steve graber on sat 26 nov 05
i think there's something about "in city" and "out of city" that covers some of this. "in city" is a region where the population is just TOO big & artists are lost. "out of city"and they are rediscovered.
i see awsum art in "out of city" locations.
see ya
steve
Vince Pitelka wrote:
Malcolm Schosha wrote:
"When I was first living in Florence, I surprised at how people there
considered it normal to be an artist, or a potter. It is just part of life
for the Italians, and artists are seen as a normal part of the community."
Malcolm -
I am not so fortunate as to have lived in such a culture, but through my
career I have talked with so many people who have. I can see a much
healthier cultural dynamic in any society where the artists and craftspeople
are seen as necessary, integral members of the community. Every culture
needs to examine itself, and artists provide a fine lens for
self-examination. I do not remember who it was that said "Inevitably,
artists respond to the time, place, and culture in which they live." In
doing so, they tell us so much about ourselves. If a person makes art
spontaneously and naturally even before aquiring the knowledge and skills to
make good art (as young children do), they are still reflecting important
things about themselves and the culture they live in. And of course, by
making art according to their own muse, while incorporating information from
the critics and supporters, they will become better artists, in or out of
the academy.
- 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.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Vince Pitelka on sat 26 nov 05
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
"......I don't think you can choose to be an artist or not."
I understand what you are saying, Elizabeth, but people choose to be artists
all the time, and when that choice is made deliberately with conviction, the
results are often very successful, regardless of whether the artist started
out with any sort of natural "talent" (whatever that is).. Again, this gets
back to that slipppery slope of defining "art" and "artist." I don't
believe that either can really be defined in exact terms, no matter what
Webster says. In a recent post someone said "It is art if the artist says
it is." That is correct, but it doesn't mean that the product is good art.
There is a perception out there that the term "artist" can only be applied
to people that excel in the field of art, and that something can only be
called "art" if it is good art. What do you call the rest of the people who
make art? The reality is that ANYONE who makes art, good or bad, is an
artist, because no one has the definitive criteria to say that they are not,
other than as a personal opinion. In the basic sense, the term "visual
artist" just refers to someone who manipulates materials intentionally in
order to communicate visually. At the same time, there is another use of
the word, where we might say "she is a real artist in the kitchen," meaning
that this person is a fine chef. Or, even in reference to a person's art,
you might say "He is a real artist." or, "She is a fine artist."
I have posted about this before. The marginalization of art in our culture
has to do with the public perception that art is something either special or
strange, instead of something normal and expected. If it was treated as
something normal and expected, we'd have a lot more artists, and a lot more
public appreciation for art, as is the case in many non-Western cultures.
Elizabeth Priddy said "I think that some people are overwhelmingly compelled
to make art, including the publication of it for reaction." That is
certainly true, and those are the people who are most likely to make great
art that carries a powerful message and affects the evolution of world art.
But it does not mean that they are the only ones who are "artists." As one
example, there is the entire realm of "artists" who simply have the gift of
pictorial representation. That is a skill, and does't necessarily involve
any real creativity or originality. That is one of the great misconceptions
of art. Most people are very impressed by someone who can create an excact
pictorial representation of a scene, and refer to the maker as a "real
artist." The creativity, and the act of making worthwhile art, lie in the
interpretation of and response to reality, not in the copying of reality.
I better stop, because I could go on and on about this. I know that I tend
to climb on my soapbox when I talk about art this way, but I can't help it.
Good art is something very special, but the modern world would be a much
better place if the simple act of making art was a very ordinary and common
thing that almost everyone did every day.
- 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/
Malcolm Schosha on sat 26 nov 05
Vince,
I just want you to know that I agree with everything you said here. Very well put too.
Artists are just like all the other people we know. The work may be unique, but the artists themselves are like other people, and represent the full spectrum of people we know in our communities.
When I was first living in Florence, I surprised at how people there considered it normal to be an artist, or a potter. It is just part of life for the Italians, and artists are seen as a normal part of the community.
Malcolm Schosha
Vince Pitelka wrote:
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
"......I don't think you can choose to be an artist or not."
I understand what you are saying, Elizabeth, but people choose to be artists
all the time, and when that choice is made deliberately with conviction, the
results are often very successful, regardless of whether the artist started
out with any sort of natural "talent" (whatever that is).. Again, this gets
back to that slipppery slope of defining "art" and "artist." I don't
believe that either can really be defined in exact terms, no matter what
Webster says. In a recent post someone said "It is art if the artist says
it is." That is correct, but it doesn't mean that the product is good art.
There is a perception out there that the term "artist" can only be applied
to people that excel in the field of art, and that something can only be
called "art" if it is good art. What do you call the rest of the people who
make art? The reality is that ANYONE who makes art, good or bad, is an
artist, because no one has the definitive criteria to say that they are not,
other than as a personal opinion. In the basic sense, the term "visual
artist" just refers to someone who manipulates materials intentionally in
order to communicate visually. At the same time, there is another use of
the word, where we might say "she is a real artist in the kitchen," meaning
that this person is a fine chef. Or, even in reference to a person's art,
you might say "He is a real artist." or, "She is a fine artist."
I have posted about this before. The marginalization of art in our culture
has to do with the public perception that art is something either special or
strange, instead of something normal and expected. If it was treated as
something normal and expected, we'd have a lot more artists, and a lot more
public appreciation for art, as is the case in many non-Western cultures.
Elizabeth Priddy said "I think that some people are overwhelmingly compelled
to make art, including the publication of it for reaction." That is
certainly true, and those are the people who are most likely to make great
art that carries a powerful message and affects the evolution of world art.
But it does not mean that they are the only ones who are "artists." As one
example, there is the entire realm of "artists" who simply have the gift of
pictorial representation. That is a skill, and does't necessarily involve
any real creativity or originality. That is one of the great misconceptions
of art. Most people are very impressed by someone who can create an excact
pictorial representation of a scene, and refer to the maker as a "real
artist." The creativity, and the act of making worthwhile art, lie in the
interpretation of and response to reality, not in the copying of reality.
I better stop, because I could go on and on about this. I know that I tend
to climb on my soapbox when I talk about art this way, but I can't help it.
Good art is something very special, but the modern world would be a much
better place if the simple act of making art was a very ordinary and common
thing that almost everyone did every day.
- 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.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Vince Pitelka on sat 26 nov 05
Malcolm Schosha wrote:
"When I was first living in Florence, I surprised at how people there
considered it normal to be an artist, or a potter. It is just part of life
for the Italians, and artists are seen as a normal part of the community."
Malcolm -
I am not so fortunate as to have lived in such a culture, but through my
career I have talked with so many people who have. I can see a much
healthier cultural dynamic in any society where the artists and craftspeople
are seen as necessary, integral members of the community. Every culture
needs to examine itself, and artists provide a fine lens for
self-examination. I do not remember who it was that said "Inevitably,
artists respond to the time, place, and culture in which they live." In
doing so, they tell us so much about ourselves. If a person makes art
spontaneously and naturally even before aquiring the knowledge and skills to
make good art (as young children do), they are still reflecting important
things about themselves and the culture they live in. And of course, by
making art according to their own muse, while incorporating information from
the critics and supporters, they will become better artists, in or out of
the academy.
- 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/
Elizabeth Priddy on sat 26 nov 05
I actually believe that being an artist is an inherent
quality that is unrelated to talent. Plenty of people
with artistic temperaments have no talent and all the
education in the world will not save them. And still they
drive on and on making because to not do it hurts too
much.
And I have met plenty of people who are naturals with
raw talent coming out of their ears who have zero interest
in being anything other than an accountant, school teacher,
mother, father, or whatever they actually feel an affinity
for.
Inate artists are truly different from other people.
Training can generate an excellent draftsman, but not
an artist. It is a matter of fire in the belly. And
it is complicated. It is not the same as any other job,
as Malcolm suggests, regardless of how the local community
views local artists. Where I live, Beaufort, was listed
a few years ago as one of America's best small art towns,
due to the art community and the number of artists. In
spite of the large number of artisans who retire here, I
have only met a few people here with a real fire in their
belly for it. Maybe it died out as they aged. I think
if it is real, it gets hotter over time.
I am not talking about people with a career in design or
graphics. I am talking about people who cannot choose to
be anything else and be happy at the same time. It is
different. It is a need to express publicly. And you
are born with it. It's often that kid in the middle of
family photo with their mouth wide open and arms akimbo.
It's the crazy aunt who is never in fashion but is always
dressed in striking outfits she made. It's a potter that
may or may not sell, but whose work is genuinely interesting.
I also could go on and on, and sometimes I still do. But
that's enough.
EP
--- Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> "......I don't think you can choose to be an artist or not."
>
> I understand what you are saying, Elizabeth, but people choose to be
> artists
> all the time, and when that choice is made deliberately with
> conviction, the
> results are often very successful, regardless of whether the artist
> started
> out with any sort of natural "talent" (whatever that is)..
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
| |
|
