Barry Salaberry on thu 1 dec 05
At the end of your reply to Elizabeth, Vince, when you say that you can wal=
k
right by a Warhol without a second glance, I think you have said what his
art/life accomplished in the actual arena of visceral expression.
His accomplishments as an artist don't associate necessarily or concurrentl=
y
with his accomplishments as a self promoter or successful occupant of the
stage of fame.
Two different ponies.
The art that makes you stop, before you read the artist's statement or read
a review/preview; that, for me, is the art worth the time to be with.
The promoter/fame thing can be from Frito to Dodge, and is a bore if you're
not hungry or late.
Barry Salaberry
in California now, stunned by Sierra Valley, recovering from a couple month=
s
work on a cabin in the Tahoe National Forest. Merry winter to us all.
Kathy Forer on fri 2 dec 05
On Dec 2, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> Prioritization of works over holistic experience or
> vice/versa says a lot about a person. That's it.
They can't be separated. There's no prioritization in the way you're
defining work and experience, no hierarchy that can connect, thus
they're not related so there can be no opposition.
> What's your point? Don't quote anybody. Just say what you
> have to say.
Work is the result of experience and imagination.
"In dreams begin responsibility"
http://www.uga.edu/garev/fall05/ellis.pdf
http://www.atu2.com/news/connections/yeats/
http://www.kalliope.org/vaerktoc.pl?fhandle=yeats&vhandle=1914
Kathy
Elizabeth Priddy on fri 2 dec 05
The whole Warhol debate can now be brought back to clay.
Where you stand, on the side that says the art itself is
what is important to you primarily, or the side that says
the holistic experience is more important primarily, will
tell you and others a lot about how you work and why.
And self-discovery is one of the pillars of being an artist
with a voice, so any ride that gets you further alond that
path of self-discovery is a worthy one.
So for some folks who have wondered why this thread had such
long life...it was because conversations like this make you
make up your mind and get off that gray fence. And even the
decision to stay gray straddling a fence, is a decision.
It's nice to know there are people around who care one way
or the other. And it's good to know mel let it go on, because
it was only related to clay in an abstract way. And that those
of us participating manged to do so without serious rancor,
although both sides seemed very tenacious. That is the real
difference between argument and fighting. A good argument
leaves you feeling kind of revved up and energetic, a fight
leaves scars and bloody lips.
Revved up: a good thing, cause it is getting cold, even here,
EP
EP
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Kathy Forer on fri 2 dec 05
On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> The whole Warhol debate can now be brought back to clay.
>
> Where you stand, on the side that says the art itself is
> what is important to you primarily, or the side that says
> the holistic experience is more important primarily, will
> tell you and others a lot about how you work and why.
>
> And self-discovery is one of the pillars of being an artist
> with a voice, so any ride that gets you further alond that
> path of self-discovery is a worthy one.
c'mon Elizabeth, what does this mean?
Are your really saying there's a split of some kind into a world that
has art and a one that has experience? And that there's a path to
take you out of that, or to somewhere else entirely, some kind of
revealing path of self that will inform all? Experience is that path.*
What's most variable about experience (the "trying out of") is
whether we live through our knowledge of abstract concepts or through
a kind of materialism that makes us dependent on physical things
alone. ...And infinite other variations of balance and "manifold
meanings of the word experience. [1]" It's pretty impossible to
remove context from experience though likely potential to eliminate
reason.
okay, bring it back to clay cause it's getting on enow
If we stay with our prejudices we hew a narrower and narrower path
regurgitating old faithful. By opening our discovery beyond ourself
we join and share.
No one's asking anyone to LIKE Warhol or anyone else, but there's
nothing isolated about Liking something. You can look at something
and say "interesting concept, I love the way he melded the four
voices" or "interesting concept, but the materials and idea repulse
me," or we can screw concept and just love it or hate it. But unless
we live in a vacuum tube it's unlikely that emotion is freely
registered.
Some gut feelings are actually pretty multi-layered when you get
through them. It's this enriching of emotion and experience, of
psychic truth, that comes about when you let in something that may
oppose your initial sensibilities. Not to knock intuition but it's
not all there is and can become unreliable or isolating.
If we imprint a mental image of Warhol as the guy who made the
ubiquitous four Marilyns, -- so many that every museum can have one
or another that looks the same, -- or as the guy who swindled a
couple with their own acquisitiveness, then we close ourselves off to
what he might really offer. Visit www.warhol.org. Look at the Time
Capsule 21 Exhibition (perhaps click on Selection of Contents and
then View by Category to simplify complex Flash presentation) and try
not to imagine that you don't live in and of this world.
Closer to Clay...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399531971
Art as Experience by John Dewey
> The central theme is that life is an experience, and that the goal
> of art is to recapture that experience. Hence, a painting of a
> flower is only valuable in the way that it captures the essence of
> a flower, or the experience of viewing a flower. The viewing of a
> painting must also provide some of the experience of making that
> painting ( its process ).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226763994/
The Body of the Artisan : Art and Experience in the Scientific
Revolution by Pamela H. Smith
> From the Inside Flap
> Since the time of Aristotle, the making of knowledge and the making
> of objects have generally been considered separate enterprises. Yet
> during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the two
> became linked through a "new" philosophy known as science. In The
> Body of the Artisan, Pamela H. Smith demonstrates how much early
> modern science owed to an unlikely source-artists and artisans.
Kathy Forer
Put your name on the Clayart Map
Visit www.frappr.com/clayart
* http://www.answers.com/experience&r=67
experience, living through events and the impression on a person
or animal of events. In epistemology, a distinction is made between
things known inductively, from experience, and those known
deductively or theoretically, from a priori principles. The ancients,
under the influence of Plato and of Euclidean geometry, tended to
prize deductive or theoretical knowledge above that gained through
experience. Their influence was dominant through the Renaissance.
With the rise of modern empirical science the preference was
reversed. Immanuel Kant's critical epistemology, however, emphasized
the dependence of all experience on the mediation of the
intelligence. Modern thought has tended to agree with Kant;
accordingly, discussion has centered on what, if anything, can be
said to be immediately experience, and how this experience may be
conditioned by social factors affecting the social milieu or by
perceptual processes themselves.
[1] http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-17/chapter_i.htm
> 4. "To the world we discover by means of exterior observation one
> can oppose the inner world of mental states, accessible through
> introspection. Its truth consists in nothing else than psychic
> life. Thus the Erfahrung is transformed into Erlebnis."
John Jensen on fri 2 dec 05
This is something we can all agree on! And what a pleasure!
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
John Jensen@mudbugpottery.com
http://www.toadhouse.com http://www.mudbugpottery.com
http://www.mudbugblues.com
>Elizibeth Priddy said:
>And that those
>of us participating managed to do so without serious rancor,
>although both sides seemed very tenacious. That is the real
>difference between argument and fighting. A good argument
>leaves you feeling kind of revved up and energetic, a fight
>leaves scars and bloody lips.
Elizabeth Priddy on fri 2 dec 05
Prioritization of works over holistic experience or
vice/versa says a lot about a person. That's it.
What I said was fairly straightforward. I have no idea
what you are getting at. I tried to dissect it line by
line, then removing quoted material for simpler content,
than I decided I shouldn't have to work that hard in a
conversation, rather than a dialectic.
What's your point? Don't quote anybody. Just say what you
have to say.
EP
--- Kathy Forer wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
>
> > The whole Warhol debate can now be brought back to clay.
> >
> > Where you stand, on the side that says the art itself is
> > what is important to you primarily, or the side that says
> > the holistic experience is more important primarily, will
> > tell you and others a lot about how you work and why.
> >
> > And self-discovery is one of the pillars of being an artist
> > with a voice, so any ride that gets you further alond that
> > path of self-discovery is a worthy one.
>
>
> c'mon Elizabeth, what does this mean?
>
> Are your really saying there's a split of some kind into a world that
> has art and a one that has experience? And that there's a path to
> take you out of that, or to somewhere else entirely, some kind of
> revealing path of self that will inform all? Experience is that
> path.*
>
> What's most variable about experience (the "trying out of") is
> whether we live through our knowledge of abstract concepts or through
> a kind of materialism that makes us dependent on physical things
> alone. ...And infinite other variations of balance and "manifold
> meanings of the word experience. [1]" It's pretty impossible to
> remove context from experience though likely potential to eliminate
> reason.
>
>
> okay, bring it back to clay cause it's getting on enow
>
> If we stay with our prejudices we hew a narrower and narrower path
> regurgitating old faithful. By opening our discovery beyond ourself
> we join and share.
>
> No one's asking anyone to LIKE Warhol or anyone else, but there's
> nothing isolated about Liking something. You can look at something
> and say "interesting concept, I love the way he melded the four
> voices" or "interesting concept, but the materials and idea repulse
> me," or we can screw concept and just love it or hate it. But unless
> we live in a vacuum tube it's unlikely that emotion is freely
> registered.
>
> Some gut feelings are actually pretty multi-layered when you get
> through them. It's this enriching of emotion and experience, of
> psychic truth, that comes about when you let in something that may
> oppose your initial sensibilities. Not to knock intuition but it's
> not all there is and can become unreliable or isolating.
>
> If we imprint a mental image of Warhol as the guy who made the
> ubiquitous four Marilyns, -- so many that every museum can have one
> or another that looks the same, -- or as the guy who swindled a
> couple with their own acquisitiveness, then we close ourselves off to
> what he might really offer. Visit www.warhol.org. Look at the Time
> Capsule 21 Exhibition (perhaps click on Selection of Contents and
> then View by Category to simplify complex Flash presentation) and try
> not to imagine that you don't live in and of this world.
>
> Closer to Clay...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399531971
> Art as Experience by John Dewey
> > The central theme is that life is an experience, and that the goal
> > of art is to recapture that experience. Hence, a painting of a
> > flower is only valuable in the way that it captures the essence of
> > a flower, or the experience of viewing a flower. The viewing of a
> > painting must also provide some of the experience of making that
> > painting ( its process ).
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226763994/
> The Body of the Artisan : Art and Experience in the Scientific
> Revolution by Pamela H. Smith
> > From the Inside Flap
> > Since the time of Aristotle, the making of knowledge and the making
> > of objects have generally been considered separate enterprises. Yet
> > during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the two
> > became linked through a "new" philosophy known as science. In The
> > Body of the Artisan, Pamela H. Smith demonstrates how much early
> > modern science owed to an unlikely source-artists and artisans.
>
>
> Kathy Forer
>
> Put your name on the Clayart Map
> Visit www.frappr.com/clayart
>
>
>
>
> * http://www.answers.com/experience&r=67
> experience, living through events and the impression on a person
> or animal of events. In epistemology, a distinction is made between
> things known inductively, from experience, and those known
> deductively or theoretically, from a priori principles. The ancients,
> under the influence of Plato and of Euclidean geometry, tended to
> prize deductive or theoretical knowledge above that gained through
> experience. Their influence was dominant through the Renaissance.
> With the rise of modern empirical science the preference was
> reversed. Immanuel Kant's critical epistemology, however, emphasized
> the dependence of all experience on the mediation of the
> intelligence. Modern thought has tended to agree with Kant;
> accordingly, discussion has centered on what, if anything, can be
> said to be immediately experience, and how this experience may be
> conditioned by social factors affecting the social milieu or by
> perceptual processes themselves.
>
> [1] http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-17/chapter_i.htm
> > 4. "To the world we discover by means of exterior observation one
> > can oppose the inner world of mental states, accessible through
> > introspection. Its truth consists in nothing else than psychic
> > life. Thus the Erfahrung is transformed into Erlebnis."
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Elizabeth Priddy on fri 2 dec 05
I found this part of what you said to be interesting
and straight up.
--- Kathy Forer wrote:
>...> If we stay with our prejudices we hew a narrower and narrower
path
> regurgitating old faithful. By opening our discovery beyond ourself
> we join and share.
>
> ... Not to knock intuition but it's
> not all there is and can become unreliable or isolating.
Joining and sharing is a little over-rated. There are
personality types that really hate joining and sharing.
You are making a lot of assumptions about what all people
are like. Intuition is all I believe a person can truly
trust as reaction to works. Anything else is all wrapped
up in context and appearances and predjudice. But I am
getting fairly old, in body and mind. I choose a narrow
path because I have taken many other paths in the time
before I learned to discriminate, wasting a lot of energy
trying to be inclusive and not to miss anything that might
have a glimmer of truth or beauty. I trust my own vision now.
If I miss it, c'est la vie. There is only so much time and
I already tire more easily. All philosophy, all beauty is not
appropriate for my attention. I am ready to concentrate
my thoughts and perspective and see what is rendered.
Yeah, that is really what I am excited about these days.
I think I may have shared your perspective a bit more when
I was in my early twenties. But that was a lifetime ago.
EP
--- Kathy Forer wrote:
>...> If we stay with our prejudices we hew a narrower and narrower
path
> regurgitating old faithful. By opening our discovery beyond ourself
> we join and share.
>
> ... Not to knock intuition but it's
> not all there is and can become unreliable or isolating.
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Vince Pitelka on fri 2 dec 05
Berry Salaberry said:
"At the end of your reply to Elizabeth, Vince, when you say that you can
walk right by a Warhol without a second glance, I think you have said what
his art/life accomplished in the actual arena of visceral expression. . . .
. The art that makes you stop, before you read the artist's statement or
read
a review/preview; that, for me, is the art worth the time to be with."
First, it is a such a pleasure to write your name, but even more to say it.
You are a lucky person.
But regarding Warhol, your statement gets into the same slippery ground as
so many of the other comments made about his work. When the screen prints,
paintings, and 3-D pieces first hit the mainstream art world in the 60s, it
was a total knock-out, a real shocker, and of course very controversial. It
got people's attention, like good advertising, an that was much of the
point. Being based on the whole notion of American popular culture, it was
never intended to illicit the kind of contemplation and repeated viewing
that a DeKoooning or DaVinci might inspire, and in fact, that would be
contrary to Warhol's entire concept. The kind of art I place in my house is
the work that I love to look at again and again over time. Obviously there
are many people who feel that way about Warhol, but I'm not one of them.
This does not in any way diminish my appreciation for who he is and what he
accomplished, and his importance in the evolution of 20th century world art.
There is plenty of "art worth the time to be with," as you put it so well,
and as I indicated above, there are certainly people who think Warhol "is
art worth the time to be with." But regarding his place in the history of
art, that is irrelevant, because that's not what his entire life's work is
about. It was never intended to be "art worth the time to be with." That
does not make him or his art any less great.
My apologies for being so persistent on this subject, but I really think
that there is a "concept versus content" issue here that a lot of people are
missing. The concept behind Warhol's work was/is very timely and
significant. The content of the individual pieces is like mainstream
advertising - shallow and immediately - get the message across in a
nanosecond. To stand there in a museum and pretend to contemplate the deep
nuances of a Warhol piece is to miss the whole point.
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/
Kathy Forer on sat 3 dec 05
On Dec 2, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> Prioritization of works over holistic experience or
> vice/versa says a lot about a person. That's it.
They can't be separated. There's no prioritization in the way you're
defining work and experience, no hierarchy that can connect, thus
they're not related so there can be no opposition.
> What's your point? Don't quote anybody. Just say what you
> have to say.
Work is the result of experience and imagination.
"In dreams begin responsibility"
http://www.uga.edu/garev/fall05/ellis.pdf
http://www.atu2.com/news/connections/yeats/
http://www.kalliope.org/vaerktoc.pl?fhandle=yeats&vhandle=1914
I just can't say it any more plainly, there is no such thing as
intuition without experience. Not even a divine can be posited as
being without experience. Perhaps a muon or quark, but no, nothing
exists unless it has experience. Of some kind. Of any limitation.
Whose intuition are you relying on if not your own? And you are part
and parcel of your time and experience, nothing chewy granola
holistic about that.
> I choose a narrow
> path because I have taken many other paths in the time
> before I learned to discriminate, wasting a lot of energy
> trying to be inclusive and not to miss anything that might
> have a glimmer of truth or beauty. I trust my own vision now.
> If I miss it, c'est la vie. There is only so much time and
> I already tire more easily.
It seems to me you're saying you're trusting your instincts now,
winging it within the pressure of meeting the moment. That's great.
But it's of a continuity with inclusiveness not a dichotomy.
> All philosophy, all beauty is not
> appropriate for my attention. I am ready to concentrate
> my thoughts and perspective and see what is rendered.
All your experience has brought you to this place where you now seek
to stop always reflecting and instead make choices, accept live and
go with what you feel and in accord with what you have learned. Why
make it so difficult by creating a false syllogism? How are "works"
isolated from experience? Only in our minds, in our dreams.
Kathy
Elizabeth Priddy on sat 3 dec 05
Yes, there is. I seperate them. For me, they are polar
opposites. I see it every day. We simply disagree.
EP
--- Kathy Forer wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
>
> > Prioritization of works over holistic experience or
> > vice/versa says a lot about a person. That's it.
>
> They can't be separated. There's no prioritization in the way you're
> defining work and experience, no hierarchy that can connect, thus
> they're not related so there can be no opposition.
>
> > What's your point? Don't quote anybody. Just say what you
> > have to say.
>
> Work is the result of experience and imagination.
>
> "In dreams begin responsibility"
> http://www.uga.edu/garev/fall05/ellis.pdf
> http://www.atu2.com/news/connections/yeats/
> http://www.kalliope.org/vaerktoc.pl?fhandle=yeats&vhandle=1914
>
> Kathy
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
| |
|
