Kathy Forer on mon 29 may 06
On May 27, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Malcolm Schosha wrote:
> I studied sculpture for four years (with Jose De Creeft) at the Art
> Students League in NYC, and for another year at the Accademia di
> Belle Arti in Florence.
I also studied with Jos=E9 de Creeft, "il mio maestro," (I was his =20
"discipula") perhaps at the same time as you (my memory is sketchy or =20=
detailed, but incomplete). Jos=E9 was a stylist and formalist. He =20
taught the discipline of artisanry within a framework of the =20
tradition of modernism, of the alternative art ateliers of France.
When I did my one month senior high school project with Jos=E9, he =20
warned me not to go to study art in college (and of course I didn't =20
listen, but he planted a seed of wariness). His attitude toward art =20
in American college was similar to that of the Salon des Refus=E9s =20
toward the Acad=E9mie des Beaux-Arts, "In the 19th century, the salon =20=
system frequently incited criticism from artists for the bland or =20
academic quality of the artwork" French_art_salons_and_academies>. This was at a time when colleges =20
still taught drawing and "color, form and space," not like today =20
where foundation courses often dispense with drawing altogether, =20
having a digital or verbal structure, and are either formally =20
conventional or inventive but without visual investigation, synthetic =20=
dialogue not analytic form.
Jos=E9 had nothing against college, just that art was not a thing to =20
learn in an academy. He was a fervent believer in craft and artisanry =20=
as the basis of sculpture.
The beaux arts were filled with romanticism and idealism. The new =20
modernists of the Banquet years saw themselves as reviving a kind of =20
classical purity in the face of a corrupt and stultifying academy. =20
But as rebellions of style often succeed eventually as the academy's =20
official party line, there is continual shift and reaction of =20
understanding, primacy and affinity between classicism and =20
romanticism, realism and idealism, and any number of other artistic =20
and cultural movements. Academies, too, change places.
The American tradition of alternative art academies still exists and =20
there are specialized places that still teach drawing, painting, =20
printmaking, wood or clay craft. Often they are small art departments =20=
within larger universities. Sometimes, small student-founded and -run =20=
schools in big cities.
I recognize my teacher in your proclamation about stoicism. When I =20
studied with him, Jos=E9 was in his nineties and fond of mischievously =20=
quoting Seneca, "Do what I say, not what I do," even as he taught and =20=
demonstrated that the best teachers approach each student uniquely. =20
But otherwise, Stoicism figured prominently in his thoughts at the time.
I've always thought of the Thinkery of Aristophanes's The Clouds as a =20=
clear vision of what classical education must have been like. Nothing =20=
like students walking along the blue and white agora with Plato or =20
sitting disputing passionately in the green and boulder strewn =20
fields, but perhaps closer to hanging out with the belching farting =20
Socrates in his basket above the pot-bellied stove in the Thunkery, =20
parsing fleas, elephants, politics and the debate between the old and =20=
new.
The Clouds is satiric irony perhaps, but valuable for showing how =20
"old traditions ... become stuffy, pretentious, ungrounded, and =20
silly." It was =20
always that interplay between old and new that made for good classicism.
Jos=E9 de Creeft was instrumental in bringing direct carving method in =20=
wood and stone to prominence in America after the second world war. =20
0,10987,852513,00.html> and
He was also anonymously beloved as the sculptor of the Alice and =20
Wonderland monument historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php?id=3D6416>, by many generations =20=
of New Yorkers including this one .
I spent a number of months carving wood in the bright greenhouse back =20=
part of his airy but now slightly musty Chelsea studio. I learned =20
many things from him and thought always to write them down as I was =20
filled over the brim flying high for days but rarely did though I =20
recall how we stood for hours, one to three, talking after I had =20
swept and tidied the studio area from my carving chips. He was 92 at =20
the time and could easily outstand me. I'd get fidgety and want to =20
sit or move around, he would stand on both legs weight equally =20
distributed or lean one arm against a wall and cross his legs akimbo. =20=
[I thought of Jos=E9's fortitude and endurance when I saw Queen =20
Elizabeth, standing for hours at the window, portrayed by Dame Judi =20
Dench on tv tonight (my Sunday night blowout).]
Lots of quotes, I loved Jos=E9 and treasure our time together. At one =20=
point I left his studio only to return six months later. He was still =20=
my teacher and mentor, but I had become an 'apostate', unable to live =20=
by the purity of his discipline and incapable perhaps of =20
understanding his balancing humor. Rebellious, I went back to working =20=
in "mud," my always favored material.*
Kathy Forer
* Does anyone remember "Mud Pies and Other Recipes, A Cookbook for =20
Dolls" by Marjorie Winslow, Erik Blegvad (illustrator)?
lee love on mon 29 may 06
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Kathy Forer wrote:
> I went back to working
> in "mud," my always favored material.*
You are in good company. Standing in front of a Rodin bronze head
at the Bridgestone museum on Saturday, I remembered Noguchi saying
that he didn't like working in bronze, because in bronze, you are only
making a reproduction.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Malcolm Schosha on mon 29 may 06
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Kathy Forer wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Malcolm Schosha wrote:
>
> > I studied sculpture for four years (with Jose De Creeft) at the
Art
> > Students League in NYC, and for another year at the Accademia di
> > Belle Arti in Florence.
>
> I also studied with Jos=E9 de Creeft, "il mio maestro," (I was his
> "discipula") perhaps at the same time as you (my memory is sketchy
or
> detailed, but incomplete). Jos=E9 was a stylist and formalist. He
> taught the discipline of artisanry within a framework of the
> tradition of modernism, of the alternative art ateliers of France.
>
Hi Kathy. You studied with De Creeft later than I did. The last year
I studied with him was in 1965. Then, after I was married, I took a
job for a year; after which my wife, my first daughter, and I left
for Italy.
He was one of the two most remarkable men I ever met (the other was
Roberto Assagioli, M.D. with whom I studied while in Florence). My
interest was, above all, stone carving. My interest in clay came
later, and is really based around my love of throwing technique.
> When I did my one month senior high school project with Jos=E9, he
> warned me not to go to study art in college (and of course I
didn't
> listen, but he planted a seed of wariness). His attitude toward
art
> in American college was similar to that of the Salon des Refus=E9s
> toward the Acad=E9mie des Beaux-Arts, "In the 19th century, the
salon
> system frequently incited criticism from artists for the bland or
> academic quality of the artwork" > French_art_salons_and_academies>. This was at a time when colleges
> still taught drawing and "color, form and space," not like today
> where foundation courses often dispense with drawing altogether,
> having a digital or verbal structure, and are either formally
> conventional or inventive but without visual investigation,
synthetic
> dialogue not analytic form.
As I understand it, De Creeft's objection to colleges for artists
(not other people) had to do with the organizational bureaucracy that
is inherently part of their nature; and which he considered
detrimental to artists, and their education.
Thanks for writing this message. Reading your recollections of De
Creeft has made my day, and brought back many fond memories.
Be well.
Malcolm
Snail Scott on tue 30 may 06
At 11:56 AM 5/30/2006 -0400, Kathy wrote:
>...distance of the remove
>from material and process of a typical bronze or plaster casting...
>First there's the model, then the waste mold, then a mold for casting
>wax and then finally a bronze pouring and finishing...
>Things have changed much since the early days of the twentieth
>century. It's possible to work much closer to the final in metal
>processes...
This is definitely true, though it may not be
those modern processes which are the essential
distinction. Access to the foundry facility is,
though. I've managed to to keep control of my
casting, doing most or all of the work myself -
patterns, molds, gating, pouring, welding,
chasing, patina, etc. This is only because I've
made an effort to have day jobs which allow me
that access. A huge-ass gas kiln is a big
investment for one artist; having your own foundry
is even bigger, and it makes sense to contract
out at least the metal-pouring part, which
requires the most infrastructure.
Having been an artist, as well as a technician
who 'made' other people's art for an hourly
wage, I am no longer convinced that doing it all
yourself is important to the artistry of it.
A whole lot of being an artist, especially in
a labor-intensive medium like bronze casting,
is simply a matter of being your own technician:
welding, grinding, removing investment,
sandblasting. Does the execution of these steps
really need the hand of the artist? A lot of
good artists are bad at these things, and the
work will be better for having an expert hand
in these roles. As for losing some aspect of
the artist's vision, I believe that a skilled
technician who has learned the artist's style
and preferences can often render it better than
the artist could, for having a greater command
of the process. Does an architect lay brick
better than a mason?
Some of being an artist is about being engaged in
a creative process, but a whole lot of it is
just doing the work. No creativity, no judgement
calls, just work. Is it important who does it?
Wedging clay, loading kilns, mixing glazes -
these are steps often farmed out to assistants.
It it really different, just because they don't
poke a finger into the object itself? For some
folks, it's a metaphysical thing, going back to
18th and 19th century notions that entered modern
thought as the 'aura' - the certain 'something'
that an authentic work of the artist's hand was
supposed to have that even a perfect copy must
lack. (Read Walter Benjamin on this.)
I just don't believe it. But I do continue (with
rare exceptions) to do my own grunt work. Why?
Not because I believe it's more 'real' that way.
In part, it's because I've seldom encountered a
technician that I trusted to do it the way I want.
In part, it's because (annoyingly) my own labor
is still cheaper. But a large part of it is that
for me, the time spent doing dumb grunt labor IS
productive art time. With my brain set on 'idle',
I seem to be freer to do undirected pondering
about what's next. Questions that have gone
unresolved after hours of hard, focused thinking
seem to coalesce into answers while I'm pounding,
grinding, or scraping.
I dreamed of the day when my time as a creative
artist would be worth more per hour than that of
a welder or (at least) a day laborer. When I became
more successful, I could finally afford to hire
technicians to do the grunt labor, and I thought it
would free me up to spend more time on the 'real'
art stuff. It didn't work. Without that time spent
on dumb labor, I lost an essential part of my
process. I wasn't working 'smarter' or more
creatively; I was actually working stupider.
This isn't true of everyone; some people are very
happy as designers, and they do it well. It turns
out that I'm not one of them. I need to actually
do the stuff, feel the material, handle it directly.
I had an inkling of this, when I gave up architecture
after college, but I didn't really understand it.
It's taken years of learning my own mind to really
grasp my process. It's inconvenient, sweaty, and it
will probably keep me poor, but so will being a bad
artist, and that's what I became when I hired out
my grunt labor to others.
-Snail
p.s. Here's one of my bronze pieces - about 7' tall:
http://www.foundryartcentre.org/SculpturesPublic.html
Snail Scott on tue 30 may 06
At 05:38 PM 5/30/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>...I want to go to the
>Rodin museum in Philly to see some of his marble again. The idea that they
>were done by craftsmen using pointing machines kind of brings up the image
>of knockoff pottery reproducing'the mark of the hand' by machine..and yet, I
>wouldn't want the world to do without any Rodin work-no matter how removed
>from his 'hand' it was. Makes you wonder...
A lot of the Rodin pieces in Philly and elsewhere
were not only done by contracted artisans as usual,
but were cast posthumously, so they weren't even
supervised or approved by Rodin. Some of them are
additional numbers within editions that Rodin himself
began, but many were never cast at all in his
lifetime, and there is no clear indication that
he intended them for casting. The French government
has strict regulations about this sort of thing, but
many of Rodin's patterns are owned by the French
government, so of course they make an exception...
As for the work of 'pointing up' and making marble
or bronze versions, if you've seen any sculptural
work done between the end of the Renaissance and
the mid-20th century, odds are it was done that way.
Great sculptors were expected to rise above
journeyman work like actually chipping at stone;
they established ateliers and hired people whose job
it was to do that for them, with the 'great man'
directing the work. Only incompetent losers,
amateurs or wackos did their own work. (And most
amateurs hired it out, too. Hobbies like sculpture
weren't for the poor.)
-Snail
Malcolm Schosha on tue 30 may 06
Hi Lee,
From the point of view of sculptors who do direct carving, ceramic
sculpture has many of the same drawbacks as bronze casting.
In direct carving, once the forming process is finished, all artistic
work really is finished.
In clay, there is still a firing process that changes the color,
size, and surface finish of, the work; and there is the risk that
everything could be ruined, or changed in undesirable ways, in the
firing(s). It is nothing like direct carving.
Auguste Rodin, although he produced also much sculpture in marble,
did not carve marble. He made a model in clay, and gave that to a
carving studio where carvers copied the clay model in stone using
(what is called) a 'pointing machine' to measure. The process is
even less direct than bronze casting.
De Creeft, and a few others of his generation, returned to carving
directly themselves in stone or wood; something that sculptors had
done in earlier times. For that reason, De Creeft is important not
just because of his own work, but also because he introduced an
historical change in sculpture by re-introducing what had been lost
in sculpture. De Creeft, who knew Rodin when he was very old, said
that Rodin showed him a small carving of a child's head that he said
was the only piece he ever carved himself.
Be well.
Malcolm
...............................................
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, lee love wrote:
>
> --- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Kathy Forer wrote:
>
> > I went back to working
> > in "mud," my always favored material.*
>
> You are in good company. Standing in front of a Rodin bronze
head
> at the Bridgestone museum on Saturday, I remembered Noguchi saying
> that he didn't like working in bronze, because in bronze, you are
only
> making a reproduction.
Kathy Forer on tue 30 may 06
On May 29, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Malcolm Schosha wrote:
> As I understand it, De Creeft's objection to colleges for artists
> (not other people) had to do with the organizational bureaucracy that
> is inherently part of their nature; and which he considered
> detrimental to artists, and their education.
Definitely, yes, that too. He spoke often against the "organizational =20=
man" and how working a clock teaches that "time is money" and =20
advertising can destroy the soul of the artist.
I used to love listening to Jos=E9's wonderful stories, even the =20
forbiddingly scary apocryphal ones, object lessons to beware.
I'm glad I could spark your memories.
Kathy
Kathy Forer on tue 30 may 06
On May 29, 2006, at 10:58 AM, lee love wrote:
> --- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Kathy Forer wrote:
>
>> I went back to working
>> in "mud," my always favored material.*
>
> You are in good company. Standing in front of a Rodin bronze head
> at the Bridgestone museum on Saturday, I remembered Noguchi saying
> that he didn't like working in bronze, because in bronze, you are only
> making a reproduction.
Material and method are complicated issues. Simpler if you're a
carver or conceptualist, problematic if you're a modeler.
De Creeft's greatest contribution was the direct method of sculpture.
A carving purist, he spoke at length about the distance of the remove
from material and process of a typical bronze or plaster casting.
With so many intercessors, it became a product of many hands, not a
direct creation of one vision.
First there's the model, then the waste mold, then a mold for casting
wax and then finally a bronze pouring and finishing. Working directly
in stone or wood, one could realize a vision by oneself,
"'collaborate' with the stone to free the figure concealed inside
it," and that was that, no middle men, no foundries, no disconnecting
and tedious methods of reproduction.
Things have changed much since the early days of the twentieth
century. It's possible to work much closer to the final in metal
processes. Make a model in wax, cast it in investment or shell and do
the finishing directly. Some even work directly with metal flashings,
letting the process take the lead. There was also David Smith and
great things done with working directly with metal, welding.
It's also possible to design entirely on a computer and have a 3d
reproduced faithfully. Intercession is through computer and in the
control of the user.
In addition to carving, De Creeft was also involved early on in
assemblage, as the terrific processional Don Quixote in his studio
attested. Not as solid or considered as his carving, there was a joy
and freshness about the wobbly work that had lasted nearly a century.
So there is carving, modeling and assemblage. For a modeler, the
question is how to make the object permanent. It's easy for the
potter to say "just fire it" because the ceramic mud-fire process is
the integral sine qua non of pottery but it's a tangential tradition
and experience for the academically trained sculptor. (And here I
leave off to go down to the studio to try to figure this one out.)
...and Malcom responded more clearly to the same question of why the
ceramic process is over-complete (if not indirect) in another email
just this morning so I will leave off here...
Kathy Forer
Jeanie Silver on tue 30 may 06
Wow! Malcom, what an interesting piece of info. Now I want to go to the
Rodin museum in Philly to see some of his marble again. The idea that they
were done by craftsmen using pointing machines kind of brings up the image
of knockoff pottery reproducing'the mark of the hand' by machine..and yet, I
wouldn't want the world to do without any Rodin work-no matter how removed
from his 'hand' it was. Makes you wonder.....
Jeanie in Pa.
Bonnie Staffel on thu 1 jun 06
When I first started out in clay so many years ago, I was hitched to an
extremely talented artist who was exploring different mediums in which =
to
work. He wanted to learn to carve stone, but being dirt poor in those =
days,
he bought a salt block and started chipping away. It was so long ago I
don't remember what came out of his efforts, but it was really neat. =
I
remember we lived on the third floor of an old Victorian house near =
downtown
Toledo and both of us attended night classes at the Toledo Museum of =
Art. I
guess we were each into the "do it yourself" mode as purists of the =
arts,
but it seems to me that one needs to know the process before you could
direct someone else to do your work. Just something to think about.
Bonnie Staffel
http://webpages.charter.net/bstaffel/
DVD Throwing with Coils and Slabs
DVD Beginning Processes
Charter Member Potters Council
Ivor and Olive Lewis on fri 2 jun 06
Dear Bonnie Staffel,=20
Direct carving can be done on any solid material. Salt blocks are ideal =
on which to learn the basic skills. I introduced this to two high =
schools. Getting tools in Oz was a problem. We imported from Alec =
Tiranti of London, full class set with Dummy mallet, points and claw =
chisels. Our starting medium was plaster blocks cast in one litre fruit =
juice containers. Then we moved up to two litre blocks and in the third =
year of carving, Soap Stone.=20
We have a soft limestone. I did a demo for the local tech college on a =
piece about three feet high and one and a half feet square. I believe it =
is still on display in their library.
Great memories.
Best regards,
Ivor
| |
|
