pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on wed 27 aug 03
Hey Tom!
If Children are coloring, making papier-mache, drawing,
doing whatever they may do in school in an 'Art' class...
May we not most appropriately say they were 'drawing',
'coloring', 'making papier-mache'?
If they were playing with Musical Insturments, would we not
best say so, as that? Rather than to say they are
'Musicians'?
If they were playing with a Stethescope, or Haemostats, or
protracted insurance forms in 'triplicate', would you elect
to call them 'Doctors'?
Or would you prefer we said they were playing with a
Stethescope and Haemostats ( and whatnot carbon-paper-messy
else) ?
Hmmmmm?
Your pal...!
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Sawyer"
> Nope, don't buy into your argument; hope a nurse passes me
something to eat
> when I'm hungry. Really if I ask for an instrument and I'm
handed a beer, I
> have a dumb nurse and she wouldn't last the day. So a
kindergarden kid takes
> an art class and makes art and while they are creating
they are an artist.
> Thats not to say they are a good artist. Sure we care what
things are called
> but were open enough not to get hung up on definitions but
rather, I think,
> we should focus on results. Some one makes art and calls
themselves an
> artist, why should anyone get offended. I'm afraid if that
were the criteria
> a Picasso could say I'm the only artist in the world
because no one measures
> up to my standards. Gads, I like to think everyone who
makes art is an
> artist; everyone who cooks is a cook; everyone who makes
pottery is a
> potter; everyone who makes babies is a parent............
This is not to say
> they are good at what they do which is an entirely
different question
> because now we interject a value system. It seems to me
that everyone who
> gets hung up on definitions does so because they wish to
impose a value
> system on the definition. Thats not to argue that values
are unimportant,
> they are important to me. I have my own values. I just
don't believe values
> are absolute. Values, I believe, are the product of
genetics and environment
> and both are infinitely varied. Since I am unique in the
history of the
> world so is my value system and by the ways so is yours. I
doubt that you
> have ever found anyone "exactly" like you; we are all
different; enjoy the
> difference and try to understand them.
> Tom Sawyer
Tom Sawyer on thu 28 aug 03
Where we differ here is that I would use a descriptor in some cases - like a
child artist, a begining musician or a pretend doctor. If a child would be
introduced to me as an artist, I would be suspcious of their skill level
recognizing that the kid might be a progidy. Most people when introducing
someone as a doctor mean a doctor of medicine; well I'm also a doctor of law
and I meet people all the time who are doctors of history, literature and
art; I've never met one but there are even witch doctors. What is peculiar
in this whole discussion is that some people seem to want to restrict the
term artist to only "good" artist or craftsmen/women or some preconceived
notion of what an artist is; that I contend makes the definition subjective.
I'm willing to let anyone call themselves an artist that creates art but I
am certainly not ready to acknowledge that they all have the same skill
level or creativity that I associate with my internal guage of "good" art.
It seems to me that some people are saying only highly creative and skillful
people [good artist] should call themselves artist but then I might think
someone is highly creative and skillful that you don't -- then who's right?
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG]On Behalf Of
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:13 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Vince: About "Artist" II ( another angle...)
Hey Tom!
If Children are coloring, making papier-mache, drawing,
doing whatever they may do in school in an 'Art' class...
May we not most appropriately say they were 'drawing',
'coloring', 'making papier-mache'?
If they were playing with Musical Insturments, would we not
best say so, as that? Rather than to say they are
'Musicians'?
If they were playing with a Stethescope, or Haemostats, or
protracted insurance forms in 'triplicate', would you elect
to call them 'Doctors'?
Or would you prefer we said they were playing with a
Stethescope and Haemostats ( and whatnot carbon-paper-messy
else) ?
Hmmmmm?
Your pal...!
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Sawyer"
> Nope, don't buy into your argument; hope a nurse passes me
something to eat
> when I'm hungry. Really if I ask for an instrument and I'm
handed a beer, I
> have a dumb nurse and she wouldn't last the day. So a
kindergarden kid takes
> an art class and makes art and while they are creating
they are an artist.
> Thats not to say they are a good artist. Sure we care what
things are called
> but were open enough not to get hung up on definitions but
rather, I think,
> we should focus on results. Some one makes art and calls
themselves an
> artist, why should anyone get offended. I'm afraid if that
were the criteria
> a Picasso could say I'm the only artist in the world
because no one measures
> up to my standards. Gads, I like to think everyone who
makes art is an
> artist; everyone who cooks is a cook; everyone who makes
pottery is a
> potter; everyone who makes babies is a parent............
This is not to say
> they are good at what they do which is an entirely
different question
> because now we interject a value system. It seems to me
that everyone who
> gets hung up on definitions does so because they wish to
impose a value
> system on the definition. Thats not to argue that values
are unimportant,
> they are important to me. I have my own values. I just
don't believe values
> are absolute. Values, I believe, are the product of
genetics and environment
> and both are infinitely varied. Since I am unique in the
history of the
> world so is my value system and by the ways so is yours. I
doubt that you
> have ever found anyone "exactly" like you; we are all
different; enjoy the
> difference and try to understand them.
> Tom Sawyer
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
Hank Murrow on thu 28 aug 03
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 08:46 AM, Tom Sawyer wrote in part:
>
> I'm willing to let anyone call themselves an artist that creates art
> but I
> am certainly not ready to acknowledge that they all have the same skill
> level or creativity that I associate with my internal guage of "good"
> art.
> It seems to me that some people are saying only highly creative and
> skillful
> people [good artist] should call themselves artist but then I might
> think
> someone is highly creative and skillful that you don't -- then who's
> right?
And Rainer Maria Rilke replies, from his "Letters to a Young
Poet"................
"Works of art are of an infinite loneliness and with nothing to be so
little reached as with criticism. Only love can grasp and hold and
fairly judge them."
And e.e.cummings, who quoted the above assertion, followed with this:
"In my humble opinion, those two sentences are worth all the soi-disant
criticism of the arts which has ever existed or will ever exist.
Disagree with them as much as you like, but never forget them; for if
you do, you will have forgotten the mystery which you have been, the
mystery which you shall be, and the mystery which you are_____."
For 46 years, ever since reading Rilke's remark, I have trusted it, and
found that it has always opened the door to fresh understanding for me.
Hope y'all can dig it, Hank in Eugene
| |
|
