mel jacobson on thu 18 aug 05
my complaint has been for several years, that art that
is done for shock only, is tasteless.
like shock radio, shock film, shock art, shock music....tasteless.
i find it creeping in every day.
the purpose is to shock, not uphold and idea or ideal.
much of performance art is based on shock. it is boring.
art that has skill, craft, purpose is getting a bad rap.
i have watched this for many years.
i have a strong bias to skill.
the artist that has value will study art, become skilled at
a media. will spend a lifetime in study and work.
for centuries we have seen great art, music that is based
on skillful direction of human art. it was done on purpose...to uplift,
beauty and or statement. the statement was made with skill
and purpose...some of it was about war, desperation, but it
had a message of visual art. that art will last and be a measure
of the time it was made.
shock is based on...`see what i did, can do.`
as i have said, when you do not have an idea, skill or
knowledge of your materials....turn to obscenity or shock.
at least you will be noticed.
like my favorite...at the walker a few years back.
the performance was to throw human blood on the audience.
it was offensive and shocking. the artist only wanted to shock.
it was not about homophobia, hiv, or human suffering...it was
only meant to shock.
it caused a great uproar. but the artist was constantly defended
by the director of the walker...`as having artistic license to do it`.
fine, but was it art? no. it was only shock.
no other purpose.
that offended me.
it still offends me that people with limited talent and skill will use
shock as art.
there are many many fine artists that have spent a life time doing what
they love and need to do.
shock art just pushes them further and further into the public
perception that artists are crazy.
i find one of my jobs in life is to uplift and defend the craft of
ceramics. to let people know what a great group of crafts people
there are...working their tails off to produce quality clay goods that
humans can keep, use and admire.
shock art avoids commerce. you cannot have it, keep it, admire it
and of course, never own it.
great art can be kept for time. it will be admired a thousand years from
now. shock is like bad theatre...it is gone...never to be seen again.
like bad music...gone, never to be heard again.
bad ugly pots will be around a thousand years from now.
do you want your name on the bottom?
i don't.
that is why my kiln is on right now. at 2000F. i am trying to
make quality things that my customers can pass on to their
children. i want to be a part of the legacy of fine crafts people
that have spent their lives to teach us what clay is about.
those that have left us wonderful examples of art and craft together.
it will stand the test of time.
shock art will be a small footnote, not worth a mention.
mel
from mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
website: http://www.pclink.com/melpots
http://home.comcast.net/~figglywig/clayart.htm
for gail's year book.
Randall Moody on thu 18 aug 05
I dislike shock art not so much for the tastelessness of it. My problem wit=
h=20
shock art is that it is far too simple to achieve. It is the easy way out=
=20
wrapped in psuedo-intellectualism.=20
It is far too easy to shock and offend people. If you don't agree, drop you=
r=20
pants at the next guild meeting or family reunion.=20
On 8/18/05, mel jacobson wrote:
>=20
> my complaint has been for several years, that art that
> is done for shock only, is tasteless.
>=20
> like shock radio, shock film, shock art, shock music....tasteless.
>=20
> i find it creeping in every day.
> the purpose is to shock, not uphold and idea or ideal.
> much of performance art is based on shock. it is boring.
>=20
> art that has skill, craft, purpose is getting a bad rap.
>=20
> i have watched this for many years.
>=20
> i have a strong bias to skill.
> the artist that has value will study art, become skilled at
> a media. will spend a lifetime in study and work.
>=20
> for centuries we have seen great art, music that is based
> on skillful direction of human art. it was done on purpose...to uplift,
> beauty and or statement. the statement was made with skill
> and purpose...some of it was about war, desperation, but it
> had a message of visual art. that art will last and be a measure
> of the time it was made.
>=20
> shock is based on...`see what i did, can do.`
>=20
> as i have said, when you do not have an idea, skill or
> knowledge of your materials....turn to obscenity or shock.
> at least you will be noticed.
>=20
> like my favorite...at the walker a few years back.
> the performance was to throw human blood on the audience.
> it was offensive and shocking. the artist only wanted to shock.
> it was not about homophobia, hiv, or human suffering...it was
> only meant to shock.
> it caused a great uproar. but the artist was constantly defended
> by the director of the walker...`as having artistic license to do it`.
> fine, but was it art? no. it was only shock.
> no other purpose.
>=20
> that offended me.
> it still offends me that people with limited talent and skill will use
> shock as art.
>=20
> there are many many fine artists that have spent a life time doing what
> they love and need to do.
> shock art just pushes them further and further into the public
> perception that artists are crazy.
>=20
> i find one of my jobs in life is to uplift and defend the craft of
> ceramics. to let people know what a great group of crafts people
> there are...working their tails off to produce quality clay goods that
> humans can keep, use and admire.
>=20
> shock art avoids commerce. you cannot have it, keep it, admire it
> and of course, never own it.
>=20
> great art can be kept for time. it will be admired a thousand years from
> now. shock is like bad theatre...it is gone...never to be seen again.
> like bad music...gone, never to be heard again.
>=20
> bad ugly pots will be around a thousand years from now.
> do you want your name on the bottom?
> i don't.
> that is why my kiln is on right now. at 2000F. i am trying to
> make quality things that my customers can pass on to their
> children. i want to be a part of the legacy of fine crafts people
> that have spent their lives to teach us what clay is about.
> those that have left us wonderful examples of art and craft together.
> it will stand the test of time.
> shock art will be a small footnote, not worth a mention.
> mel
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> from mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
> website: http://www.pclink.com/melpots
> http://home.comcast.net/~figglywig/clayart.htm
> for gail's year book.
>=20
>=20
> _________________________________________________________________________=
_____
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>=20
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>=20
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at=20
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
Frank Colson on thu 18 aug 05
Mel- Great! You are sticking by your principals on this subject. Prompted
me to look up the definition of "art" which uses the word "beauty"
in almost every form of explanation. We all are aware that two of the most
difficult words to define is "art" and "love".
Unfortunately, especially in our society, the term for art has been broaden
so widely that anything that is visual, moves, has audio sounds, smells, or
feels, is called art. Does this exhibition really fall into the definition
of "art"? I don't think so! In the many countries I have lived in
I have witnessed works unlike this one, except there is oodles of "blood"
in one form or another. Remember Rembrandt's painting "The Operating
Room"?. Man, did that put everyone in shock at the time. Was that art?
Well, yes! Because Rembrandt had proven himself as
an established artist. He simply used a subject that had never been
approached before. There is nothing original about this show! But I guess
that one has to start somewhere. When Duane Hanson exhibited his award
wining work of a squashed and run over motor biker at the Tampa State Fair,
the curator refused to exhibit it. It caused an uproar! For me, just let
me have another view of that dissected cow in a tank
of formaldehyde! Now that's "art"!
Frank Colson
----- Original Message -----
From: "mel jacobson"
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:54 AM
Subject: shock art
> my complaint has been for several years, that art that
> is done for shock only, is tasteless.
>
> like shock radio, shock film, shock art, shock music....tasteless.
>
> i find it creeping in every day.
> the purpose is to shock, not uphold and idea or ideal.
> much of performance art is based on shock. it is boring.
>
> art that has skill, craft, purpose is getting a bad rap.
>
> i have watched this for many years.
>
> i have a strong bias to skill.
> the artist that has value will study art, become skilled at
> a media. will spend a lifetime in study and work.
>
> for centuries we have seen great art, music that is based
> on skillful direction of human art. it was done on purpose...to uplift,
> beauty and or statement. the statement was made with skill
> and purpose...some of it was about war, desperation, but it
> had a message of visual art. that art will last and be a measure
> of the time it was made.
>
> shock is based on...`see what i did, can do.`
>
> as i have said, when you do not have an idea, skill or
> knowledge of your materials....turn to obscenity or shock.
> at least you will be noticed.
>
> like my favorite...at the walker a few years back.
> the performance was to throw human blood on the audience.
> it was offensive and shocking. the artist only wanted to shock.
> it was not about homophobia, hiv, or human suffering...it was
> only meant to shock.
> it caused a great uproar. but the artist was constantly defended
> by the director of the walker...`as having artistic license to do it`.
> fine, but was it art? no. it was only shock.
> no other purpose.
>
> that offended me.
> it still offends me that people with limited talent and skill will use
> shock as art.
>
> there are many many fine artists that have spent a life time doing what
> they love and need to do.
> shock art just pushes them further and further into the public
> perception that artists are crazy.
>
> i find one of my jobs in life is to uplift and defend the craft of
> ceramics. to let people know what a great group of crafts people
> there are...working their tails off to produce quality clay goods that
> humans can keep, use and admire.
>
> shock art avoids commerce. you cannot have it, keep it, admire it
> and of course, never own it.
>
> great art can be kept for time. it will be admired a thousand years from
> now. shock is like bad theatre...it is gone...never to be seen again.
> like bad music...gone, never to be heard again.
>
> bad ugly pots will be around a thousand years from now.
> do you want your name on the bottom?
> i don't.
> that is why my kiln is on right now. at 2000F. i am trying to
> make quality things that my customers can pass on to their
> children. i want to be a part of the legacy of fine crafts people
> that have spent their lives to teach us what clay is about.
> those that have left us wonderful examples of art and craft together.
> it will stand the test of time.
> shock art will be a small footnote, not worth a mention.
> mel
>
>
>
>
> from mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
> website: http://www.pclink.com/melpots
> http://home.comcast.net/~figglywig/clayart.htm
> for gail's year book.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> 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 on thu 18 aug 05
I think we are going to delve into intent, and quality if we stay long
on this issue. Does shock necessarily mean without value? Is it
necessarily true that art that "shocks" is necessarily bad, or when
people say Shock Art do they mean that shock is the only value the art
has. One can think of all sorts of shocking art that has stood the test
of time. Many ideas that have shaped history were shocking in their own
time.
Often the shock blinds people to the other value.
Cute has the same effect.
Plastic has the same effect on many potters.
Louis
On Aug 18, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
> I dislike shock art not so much for the tastelessness of it. My
> problem with
> shock art is that it is far too simple to achieve. It is the easy way
> out
> wrapped in psuedo-intellectualism.
>
> It is far too easy to shock and offend people. If you don't agree,
> drop your
> pants at the next guild meeting or family reunion.
>
> On 8/18/05, mel jacobson wrote:
>>
>> my complaint has been for several years, that art that
>> is done for shock only, is tasteless.
>>
>> like shock radio, shock film, shock art, shock music....tasteless.
>>
>> i find it creeping in every day.
>> the purpose is to shock, not uphold and idea or ideal.
>> much of performance art is based on shock. it is boring.
>>
>> art that has skill, craft, purpose is getting a bad rap.
>>
>> i have watched this for many years.
>>
>> i have a strong bias to skill.
>> the artist that has value will study art, become skilled at
>> a media. will spend a lifetime in study and work.
>>
>> for centuries we have seen great art, music that is based
>> on skillful direction of human art. it was done on purpose...to
>> uplift,
>> beauty and or statement. the statement was made with skill
>> and purpose...some of it was about war, desperation, but it
>> had a message of visual art. that art will last and be a measure
>> of the time it was made.
>>
>> shock is based on...`see what i did, can do.`
>>
>> as i have said, when you do not have an idea, skill or
>> knowledge of your materials....turn to obscenity or shock.
>> at least you will be noticed.
>>
>> like my favorite...at the walker a few years back.
>> the performance was to throw human blood on the audience.
>> it was offensive and shocking. the artist only wanted to shock.
>> it was not about homophobia, hiv, or human suffering...it was
>> only meant to shock.
>> it caused a great uproar. but the artist was constantly defended
>> by the director of the walker...`as having artistic license to do it`.
>> fine, but was it art? no. it was only shock.
>> no other purpose.
>>
>> that offended me.
>> it still offends me that people with limited talent and skill will use
>> shock as art.
>>
>> there are many many fine artists that have spent a life time doing
>> what
>> they love and need to do.
>> shock art just pushes them further and further into the public
>> perception that artists are crazy.
>>
>> i find one of my jobs in life is to uplift and defend the craft of
>> ceramics. to let people know what a great group of crafts people
>> there are...working their tails off to produce quality clay goods that
>> humans can keep, use and admire.
>>
>> shock art avoids commerce. you cannot have it, keep it, admire it
>> and of course, never own it.
>>
>> great art can be kept for time. it will be admired a thousand years
>> from
>> now. shock is like bad theatre...it is gone...never to be seen again.
>> like bad music...gone, never to be heard again.
>>
>> bad ugly pots will be around a thousand years from now.
>> do you want your name on the bottom?
>> i don't.
>> that is why my kiln is on right now. at 2000F. i am trying to
>> make quality things that my customers can pass on to their
>> children. i want to be a part of the legacy of fine crafts people
>> that have spent their lives to teach us what clay is about.
>> those that have left us wonderful examples of art and craft together.
>> it will stand the test of time.
>> shock art will be a small footnote, not worth a mention.
>> mel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> from mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
>> website: http://www.pclink.com/melpots
>> http://home.comcast.net/~figglywig/clayart.htm
>> for gail's year book.
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ________
>> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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.
>
Lester Haworth on thu 18 aug 05
I watched a program on The History channel or A&E, one of those channels.
Anyway I watched for as long as I could stomach it.
The shots I saw was of an actual human male who had been plasticized, and
filleted (is that a word?) or sliced up in a manner to show the intricacies
of the human anatomy.
He was also posed in an action stance. It made me queasy so I turned it
after a couple of minutes. That show was textbook shock. I thought that it
was more of a science exhibition. Not art!
How bout the people who volunteered to have this done to their bodies. Sure
is a morbid way to spend eternity.
Personally, I'd rather be cremated and made into an ash glaze and brushed
over a bunch of pots.
Les H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On Behalf Of mel jacobson
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:55 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: shock art
my complaint has been for several years, that art that
is done for shock only, is tasteless.
like shock radio, shock film, shock art, shock music....tasteless.
i find it creeping in every day.
the purpose is to shock, not uphold and idea or ideal.
much of performance art is based on shock. it is boring.
art that has skill, craft, purpose is getting a bad rap.
i have watched this for many years.
i have a strong bias to skill.
the artist that has value will study art, become skilled at
a media. will spend a lifetime in study and work.
for centuries we have seen great art, music that is based
on skillful direction of human art. it was done on purpose...to uplift,
beauty and or statement. the statement was made with skill
and purpose...some of it was about war, desperation, but it
had a message of visual art. that art will last and be a measure
of the time it was made.
shock is based on...`see what i did, can do.`
as i have said, when you do not have an idea, skill or
knowledge of your materials....turn to obscenity or shock.
at least you will be noticed.
like my favorite...at the walker a few years back.
the performance was to throw human blood on the audience.
it was offensive and shocking. the artist only wanted to shock.
it was not about homophobia, hiv, or human suffering...it was
only meant to shock.
it caused a great uproar. but the artist was constantly defended
by the director of the walker...`as having artistic license to do it`.
fine, but was it art? no. it was only shock.
no other purpose.
that offended me.
it still offends me that people with limited talent and skill will use
shock as art.
there are many many fine artists that have spent a life time doing what
they love and need to do.
shock art just pushes them further and further into the public
perception that artists are crazy.
i find one of my jobs in life is to uplift and defend the craft of
ceramics. to let people know what a great group of crafts people
there are...working their tails off to produce quality clay goods that
humans can keep, use and admire.
shock art avoids commerce. you cannot have it, keep it, admire it
and of course, never own it.
great art can be kept for time. it will be admired a thousand years from
now. shock is like bad theatre...it is gone...never to be seen again.
like bad music...gone, never to be heard again.
bad ugly pots will be around a thousand years from now.
do you want your name on the bottom?
i don't.
that is why my kiln is on right now. at 2000F. i am trying to
make quality things that my customers can pass on to their
children. i want to be a part of the legacy of fine crafts people
that have spent their lives to teach us what clay is about.
those that have left us wonderful examples of art and craft together.
it will stand the test of time.
shock art will be a small footnote, not worth a mention.
mel
from mel/minnetonka.mn.usa
website: http://www.pclink.com/melpots
http://home.comcast.net/~figglywig/clayart.htm
for gail's year book.
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Wes Rolley on thu 18 aug 05
Good books, good music, good movies and good art all have one thing in co=
mmon.
Every time you watch or listen, you get something from it that you did no=
t get
before. When I listen to a Mahler Symphony conducted by Bernstein and th=
en by
Michael Tilson Thomas, it get something I did not hear before. When I se=
e pot
by Rosanjin, I get something that I did not get before.
If you don't believe in this, you should read "On Reading Lolita in Tehra=
n."
This book uses a series to well known English language books to carry the=
story.
After reading of the interpretations of these books (Pride and Prejucide=
,
Lolita, etc.) given by a group of young Islamic women in Tehran, I read t=
hem
(Austen and Nabakov) again and found even more that I missed the first ti=
me.
My problem with too much (not the good stuff) of "conceptual art" includ=
ing
"shock art" as you mention, is that it is too easy. You get it all the f=
irst
time and even then it is "so what?"
--=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/
| |
|
