Wes Rolley on tue 14 jun 05
Lee Love wrote:
> You can't learn everything about a culture simply by reading
> about it. No doubt De Waal's intelligent, but that has nothing to do
> with the issue.
I agree with much of Lee's comments about De Waal. I also agree that you =
can not
learn EVERYTHING about a culture by reading about it. However, you can l=
earn a
lot, but not by reading the speacialized comments about your area of inte=
rest.
You can read all you want about a Japanese pottery, find as much informat=
ion
about technical and descriptive aesthetic questions, but it still does no=
t take
you as far into a culture as reading a selected set of fiction. I feel t=
hat, if
De Waal had read Natsume Soseki, Mori Ogai, Akutagawa, Mishima Yukio, Da=
zai
Osamu, Kawabata Yasunari, Tanizaka Junichiro (to name a few writing durin=
g the
lifetime of the Mingei movement artists), he would have had a very differ=
ent
view of Japanese culture. Now that is a long list of names that will not=
mean
much to most. However, since my wife is Japanese and an artist, I had th=
e
inclination to read all of those authors. There is not a single one who =
can
give the cultural context to anything, but pieced together the fabric of =
the
culture is apparent.
If there is anything to gained from Post-modern deconstructionist thinkin=
g, it
is the fact that it is necessary to have a wide understanding of cultural
influences to be descriptive of what has happened an another era or anoth=
er
culture. This is especially true if one is trying to comment on the infl=
uences
that may have had on current practices or thought, like De Waal was doing=
to
relate modern studion practice to the Mingei philosophy. (I could go on =
about
the problems of Post-modern deconstruction but I will not, I will leave t=
hat to
another novelist, A. S. Byatt, whose "The Biographer's Tale" makes the po=
int
much better than I could.) The point here is that that I would fault De =
Waal's
scholarship, however much he knows about ceramics.
This same lack of scholarship shows up in too much writing about art, art
history, art criticism and almost anything else you could name that gets =
written
about. If anyone is interested in a writer whose scholarship is apparent=
, try
reading Louise Allison Cort (Isamu Noguchi and Modern Japanese Ceramics,
Shigaraki: Potters Valley, Seto and Mino Ceramics) or Morgan (sorry Vince=
)
Pitelka (Handmade Culture: Raku Potters, Patrons, And Tea Practitioners I=
n Japan).
--=20
"I find I have a great lot to learn =E2=80=93 or unlearn. I seem to know =
far too much
and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am gettin=
g on."
-- Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wesley C. Rolley
17211 Quail Court
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408)778-3024
http://www.refpub.com/
Lee Love on wed 15 jun 05
Wes Rolley wrote:
>
> This same lack of scholarship shows up in too much writing about art, art
> history, art criticism and almost anything else you could name that
> gets written
> about. If anyone is interested in a writer whose scholarship is
> apparent, try
> reading Louise Allison Cort (Isamu Noguchi and Modern Japanese Ceramics,
> Shigaraki: Potters Valley, Seto and Mino Ceramics) or Morgan (sorry
> Vince)
> Pitelka (Handmade Culture: Raku Potters, Patrons, And Tea
> Practitioners In Japan).
I agree. This is an excellent list. I am very happy that Cort
wrote about one of my two most important influences, Isamu Noguchi.
It is interesting, on the other list, where 3 of us, who are
either living in Japan or have in the past, and you Wes, who are
married to a Japanese artist, and another of our members who is an
anagama firer (3 of the five of us woodfire) all seem to agree:
It is the combination of our understanding of Japan, and the
process in woodfiring that helps us see that De Waal's arguments against
mingei influence craftsman/artists are primarily the academician
chastising the artist/craftsman for valuing the craft, the process and
the ability of the work to speak for itself, over some kind of
artificially specialized talking about it. We are all articulate
about our art and our craft, but we don't see the need to make a fake
language about it in order to trick our audience into thinking we know
more than we do. Gallery owners like this kind of stuff and so do
writers for social columns, but what good does it do for our work in the
long run?
Before I studied with my zen teacher Dainin Katagiri Roshi,
as a student, I used to be more like how De Waal comes off in the
article: most of my questions (verbiage) being used to show off my
knowledge rather than to learn about something. In the Zendo, I
learned that silence is okay and that if the question is simply to show
off, it is better to let someone else speak who really wants to learn
something. Talking has no inherent value in itself. For the artist
craftsman, it is best to speak when you have something to say that
enhances the work or helps others understand what you are trying to do.
--
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)
Snail Scott on wed 15 jun 05
At 11:30 PM 6/15/2005 +0900, Lee L. wrote:
>...De Waal's arguments against
>mingei influence craftsman/artists are primarily the academician
>chastising the artist/craftsman for valuing the craft, the process and
>the ability of the work to speak for itself, over some kind of
>artificially specialized talking about it.
I didn't interpret it that way. I saw it as de Waal's dislike
of a philosophy which encourages self-effacement, to the
detriment of the artist's career as well as contributing to
ongoing incomprehension by the general public. Not everyone
is able to speak (or write) articulately about their work, but
to refrain from doing so leaves the work at the mercy of all
those who just don't 'get it'.
We've seen plenty of annoyed complaints (and amused anecdotes)
from folks who've seen their work utterly misunderstood by
someone, somewhere. Well, being the voice of your work is one
way to educate the audience, not just about your personal
wonderfulness, but about the craft you're devoted to and about
its principles and nuances.
We often rhapsodize about work that 'speaks for itself' and
it's a wonderful thing when it can. But, it can only speak to
those who know its language. If you can't abide self-promotion,
then think of it as teaching a foreign language. The 'student'
is interested and willing, and you have something worthwhile to
offer; share it!
>...We are all articulate
>about our art and our craft, but we don't see the need to make a fake
>language about it in order to trick our audience into thinking we know
>more than we do...
Who said anything about tricks or faking it? Not de Waal, I
think. It's true that jargon in the wrong context can often
look like obscurantist bullshit. That doesn't invalidate the
use of specialist terminology or language. It's a matter of
speaking to your audience. De Waal's article was written in
somewhat academic language, though it was fairly accessible
to a casual reader with a background in the topic - entirely
appropriate to an on-line journal with a specialist emphasis
but aimed at a broader readership. It would have been less
appropriate in a local daily paper's arts column, but that's
not where it was presented. De Waal wasn't trying to fake
anyone out, and I don't think he was suggesting that anyone
else do that, either.
De Waal wants to see smart people writing smart things about
ceramics in a public forum. I'd like to see that, too.
Deliberate self-effacing anonymity may (or may not) be morally
virtuous, but it's not much benefit to your work, your career,
or to the field in general. My grandmother would probably have
supported that idea, but she'd have said it differently:
"Don't hide your light under a bushel."
The work will always be there; it's not destroyed by the
discourse surrounding it.
>...Talking has no inherent value in itself. For the artist
>craftsman, it is best to speak when you have something to say that
>enhances the work or helps others understand what you are trying to do...
Precisely!
-Snail
| |
|
