually saw him wearing a collarless
shirt to openings. ( I do this too, to avoid wearing a tie. I figure if
it is good enough for Thomas Jefferson, it is good enough for me. ;-) )
But the last opening at Gallery Shun, he was wearing a large, loose,
white, collarless shirt. I thought it looked pretty good on him.
Comfortable enough to sleep in. It was a gift from his friend Issey
Miyake. I never imagined MacKenzie wearing designer clothes, but Miyake
took to him very well. It makes sense. I heard Miyake interviewed once,
and he said that how the clothing he designed felt to wear was of
primary importance to him.
Clothing is a good place to pay attention to tactile factors. So is
furniture: an Ames chair comes to mind. Our "things" should fit us. We
shouldn't have to fit our things.
--
Lee Love
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://hankos.blogspot.com/ Visual Bookmarks
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
About the best pots:
"They are not necessarily amenable to intellectual analysis,
and, in fact, that analysis can destroy a person's real
appreciation and understanding of a piece."
-- Warren MacKenzie
| |
|
