The Shelfords on sun 9 mar 97
I've been following the threads under the heading of
> Re: What's wrong w/ Voulkos? formerly Re: George Ohr and more
I have renamed it for this post anyway, because I have to confess I'm not
aware of having seen the work of either man, and feel kind of silly
appearing to talk in that context. But the points being raised are
universal, and fair game even for those of us who have not had any formal
fine arts training.
Various points that have been raised in this thread:
Dan:> might not Mr. Hulch be correct in his assertion that much of
>the work of today is derivative of well established modern and contemporary
>fine art idioms?
- Isn't all art as derivative to some extent? Anything completely new and
unconnected to - underived from - anything else in human art or history
would be at least incomprehensible. And I don't mean just incomprehensible
to those without the training or sensitivity to understand it - all
understanding must work its way out from SOMETHING known, or we could never
break the code. To carry the argument to its "reductio ad absurdum",
something totally new and underived could well be invisible - blocked out by
the brain as just so much skewed data or visual static. It is perfectly
true that we just don't see what we don't understand. This may be
frustrating to the artist trying to communicate some new vision, but it is
part of the challenge. It points to two different points of view or
intention, as well. Is the artist interested primarily in self-expression
or communication? If it is self-expression, judgment is valueless and
misleading. If it communication, then it has to be judged on whether what
was intended has been communicated. Which involves some derivation.
So if some degree of derivation is not only permissible but necessary to
communicate, are we trying to set up standards as to how much derivation is
ok, who it is ok to derive from, etc? This doesn't sound like a healthy
basis for criteria.
Could we get out of this useless exercise by just accepting that the
artist creates what he wants to, for whatever reason. If that work speaks
to others, fine. If not, the artist's fulfillment is still in the act of
creating and learning from that creation. My impression is that this is how
the "best" art teaching is done. I don't know on what basis "honours" are
given in the arts, it's not a world I'm ever likely to have much to do with.
But "honours" are certainly a very subjective and narrow discrimination in
most other fields of endeavour - probably the arts as well?
Kevin:>It is only in recent years that the ugly and the beautiful have become
>if not synonymous, then indistinguishable.
- I sure sympathize with the general idea here. But is this reality, or a
trend of political correctness in the arts (Sam's Emperor's new clothes)?
(And by the way - might it be a characteristic of small and marginalized
groups that political correctness overtakes reality in the power structure?)
For the rest of the world, beauty and ugliness are subjective and loaded
words, but they are also important and necessary words and I guess we just
have to avoid getting too upset by them - sort of like playing with fire?
One is almost overwhelmed with the number of cliches that would be
appropriate here, but how about "everyone is entitled to their own opinion"?
Otherwise, the politically correct appearance would be the bedrock reality,
and what a mess that would be!
Vince:> From my own point of view I do not have much trouble distinguishing
>between the ugly and the beautiful. I see lots of art out there which is
>beautiful but otherwise vacuous and derivative. And there is lots of art
>out there which is ugly and offensive and timely and powerful.
- What you say is perfectly true. But for me, the problem here is that,
for many in the arts, the mere fact that something is generally seen as
beautiful is enough to have that thing dismissed as vacuous and "derivative"
(i.e. understandable). And ugly is often accorded the respect of timeliness
and power whether or not it is there. And that would seem to be a large
part of why functional pottery is so summarily dismissed by much of the fine
arts world - its forms are inescapably derivative (understandable to anyone,
anywhere, who eats), and if they are also beautiful, - well, it often takes
a lifetime of serene and devoted work to become a "name" big enough to
offset the stigma of THAT combination!
I hope we can continue to have these discussions, and those who aren't
interested can just delete without reading. I find them a good balance,
and a way of connecting my own background (english, philosophy, history)
with my work as a potter. So thank you to all who have taken part and will
continue to throw your ideas at the list.
- Veronica
____________________________________________________________________________
Veronica Shelford
e-mail: shelford@island.net
s-mail: P.O. Box 6-15
Thetis Island, BC V0R 2Y0
Tel: (250) 246-1509
____________________________________________________________________________
| |
|
