claybair on fri 7 oct 05
Thank you Vince,
You articulated what my goal has been.....
Quote.......
I get flashes of it from certain clients who connect with what you stated:
"The presumption that "art" is typically not "used" is a symptom of
something in our culture,
rather than a statement of fact. Only time will tell, but I see in the
future a much greater awareness and appreciation of utilitarian objects as
fine art, and perhaps Magdalena Odundo, Theresa Chang, and so many others
are symptomatic of that change. As art objects, utiltarian craft is such a
bargain compared to the mainstream world of paintings and sculpture. I
think that greater segments of the public are starting to realize that
having a big Ron Meyers pot sitting on a shelf is as good or better than a
fine painting on the wall, in terms of the way it inspires us and enriches
our lives. I have a wide assortment of paintings, prints, sculpture, and
pots around my house, and I couldn't begin to define which is more "art."
The old stereotypes just don't stand up any more." Unquote
Thanks,
Gayle Bair
Bainbridge Island, WA
Tucson, AZ
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Vince Pitelka
> I see by your sig that you're a perfesser, and I don't
> wish to get into a stretch of discussion that may
> exceed the length of a good dissertation on this, but,
> yes, 'art' is typically not 'used.'
Steve -
You make some interesting points, but I don't see how your aguement really
holds up. Of course a tea pot is a tea pot whether or not you use it for
serving tea. I wonder why anyone would argue otherwise? This could easily
degenerate into the old functional craft versus non-functional art debate,
but that is tired and pointless, because both art and craft are "used."
- 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/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 10/7/2005
Vince Pitelka on fri 7 oct 05
> I see by your sig that you're a perfesser, and I don't
> wish to get into a stretch of discussion that may
> exceed the length of a good dissertation on this, but,
> yes, 'art' is typically not 'used.'
Steve -
You make some interesting points, but I don't see how your aguement really
holds up. Of course a tea pot is a tea pot whether or not you use it for
serving tea. I wonder why anyone would argue otherwise? This could easily
degenerate into the old functional craft versus non-functional art debate,
but that is tired and pointless, because both art and craft are "used." The
degree and specifics of utility are really irrelevant. The presumption that
"art" is typically not "used" is a symptom of something in our culture,
rather than a statement of fact. Only time will tell, but I see in the
future a much greater awareness and appreciation of utilitarian objects as
fine art, and perhaps Magdalena Odundo, Theresa Chang, and so many others
are symptomatic of that change. As art objects, utiltarian craft is such a
bargain compared to the mainstream world of paintings and sculpture. I
think that greater segments of the public are starting to realize that
having a big Ron Meyers pot sitting on a shelf is as good or better than a
fine painting on the wall, in terms of the way it inspires us and enriches
our lives. I have a wide assortment of paintings, prints, sculpure, and
pots around my house, and I couldn't begin to define which is more "art."
The old stereotypes just don't stand up any more.
- 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/
Steve Slatin on sat 8 oct 05
Vince --
There's a festival tomorrow, so I must be briefer than
usual.
The use of art is enjoyment. The use of a teapot is
to make tea. The use of an inkwell is to hold ink.
My Lung-Chen inkwell (oxblood, breaking white, a relic
of my first marriage) is now art -- I do not use
inkwells. If I used a teapot exclusively to hold ink
for a fountain pen, it would be an inkwell -- a
clumsy, oddly shaped, fairly impractical inkwell.
A teapot should be used for making tea.
My point is that pricing a teapot, or bowl, or cup so
high that the purchaser can't bring him/herself to use
it takes something critical away from the piece.
Of course I think that folks should be more willing to
spend for the pleasure of a good mug, or a
well-balanced bowl, or whatever other functional piece
that may be attractive and useful as well. I'm not
arguing that we should be creating a distinction
between art and craft. I'm pointing out that the
realities of human behavior make these distinctions
real, and if we can't bring large numbers of people
into purchasing hand-made ceramics at a price point
that makes sense to them, we condemn ourselves to
making fewer and fewer pieces of higher and higher
cost for a progressively shrinking market.
And maybe I'm a snob about this, but I doubt that
Donald Trump's house/apartment/beach cottage has more
than a few interesting pieces (he strikes me as a
singularly tasteless man). The market may eventually
be just each other.
Best wishes -- Steve S.
--- Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Steve -
> You make some interesting points, but I don't see
> how your aguement really
> holds up. Of course a tea pot is a tea pot whether
> or not you use it for
> serving tea. I wonder why anyone would argue
> otherwise? This could easily
> degenerate into the old functional craft versus
> non-functional art debate,
> but that is tired and pointless, because both art
> and craft are "used." The
> degree and specifics of utility are really
> irrelevant. The presumption that
> "art" is typically not "used" is a symptom of
> something in our culture,
> rather than a statement of fact.
Steve Slatin --
Drove downtown in the rain
9:30 on a Tuesday night
Just to check out the
Late night record shop
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Vince Pitelka on sat 8 oct 05
> There's a festival tomorrow, so I must be briefer than
> usual.
Steve -
I hope the festival went well.
> The use of art is enjoyment. The use of a teapot is
> to make tea. The use of an inkwell is to hold ink.
The use of art is to communicate idea, story, emotion, etc. through music,
dance, theater, visual media, etc. For the maker or the user/viewer,
"enjoyment" is just one possibility in an unlimited range of possible "use."
Technically the use of a teapot is to make tea, but you might use a teapot
for decoration and visual enjoyment. It's still a teapot. If you use a
teapot to hold ink in which to dip your quill pen, it is acting as an
inkwell, but it's still a teapot.
> A teapot should be used for making tea.
A teapot should be used for whatever gives the owner satisfaction,
appreciation, and/or enjoyment. Perhaps as an inkwell.
> My point is that pricing a teapot, or bowl, or cup so
> high that the purchaser can't bring him/herself to use
> it takes something critical away from the piece.
Isn't the buyer's problem? You have to decide what kind of money you are
willing to spend for any work of art/craft. Someone who makes the finest
teapots in the world would be justified in charging $50,000 apiece. An
extreme connoiseur of the very finest tea wares might purchase such a teapot
and use it (very carefully) to brew and serve tea. Or, the same connoiseur
might place it in a glass case in the living room and view it "from afar" as
a beautiful and inspiring example of a great teapot.
There will always be overpriced ware, where nothing justifies the price.
It's up to the byyer to educate themselves and decide when that is the
case - whether there is sufficient justification for the price. I don't
think it makes sense to complain about "pricing a teapot so high that the
purchaser can't bring him/herself to use it." As I said, that's the
buyer/user's problem, not the seller's. With an expensive teapot, each
prospective buyer has to decide first whether they are willing to pay the
price, and then once they buy the piece, to decide whether to use the teapot
for brewing tea (as a utilitarian work of art), or place it on display (as a
decorative work of art).
> I'm not
> arguing that we should be creating a distinction
> between art and craft. I'm pointing out that the
> realities of human behavior make these distinctions
> real, and if we can't bring large numbers of people
> into purchasing hand-made ceramics at a price point
> that makes sense to them, we condemn ourselves to
> making fewer and fewer pieces of higher and higher
> cost for a progressively shrinking market.
I see the exact opposite. We are responsible for cultivating and educating
a market that appreciates fine functional wares as works of art that can be
used in a utilitarian sense. Whether the owner chooses to use them for the
intended utiltarian function or keep them on display is irrelevant. We are
bringing potential customers in line with the price points, making them
understand the reason for the price. I am not advocating overpriced wares.
I am saying that the maker should respond to the market in a realistic
fashion, and if Ms. Chang's teapots are collected in a top-end market of tea
afficionados, then $600 apiece is perfectly reasonable. In stead of
condemning "ourselves to making fewer and fewer pieces of higher and higher
cost for a progressively shrinking market." we are building a growing market
for the work we are committed to make. It's certain that some artists are
making fewer pieces of higher cost wares for a shrinking market, but if they
can't sell the work, it's their own fault for choosing that course.
"The realities of human behavior make these distinctions real" assumes a
given - an unchangeable fact, and of course that is not the case. Old
stereotypes about art and craft are perpetuated by the way art history is
discussed and taught, but that doesn't make them any more true, and it
certainly doesn't make them a natural function of human behavior. Again,
it is our challenge to teach people to appreciate high-end fine craft - to
understand the work that went into it's design and creation, and to
recognize what is special (or not) about each piece.
> And maybe I'm a snob about this, but I doubt that
> Donald Trump's house/apartment/beach cottage has more
> than a few interesting pieces (he strikes me as a
> singularly tasteless man).
That doesn't make you a snob, just observant. All around us, we constantly
see the evidence that money is no guarantee of taste.
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/
Lee Love on sun 9 oct 05
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, claybair wrote:
.
> I get flashes of it from certain clients who connect with what you
stated:
> .... Only time will tell, but I see in the
> future a much greater awareness and appreciation of utilitarian
objects as
> fine art, and perhaps Magdalena Odundo, Theresa Chang, and so many others
> are symptomatic of that change.
Utilitarian pots are valued here in Japan as highly as "fine
art." So there is no need for pots to ape art, or take on the airs
of art. The appreciation of fine craft here in Japan might be a good
example for us. It could be that "fine art", as Philip Rawson has
said, would do better to take some pointers from fine craft.
>As art objects, utilitarian craft is such a
> bargain compared to the mainstream world of paintings and sculpture. I
> think that greater segments of the public are starting to realize that
> having a big Ron Meyers pot sitting on a shelf is as good or better
than a
> fine painting on the wall, in terms of the way it inspires us and
enriches
> our lives.
Folks, please enjoy looking at some Meyers work: http://tinyurl.com/cmhqh
I think there is a place for this kind of work. But it
isn't necessary to turn the surface of every pot into a mere canvas,.
in order to have the work taken seriously. A pot can be judged by its
usefulness and form and subtle properties of its glazes and surfaces.
We have been made insensitive to these elements of touch which makes us
more addicted to the garish and grotesque.
* Hehe.* I say this after making my first larger woodblock inlay
images on henko (Hamada's Noborigama with thatched roof):
http://potters.blogspot.com/
They are a diversion... ;-) They may not
survive the firing. I am using new clay from the local quarry and it
is a bit brittle for handbuiliding this size. But I will know if the
inlay contrasts enough with this clay and inlay.
--
Lee Love
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/ My Photo Logs
Da Vinci Speaks about "Mr. Rolex":
"To the ambitious for whom neither the bounty of life nor the beauty of
the world suffice to content,
it comes as penance that life with them is squandered and that they
posses neither the benefits nor the beauty of the world.
And if they are unable to perceive what is divine in Nature which is all
around them, how will they be able to see
their own divinity, which is sometimes hidden." - Leonardo Da Vinci
Steve Slatin on mon 10 oct 05
Vince --
The festival was tiring but reasonably remunerative.
I also learned more about the sales side of the
business, and by asking buyers where they are from,
still more about the economic relatives of the area.
(Folks from even down-at-the-heels Federal Way are
more willing to spend a little money for a piece than
are well-off locals; my guess is they are controlled
by the economic rationale of the Seattle economy.)
I acknowledge the more spacious definition you give to
the purpose of art than I did. I see very little art,
though, that goes into the range of instruction in the
last 2 centuries or so*, and most of the other parts
of the definition do fit somewhat in the range of
enjoyment. The story-telling element is also
increasingly absent from art. I have a theory
regarding that, probably not relevant here.**
Note also I said enjoyment and not entertainment; I
recognize that element of the difference. I don't
think that our definitions are so very different.
You suggest the problem of being unable to use a piece
because of its price is a problem for the buyer. Fair
enough, but not for the buyer alone IF IT ALTERS THE
MARKET. Altering the market by raising prices alone
-- if the demand for number of units remains the same
-- is good for producers. If it reduces demand, it
becomes an iffy thing. If it reduces demand too far,
making a living at the art/craft becomes untenable.
In fairness, of course, the same is true if you let
prices sink so low that you can't make a profit.
So how do we create the conditions that allow for a
liveable space in pricing? Lee L's answer is that we
all need to live in Japan, but someohow I think
Japan's notoriously restrictive immigration policies
would be an impediment, even if we all wanted to ...
then there's the problem of us not all speaking
Japanese.
My belief is that lots of us that practice the craft
need to sell directly to consumers in non-traditional
venues (I sell at a farmers' market, and provide
instruction to our buyers. I encourage handling the
pots, and make people touch a few different surfaces
before I sell anything. I show people how different a
calcium-rich semi-matte glaze feels vs. a glaze fluxed
with sodium. I show them good bowl shapes for beating
an egg, or tossing a salad, or baking a souflee. I
have them hold the pots so they see how things feel.
Married couples get shown 'matching' mugs with
differing handles -- one with a thin handle, close to
the mug, for the wife, the other with a wider handle
swooped farther out from the mug, so the husband's
wider fingers can fit it ... and I like it when people
come back to buy something from me again (as does
happen) but what I really hope for is that the buyer
will become aware of the pleasure of holding a
well-made cup or bowl or plate, and be willing to
buy anything nice they run across when they find it,
without regard for the cost relatives compared to
commercial ware.
Now I know not everyone believes that the identity of
an item is controlled by its use. I do happen to
believe this. We could argue it forever, but I'm sort
of thinking that we're going outside of the ClayArt
brief here. If you want to continue (& I can ramble
endlessly on this sort of thing) maybe we should take
it off-list?
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin
*prior to that, in a less literate era, religious art
especially was instructional in nature.
** Traditional artistic means for story telling become
less needed as new means appear. Photography and film
make painting and verbal story-telling appear less
detailed, accurate, even 'rich' by comparison and
reduce the very need for the art. Calligraphy gives
way to DTP as a practical craft, then tries to
reinvent itself as a pure art, then sort of blows a
gasket, and calligraphers everywhere are driving
taxis.
--- Vince Pitelka wrote:
> > There's a festival tomorrow, so I must be briefer
> than
> > usual.
>
> Steve -
> I hope the festival went well.
>
> > The use of art is enjoyment.
Steve Slatin --
Drove downtown in the rain
9:30 on a Tuesday night
Just to check out the
Late night record shop
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
| |
|
