W J Seidl on wed 27 sep 06
I'm sorry, but this is a full load of (fresh) horse manure.
The last time someone asked me for an "explanation" of my "art"
(a sgraffito pot) I just looked them dead in the eye and said:
"It is what it is; what is it to YOU?"
I have no desire to put ideas in anyone's head about what something is,
isn't, should or shouldn't be or "say", and I'm certainly not about to
"explain" myself. I know what I understand (DUH!) and what I intended.
Figure it out, or don't! The truth varies according to the individual.
How a person looks at the world (and everything in it) is a personal
experience. I'm not about to cloud or color that experience.
To me, this is just another example of "(whine)...tell me what to think, so
I don't have to". It's that damn "sense of entitlement" again that we see
so often from the newer generations. Do your own damn thinking!
Bah! Rant over. (Sorry about that)
Best,
Wayne Seidl
snip What is most annoying, is when an artist has no idea about
what his work is about, and just manufactures an explaination to cover
up his lack of understanding. snip
Stephani Stephenson on wed 27 sep 06
Wayne
communicating about art or pots via the written word or spoken word
helps one communicate about it
But
For me
the making and primary experiencing of the 'art'(latitude with
this word please)
is not primarily a verbal experience
and does not need to be translated through verbal or written channels
for validation.
sometimes the verbal or written does augment it, or rather it helps
more than one person communicate about it
but to me, that is secondary.
nonverbal channels of communication, the use of muscle and movement and
intuition and eye and hand
all speak in a beautiful, self evident language.
So, while I encourage the sharpening of skills as we attempt to
discuss or write about what we see or do....
(myself a long , slow learner)
the primary thing has always been the making , the dance, the direct
interaction
something not to be eclipsed or buried , yegads , by the poison fog
of tagalong or asphyxiating banter!
can I believe both simultaneously?
of course!
but, if I have made something silly,
my hopes are that it screams SILLY with its own voice, without need
for an attached note saying, 'This comes from my silly depths', or
worse,
"This piece speaks to the inner dichotomy of wretched pain pulling
against the morbid anguish of the artistic avatar in all of us...."
I can just see the critique:
person A:
"Now, that is one silly pot!"
Person B:
"yes it has quite a silly rim"
Person C:
"You know the way it rests upon that saucer is, well.... quite silly"
Person D:
I feel quite silly looking at it. In fact I feel silly talking about it.
Person A:
Then obviously the artist is a genius. They have communicated their
silliness in a pure and direct manner.
Person G:
" I am totally offended by the repeated use of the word 'silly'. It is
an insult to the wisdom -challenged people of the world."
Moderator:
"Very well, silly may not be the most appropriate terminology. "
Person E.
"Yeah, to me the piece is pure cockamamie, top to bottom..."
Person A:
"ahem . I , ah, have a problem with THAT word. "
Person F:
"wow, that's heavy. like, hey, when you pour water in the cup it kind
of dribbles out into the saucer!"
Moderator:
Would you excuse me, I need to , eh, leave the room, just for a
moment.. I think we can all agree that this cup and saucer
which initially seemed quite silly, speak to the deep divisions in
our society,
the pain of the artist, and the insecurity of humanity
in our fast paced, technological culture.
.."
Stephani Stephenson
steph@revivaltileworks.com
http://www.revivaltileworks.com
Ivor and Olive Lewis on thu 28 sep 06
Dear Wayne Seidl,=20
You might have changed the topic heading before setting of at the =
gallop.
<>
If you have nothing positive or enlightening to contribute to this =
topic, which is about a segment of Fine Arts and Crafts Education, its =
Resources and Methodology, why bother?
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
W J Seidl on thu 28 sep 06
OUCH! Ivor.
Actually, I was simply replying to a comment that had already been =
posted in
this thread.
Interesting letter in this month's CM, by the way. I shall have to go =
find
a copy of Rawson.
Best,
Wayne Seidl
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Ivor and =
Olive
Lewis
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:19 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Short RANT RE: Aesthetic Criticism of Ceramic Objects
Dear Wayne Seidl,=20
You might have changed the topic heading before setting of at the =
gallop.
<>
If you have nothing positive or enlightening to contribute to this =
topic,
which is about a segment of Fine Arts and Crafts Education, its =
Resources
and Methodology, why bother?
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
_________________________________________________________________________=
___
__
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.
Steve Mills on sat 30 sep 06
I'm in full agreement with you.
I have, for as long as I have been a consciously creative person, felt
that if Art or Craft needs an explanation it is essentially failing in
its function.
The message should be clear if it is *Message* work.
If it is designed to be a stimulus to the viewer, then let it do the job
without added written verbiage!
Steve
Bath
UK
Snip
>I'm sorry, but this is a full load of (fresh) horse manure.
>
>The last time someone asked me for an "explanation" of my "art"
>(a sgraffito pot) I just looked them dead in the eye and said:
>"It is what it is; what is it to YOU?"
Snip
--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
Vince Pitelka on sat 30 sep 06
Wayne and Steve are of course entitled to their opinions, and if someone
asks them to explain their work they are of course free to launch into a
rant and alienate the unfortunately individual who just wanted to know more
about their work. From the viewer or user of art/craft, that's a perfectly
reasonable request, and quite an honor for the artist.
When you are viewing an exhibition of artwork, you do not have to read the
posted explanation or artist's statement if you don't want to, but it is a
tremendous benefit for the many people who WANT to know more about the
artist or her/his work.
I know that it is possible to make amazing work without being able to
explain where it comes from or what it is about, but why encourage or
celebrate that circumstance? Writing a coherent, illuminating artist's
statement about your work always helps YOU clarify what you are doing, and
it offers clarification and context for those who are interested in your
work. If you really cannot explain your work, then you are proceeding on
blind faith, essentially just waiting to see what happens next. Yes, that
is one way to proceed as an artist/craftsperson, by why choose that avenue?
The only way you can evolve deliberately, with forethought and planning, is
if you understand your intent and objectives and can clearly explain them to
others.
- 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/
Craig Clark on sat 30 sep 06
I've ended up on virtually every side of this issue that has been
articulated in this thread and a wee bit more. I've been a stalwart
protector of the absolute necessity that work stand on it's own two feet
without the crutch of a written sidebar. I have argued with equal
passion as to not only the value, but the enhancement from the written
word when coupled with or used to illuminate visual Art.
Where I have ended up is a soft, kinda squishy place, called the
middle of the road. A wonderful writer and instigator, named Molly
Ivans, has a favorite phrase........There ain't nothin in the middle of
the road but dead armadillos. Now I tend to agree whole heartedly with
that sentiment on a number of things but I've gotten out of the
fundamentalist mindset when it comes to looking at, arguing about,
appreciating and thinking about Art.
I can sit down with a hundred different folks and come up with a
hundred different definitions, interpretations, etc., about Art. There
is no agreement. To take someone to task for attempting to bring a bit
of clarity to the argument, presentation or interpretation with a bit of
text by calling it a load of hooey, is engaging in an activity with an
equally oderiferous quality. I can see pretty clearly here in the
squishy part of the road and I'm able to keep my eye on the traffic
coming from both directions.
Hope this helps
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 St
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
Steve Mills wrote:
> I'm in full agreement with you.
>
> I have, for as long as I have been a consciously creative person, felt
> that if Art or Craft needs an explanation it is essentially failing in
> its function.
> The message should be clear if it is *Message* work.
> If it is designed to be a stimulus to the viewer, then let it do the job
> without added written verbiage!
>
> Steve
> Bath
> UK
>
>
> Snip
>
>> I'm sorry, but this is a full load of (fresh) horse manure.
>>
>> The last time someone asked me for an "explanation" of my "art"
>> (a sgraffito pot) I just looked them dead in the eye and said:
>> "It is what it is; what is it to YOU?"
>>
> Snip
> --
> Steve Mills
> Bath
> UK
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
Lee Love on sun 1 oct 06
On 10/1/06, Craig Clark wrote:
> I can see pretty clearly here in the
> squishy part of the road and I'm able to keep my eye on the traffic
> coming from both directions.
You know, I respect Vince because of his convictions.
You don't have to have no opinion to be open minded.
Because conceptual and intellectual are are so dominant in our
culture, traditional/intuitive/beauty related art is at the risk of
extinction. Not only that, we are loosing the ability to understand
subtle and nuanced characteristics. We are addicted to novelty and
bright shiny and grotesque things.
When I stand up for beauty, it isn't to deny other
expressions. It is in the name of an endangered species.
The Buddha taught, when you see conflict in the human world,
first, you protect the weaker of the two sides. After the weaker is
protected, then you seek reconciliation.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
"When we all do better. We ALL do better." -Paul Wellstone
Kathy Forer on sun 1 oct 06
On Sep 30, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> I know that it is possible to make amazing work without being able to
> explain where it comes from or what it is about, but why encourage or
> celebrate that circumstance?
Did the cave painters write about their work? Or Picasso? Rembrandt?
Ming Dynasty vase painters? They were all (though who knows about the
cave painter?) dismissive, though wary, of the contemporary critic.
It's dangerous to over-analyze what you're doing.
It's the job of the scholar not the artist to generate or explain
details or swaths of context that may not be obviously revealed
through the artist's expression and awareness.
> Writing a coherent, illuminating artist's
> statement about your work always helps YOU clarify what you are
> doing, and
> it offers clarification and context for those who are interested in
> your
> work.
It does, but it's also a temporary clarification. Any translation of
visual intent into words transforms with time and understanding.
Whenever I've tried to put what I'm doing into words it changes as I
gain deeper understanding of myself. It's not that what I'd said
earlier, or even in a later transitional state, is wrong, but there's
often something closer that is not always immediately apparent. And
when finally I can describe something in its essence I wonder how it
was ever so difficult.
> If you really cannot explain your work, then you are proceeding on
> blind faith, essentially just waiting to see what happens next.
> Yes, that
> is one way to proceed as an artist/craftsperson, by why choose that
> avenue?
> The only way you can evolve deliberately, with forethought and
> planning, is
> if you understand your intent and objectives and can clearly
> explain them to
> others.
Basically you're saying to "know thyself" or know your subject.
It's important to have a sense of continuity or fabric of one's story
and it helps in today's commercial world, but it's not an essential
part of the job that words be used to stand in as a guide to one's work.
It's dangerous to set a path and then, attempting to follow it, lose
sight of process and development. Serendipity, chance. Too often
galleries today will tell someone, "make twenty more like this and
come back to me when you're done." Nothing too wrong with making
twenty of something if it doesn't preclude making or appreciating
twenty more of something else.
Development shouldn't be sacrificed for production, yet without
production there can be little development. Same thing for synthesis
and analysis.
Our body of work is a coherent or patchwork story and we need to try
to understand where we are in it even as we are immersed. What we've
done and where we want to go are forces that are present and
revealed, but not always digested and clear, and not always easy to
verbalize.
What does the work mean? Why did you do it? Describe it.
We can end up with reams of words before we find the few that are
true and obvious. Maybe it's important to go through that process of
verbal spewing and editing but I think we're better off just letting
the work speak until we clearly have something to add to it. Too
often we're forced or "encouraged" to express our "content" in the
midst of an act when we'd be better off following the image and
action alone, and not speaking unless spoken to by our own needs.
Kathy Forer
www.kforer.com
Lee Love on sun 1 oct 06
On 10/1/06, Kathy Forer wrote:
> It's the job of the scholar not the artist to generate or explain
> details or swaths of context that may not be obviously revealed
> through the artist's expression and awareness.
As Hamada said, The art philosopher has beauty. The craftsman
only has his character.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
"When we all do better. We ALL do better." -Paul Wellstone
Craig Clark on sun 1 oct 06
Lee, I do not believe that an open mind is predicated on having no
opinion. I also believe that opinions grounded in fundamentalism often
spring from closed rather than open minds.
I do not believe that intuition and beauty are at risk of extinction.
I'll bet if you check the written record of generations going back as
far as the Greeks you will find similar sentiments and statements.
Things do often do indeed move at a frightening pace in our high tech
culture, but this does not mean that intuition and beauty are no longer
part of the picture.
As to the traditional.......those that respect, cherish and learn the
traditional will continue in that tradition. Some will evolve from the
framework of the tradition and attempt to produce something different.
Others will disregard (a mistake in my opinion) the traditions entirely
as a thing of a stale past and learch about in search of that which is
novel, bright and shiney or grotesque.....Though, once again, the use of
these words without a contextual form of specificity, as in looking at a
particular piece, doesn't really amount to doodley squat. It is
subjective at best.
This written exercise is a prime example of the use of the intellect and
conceptual analysis as opposed to an intuitive form of appreciation and
and experience. If I want to experience the beauty of a pot, I really
need to have it in my hands. I want to caress it.....feel it's
balance.....the hand of it's maker. That's why I allways tell folks who
want a piece to pick it up, hold it and get to know it a bit.
And please, don't appoint yourself spokesman for the species, or at
least not for me. I'm not addicted to bright shiney things and I haven't
been a fan of novelty since I was a kid, though I do have a certain
fascination for that which is "grotesque.
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 St
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
Love wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Craig Clark wrote:
>
>> I can see pretty clearly here in the
>> squishy part of the road and I'm able to keep my eye on the traffic
>> coming from both directions.
>
> You know, I respect Vince because of his convictions.
>
> You don't have to have no opinion to be open minded.
>
> Because conceptual and intellectual are are so dominant in our
> culture, traditional/intuitive/beauty related art is at the risk of
> extinction. Not only that, we are loosing the ability to understand
> subtle and nuanced characteristics. We are addicted to novelty and
> bright shiny and grotesque things.
>
> When I stand up for beauty, it isn't to deny other
> expressions. It is in the name of an endangered species.
>
> The Buddha taught, when you see conflict in the human world,
> first, you protect the weaker of the two sides. After the weaker is
> protected, then you seek reconciliation.
>
> --
> Lee in Mashiko, Japan
> http://potters.blogspot.com/
> "Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
> "When we all do better. We ALL do better." -Paul Wellstone
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
maggie jones on sun 1 oct 06
Explaining my work with words is demanding another skill or talent that I
just may not have.
I do not have the time to demand myself to develop an articulate skill
when I would rather work in the 3 dimensions. I don't even draw my ideas
first unless as a reminder for an idea I don't want to forget.
It is like being able to take good photographs of my work...that is
another skill that I may only desire to go so far with.
Personally, I'd rather just create, intuitively perhaps ...with
inspiration from my visual and tactile experiences in my world.
I like Lee's ideas here.
My daughter has been making things out of clay since she was able to hold
it in her hands. She is also a photographer with a keen eye. The work and
ideas she expresses have a simplicity and straightforwardness that is
very effective. Now she is going into the ceramic department at UNCA and
I wonder, worry... is formal art training going to curb, stifle , bend,
steer or deform her natural instinctive eye for design? I have had very
little formal art training myself...perhaps it shows...? but, if it
does,...does it show good things or bad things about my work??
Maggie
Maggie and Freeman Jones
Turtle Island Pottery
Black Mountain, NC
http://TurtleIslandPottery.com
http://amartpot.org trustee
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 01:15:15 -0400 Kathy Forer writes:
> On Sep 30, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>
> > I know that it is possible to make amazing work without being able
> to
> > explain where it comes from or what it is about, but why encourage
> or
> > celebrate that circumstance?
>
> Did the cave painters write about their work? Or Picasso?
> Rembrandt?
> Ming Dynasty vase painters? They were all (though who knows about
> the
> cave painter?) dismissive, though wary, of the contemporary critic.
> It's dangerous to over-analyze what you're doing.
>
> It's the job of the scholar not the artist to generate or explain
> details or swaths of context that may not be obviously revealed
> through the artist's expression and awareness.
>
> > Writing a coherent, illuminating artist's
> > statement about your work always helps YOU clarify what you are
> > doing, and
> > it offers clarification and context for those who are interested
> in
> > your
> > work.
>
> It does, but it's also a temporary clarification. Any translation
> of
> visual intent into words transforms with time and understanding.
>
> Whenever I've tried to put what I'm doing into words it changes as
> I
> gain deeper understanding of myself. It's not that what I'd said
> earlier, or even in a later transitional state, is wrong, but
> there's
> often something closer that is not always immediately apparent. And
> when finally I can describe something in its essence I wonder how
> it
> was ever so difficult.
>
> > If you really cannot explain your work, then you are proceeding
> on
> > blind faith, essentially just waiting to see what happens next.
> > Yes, that
> > is one way to proceed as an artist/craftsperson, by why choose
> that
> > avenue?
> > The only way you can evolve deliberately, with forethought and
> > planning, is
> > if you understand your intent and objectives and can clearly
> > explain them to
> > others.
>
> Basically you're saying to "know thyself" or know your subject.
>
> It's important to have a sense of continuity or fabric of one's
> story
> and it helps in today's commercial world, but it's not an essential
> part of the job that words be used to stand in as a guide to one's
> work.
>
> It's dangerous to set a path and then, attempting to follow it,
> lose
> sight of process and development. Serendipity, chance. Too often
> galleries today will tell someone, "make twenty more like this and
> come back to me when you're done." Nothing too wrong with making
> twenty of something if it doesn't preclude making or appreciating
> twenty more of something else.
>
> Development shouldn't be sacrificed for production, yet without
> production there can be little development. Same thing for
> synthesis
> and analysis.
>
> Our body of work is a coherent or patchwork story and we need to
> try
> to understand where we are in it even as we are immersed. What
> we've
> done and where we want to go are forces that are present and
> revealed, but not always digested and clear, and not always easy to
> verbalize.
>
> What does the work mean? Why did you do it? Describe it.
> We can end up with reams of words before we find the few that are
> true and obvious. Maybe it's important to go through that process
> of
> verbal spewing and editing but I think we're better off just
> letting
> the work speak until we clearly have something to add to it. Too
> often we're forced or "encouraged" to express our "content" in the
> midst of an act when we'd be better off following the image and
> action alone, and not speaking unless spoken to by our own needs.
>
> Kathy Forer
> www.kforer.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.
>
>
JoyceLee on sun 1 oct 06
ok
>From: maggie jones
>Date: 2006/10/01 Sun AM 09:42:26 CDT
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: Re: Short RANT RE: Aesthetic Criticism of Ceramic Objects
>Explaining my work with words is demanding another skill or talent that I
>just may not have.
> I do not have the time to demand myself to develop an articulate skill
>when I would rather work in the 3 dimensions. I don't even draw my ideas
>first unless as a reminder for an idea I don't want to forget.
>It is like being able to take good photographs of my work...that is
>another skill that I may only desire to go so far with.
>Personally, I'd rather just create, intuitively perhaps ...with
>inspiration from my visual and tactile experiences in my world.
>
>I like Lee's ideas here.
>
>My daughter has been making things out of clay since she was able to hold
>it in her hands. She is also a photographer with a keen eye. The work and
>ideas she expresses have a simplicity and straightforwardness that is
>very effective. Now she is going into the ceramic department at UNCA and
>I wonder, worry... is formal art training going to curb, stifle , bend,
>steer or deform her natural instinctive eye for design? I have had very
>little formal art training myself...perhaps it shows...? but, if it
>does,...does it show good things or bad things about my work??
>
>Maggie
>
>
>Maggie and Freeman Jones
> Turtle Island Pottery
>Black Mountain, NC
>http://TurtleIslandPottery.com
>http://amartpot.org trustee
>
>
>
>On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 01:15:15 -0400 Kathy Forer writes:
>> On Sep 30, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>>
>> > I know that it is possible to make amazing work without being able
>> to
>> > explain where it comes from or what it is about, but why encourage
>> or
>> > celebrate that circumstance?
>>
>> Did the cave painters write about their work? Or Picasso?
>> Rembrandt?
>> Ming Dynasty vase painters? They were all (though who knows about
>> the
>> cave painter?) dismissive, though wary, of the contemporary critic.
>> It's dangerous to over-analyze what you're doing.
>>
>> It's the job of the scholar not the artist to generate or explain
>> details or swaths of context that may not be obviously revealed
>> through the artist's expression and awareness.
>>
>> > Writing a coherent, illuminating artist's
>> > statement about your work always helps YOU clarify what you are
>> > doing, and
>> > it offers clarification and context for those who are interested
>> in
>> > your
>> > work.
>>
>> It does, but it's also a temporary clarification. Any translation
>> of
>> visual intent into words transforms with time and understanding.
>>
>> Whenever I've tried to put what I'm doing into words it changes as
>> I
>> gain deeper understanding of myself. It's not that what I'd said
>> earlier, or even in a later transitional state, is wrong, but
>> there's
>> often something closer that is not always immediately apparent. And
>> when finally I can describe something in its essence I wonder how
>> it
>> was ever so difficult.
>>
>> > If you really cannot explain your work, then you are proceeding
>> on
>> > blind faith, essentially just waiting to see what happens next.
>> > Yes, that
>> > is one way to proceed as an artist/craftsperson, by why choose
>> that
>> > avenue?
>> > The only way you can evolve deliberately, with forethought and
>> > planning, is
>> > if you understand your intent and objectives and can clearly
>> > explain them to
>> > others.
>>
>> Basically you're saying to "know thyself" or know your subject.
>>
>> It's important to have a sense of continuity or fabric of one's
>> story
>> and it helps in today's commercial world, but it's not an essential
>> part of the job that words be used to stand in as a guide to one's
>> work.
>>
>> It's dangerous to set a path and then, attempting to follow it,
>> lose
>> sight of process and development. Serendipity, chance. Too often
>> galleries today will tell someone, "make twenty more like this and
>> come back to me when you're done." Nothing too wrong with making
>> twenty of something if it doesn't preclude making or appreciating
>> twenty more of something else.
>>
>> Development shouldn't be sacrificed for production, yet without
>> production there can be little development. Same thing for
>> synthesis
>> and analysis.
>>
>> Our body of work is a coherent or patchwork story and we need to
>> try
>> to understand where we are in it even as we are immersed. What
>> we've
>> done and where we want to go are forces that are present and
>> revealed, but not always digested and clear, and not always easy to
>> verbalize.
>>
>> What does the work mean? Why did you do it? Describe it.
>> We can end up with reams of words before we find the few that are
>> true and obvious. Maybe it's important to go through that process
>> of
>> verbal spewing and editing but I think we're better off just
>> letting
>> the work speak until we clearly have something to add to it. Too
>> often we're forced or "encouraged" to express our "content" in the
>> midst of an act when we'd be better off following the image and
>> action alone, and not speaking unless spoken to by our own needs.
>>
>> Kathy Forer
>> www.kforer.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.
>>
>>
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
kathy forer on sun 1 oct 06
-----Original Message-----
From: maggie jones
Date: Sunday, Oct 1, 2006 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: Short RANT RE: Aesthetic Criticism of Ceramic Objects
My daughter has been making things out of clay since she was able to hold it in her hands. She is also a photographer with a keen eye. The work and ideas she expresses have a simplicity and straightforwardness that is very effective. Now she is going into the ceramic department at UNCA and I wonder, worry... is formal art training going to curb, stifle , bend, steer or deform her natural instinctive eye for design?
---------------------------
Unfortunately the answer from most art institutions would be an hearty and unequivocal "yes."
Like my friend who on becoming a devotee of a religion explained cheerily, "they broke my ego and brainwashed me," art education tends to want adherents to be good disciples.
But how else can we learn a canon or craft? We need to unlearn what we "know" to be receptive. Then, only with that received knowledge and skill internalized can we find ways to integrate initial talent and vision. Sometimes instincts don't even hold up and we start anew. 99% perspiration.
It's better to let go and learn. If it was strong enough it will come back greater than before. Held onto and coveted, instinct will shrink into stylism and repetition.
But we need good teachers who know the difference between vanity and healthy ego and don't act as relentless tyrants in the classroom or studio. Not the worst thing to harness yourself to a benevolent dictatorship, but unfortunate if what is destroyed in the process is stronger than what replaces it.
In other words, be careful who you let be your teacher.
--
Kathy Forer
http://www.kathyforer.com
Lee Love on sun 1 oct 06
On 10/1/06, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>> Wayne and Steve are of course entitled to their opinions, and if someone
> asks them to explain their work they are of course free to launch into a
> rant
You really don't have to rant. When a customer asks about your
work, more often than not, they want to tell you about what they think
about your work. So, when they ask something like, "what is this
form for?" I respond asking, "What would you use it for?" Since the
customer is always right, I always agree (the user completes the work
in its use.) Then, so as not to discourage the customer, I explain
what my original intention was, after agreeing to their idea.
> Writing a coherent, illuminating artist's
> statement about your work always helps YOU clarify what you are doing, and
> it offers clarification and context for those who are interested in your
> work.
Of course, artist statements and requiring that work depend on
an explanation are two totally different things. In your statement,
you can explain why intellectual quantification of the work can
destroy a true comprehension of it.
> If you really cannot explain your work, then you are proceeding on
> blind faith, essentially just waiting to see what happens next.
It only seems this way if intuitive (qualitative) ability is not
present. Not all creativity can be rendered by discursive thought.
Not all creativity is conceptual. It is a modern phenomenon to think
so.
Planning and forethought is a part of the intuitive process.
But this in no way means that the work has to depend upon an
intellectual analysis and explanation.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
"When we all do better. We ALL do better." -Paul Wellstone
lela martens on mon 2 oct 06
Thank you Kathi!
The talk about this subject arround our table over cofee would turn one`s
hair purple after a few years of hearing over and over again.
No offensen...see? i`m starting to think in Danish.
Ya seen folks, Mountainman and coartists talk about this
forever..
After awhile I can hardly wait for hockey season ..or reading my
new Oprah mag...and no Tony.. I do not watch hockey..
I might hear from Eduard though.. another discussion about French
separation.. I enjoy putting up the word French though..
Always gets his goat..
Grins from Lela, where we heard the weather was supposed to go really snotty
but it`s beautiful....
>>or
>>celebrate that circumstance?
>
>Did the cave painters write about their work? Or Picasso? Rembrandt?
>Ming Dynasty vase painters? They were all (though who knows about the
>cave painter?) dismissive, though wary, of the contemporary critic.
>It's dangerous to over-analyze what you're doing.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t waste time standing in line—try shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN
Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
Edouard Bastarache Inc. on mon 2 oct 06
Hehehehehehe Lela,
spell check = Eduard = Edouard,
Eduardo in Esperanto tho !!!
" I might hear from Eduard though.. another
discussion about French
separation.. I enjoy putting up the word French
though..
Always gets his goat.."
Later,
Edouard Bastarache
Le Français Volant
The Flying Frenchman
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/Welcome.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.pshcanada.com/Toxicology.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30058682@N00/
http://thepottersshop.blogspot.com/
| |
|
