Vince Pitelka on wed 14 dec 05
>i have met pete on three occasions. all three he was so
> drunk and full of drugs he could hardly get his head off the
> couch he was sitting on.
Mel -
Your experience with Peter Voulkos was indeed unfortunate, but consider
this. In our culture today, in this perverse atmosphere of "zero defect
morality," we expect our public figures to be morally perfect, and it is an
unrealistic expectation under all circumstances. Anyone who presents the
facade of being morally perfect is a brash liar.
Pete may have been fairly severely flawed at times, but different people
deal with the burden of creative genius in different ways, especially when
it intersects with the inflated expectations of fame. I am disappointed in
any public figure who allows public intoxication to become part of their
persona, but I would hardly waste my time condemning the artist because of
that behavior.
There is little point in debating the fact that Peter Voulkos was an artist
of remarkable accomplishment, and an extraordinary teacher who left a
lineage of students that are now among the top ceramic artists and teachers
in the US. It is a shame that in his later days he went to seed a bit, but
lets acknowledge his contribution rather than picking him apart for his
flaws. There's no gain at all in that.
- 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/
Vince Pitelka on wed 14 dec 05
Tae Kim wrote:
"I am so sick of everyone thinking he is so great because he has somehow
"discovered" this new style, when in fact,,, that style has been used and
cherished in other cultures for centuries.... and even in fact other form of
western art!"
Now why in the world would you be "so sick and tired " of people giving him
the credit that they think he deserves. You are certainly entitled to your
own opinion, but why would you be "so sick and tired" of others expressing
theirs?
You said"
"All he did was bring Abstract Expressionism to the dormant sleepy ceramics
movement from that time."
All he did?? That was a hell of a lot at the time. Considering the changes
in art and craft at the time, I expect someone else would have come along
and accomplished the same thing, but who knows when. Through his bold work
and his charismatic teaching, Voulkos spawned a whole generation of artists
and teachers who changed the face of American ceramics. By his bold
incorporation of Abstract Expressionism in vessels and then clay sculpture,
he opened the door for Western ceramic artists to try all sorts of new ideas
and approaches. In essence he opened the flood gates for the remarkable
developments of American ceramics in the 60s and 70s. This is acknowledged
and hardly worth debating, and it does seem very odd to drag Voulkos down
now.
You said
"Picasso was great NOT because he brought the whole african "look" or
"trend"
or whatever you call it into the look of the painting!!! That was just a
superficial look he created, but the abstraction of psychology, view point
and the basic idea of looking at things abstracteley is what made him a
genius. Now, can you say the same for Peter?"
No, and why in the world would you? They are two completely different
artists, with hardly any basis for comparison. I have never heard anyone
imply that Voulkos was another Picasso, and in terms influence on world art,
it would be hard to find Picasso's match, but within the small sphere of
Western ceramics, Voulkos's influence and importance was enormous.
During my ten-years-plus on Clayart we have gone through periodic bouts of
Voulkos-bashing. There have invariably been a number of us who speak up in
his defense - those who understand his contribution and are willing to
forgive his faults. Can anyone provide a shred of substance that denies his
contribution? And if we do acknowledge his contribution, what gain is there
in trying to deflate his importance in American ceramics at this point?
- 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/
Vince Pitelka on wed 14 dec 05
John Hesselberth wrote:
> I attended a Voulkos, Soldner 2 day workshop at Peter Callas's studio
> in about 1998--give or take a year. Soldner was entertaining, worked
> hard, and did some excellent demonstrations. That part was well
> worthwhile. Voulkas dragged in about noon or a little after on both
> days. . . . . I found myself wishing I had not seen him
> in that condition and could have remembered him by his mid-career
> work instead.
John -
Of course that is what history will do - remember him for his early and
mid-career work. Your statement above could be accurately applied to so
many great artists (and scientists and writers and musicians). Having been
elevated to such a level of success and fame for early accomplishments, it
is hard to be supplanted by the new generation - to have one's work
diminished merely by proximity to the revolutionary new work of dynamic
young artists. Some artists (and scientists and writers and musicians)
handle it gracefully, while others are unable to. It is certainly no excuse
for the public abuse of drugs and alcohol, but history is filled with
examples of brilliant people who went to seed in their later years. It does
represent a tragic turn in Voulkos's life, and I regret whatever negative
influence he might have had on young artists during those years, but his
enduring worth as an artist and innovator has little to do with those
indiscretions.
- 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/
Geoffrey Gaskell on thu 15 dec 05
Randall Moody wrote:
"I tire of hero worship. So very few are actually worth the acclaim."
I was wondering how long it would take before someone would actually post
something as wise as this simple and short statement. Forget about
personalities, just admire the work one finds admirable, but even this
should not be taken too far.
Geoffrey Gaskell
http://www.geoffreygaskell.co.nz/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/200 - Release Date: 14/12/05
Bonnie Staffel on thu 15 dec 05
I am sure that there are many stories about Voulkos' drinking and
boozing. I also attended a workshop given by him. He was very late in
arriving, when he finally arrived he sat down with his guitar and played
for a while, and then went to the wheel. He made this huge sculptural
piece and as he turned away from the wheel for a moment, the piece
started to tip and fall. The audience froze but someone caught it
before it landed on the floor. It probably weighed over 200 pounds.
Well, it was quite a show and of course never forgotten by those
attending.
Close to home while the local artist did not drink or do drugs, he had
the "child of an alcoholic" syndrome, tremendously talented but lacked
the push to work, or confidence in his talent, with accompanying bouts
of depression. He finally gave up any creative work at all and became
what might be called a non-entity. He was truly afraid of success and
the responsibilities coming with it. Another friend in my early days of
being involved in the politics of the arts, a friend played the role of
the eccentric artist not by design, but by his being dirt poor and not
having the recognition of his talent. He drank a bottle of gin every
day, painted huge pictures using lacquer, the fumes of which would knock
anyone down. He would attend art openings at the museum in his paint
spattered corduroy pants, old sandals and whatever shirt was the
cleanest that night. Talk about a vision of the Bohemian artist!!! I
learned he moved to New York, but he never achieved the success he
should have.
A question was posed to Voulkos at this demonstration about what do you
do with all your work, is it selling?. He said he had a warehouse full
of them, indicating that sales were not big yet. I do feel that Voulkos
did contribute by giving permission to young artists the freedom to
create what they felt with no inhibitions. I quarrel with that though
as I feel any artist should learn the fundamentals of the art form
before stretching the rules. Many of you might remember the time when
his students entered a competitive art show in Florida where he was the
judge. All of his students received the prizes. The art world was
shocked at this brazen one sided jurying process. Imagine, using paint
to embellish the art work!!!! Gads, what was this world coming to? It
did bring attention to his work. Now it seems that anything goes in
creating a work of art. I have even used the paint medium on some of my
sculptures as well. Midwestern artists usually were put down as being
ten years behind the advances made by the east and west coast artists.
The 60's and 70's was truly the era for the artist. Now it seems like
every Tom, Dick and Mary have their hands involved in the creative
process. Maybe it is overload that is bringing down the sales. Art
fairs used to be a real event but now there are fairs everywhere. And
what is interesting is that the art members are aging. I among them.
There is still enthusiasm but experience has told us if we want to make
that next magnificent pot, we better get at it.
Regards,
Bonnie Staffel
http://webpages.charter.net/bstaffel/
DVD Throwing with Coils and Slabs
DVD Beginning Processes
Charter Member Potters Council
Tom Sawyer on fri 16 dec 05
I met Pete on at least 5 occasions. Interestingly, two were in my home with
only Pete Callas in attendance. I know I've told this story before but on
one of these occasions, I had a leather hard greenware bowl that I talked
the two Pete's into decorating. The bottom of this bowl is inscribed with
the date and the inscription "Bowl Thrown by Tom Sawyer and decorated by
Peter Callas and Peter Voulkus. Two other meetings were in workshops and the
fifth was when I was visiting Callas and Voulkus was working at the studio
where I was blessed with spending the better part of three days and where on
the second day Soldner unexpectedly dropped in. I don't remember Pete
working drunk and never saw a hint of drug use although I can't say he
wasn't using at the time. WE did get smashed in the late afternoons and
evenings and he drank a good part of the day. I really enjoyed him.
I deal with alcohol and drug abuse frequently at the Homeless Clinic where I
volunteer as a physician and where I am Board Chairman. No question, Mel is
correct - lots of problems but it is well to remember it is a
weakness/disease. What annoys me is that persons with drug and alcohol
related medical problems are denied financial assistance but those with
diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary disease related to obesity or those
who smoke and have asthma, emphesema or lung cancer are not similarly
stigmatized and receive financial assistance. Now certain but I relate this
to bigotry; drug and alcohol use are sins and overeating and smoking are
not.
Tom Sawyer
Lee Love on fri 16 dec 05
The potters I most admire can be admired for both their work and their
lives. But it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work of others, like
the work of Voulkos.
--
ęZ Lee Love 大
ę">ćEUREURćEUREUR ćEUREURćEUREUR é±-
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/ My Photo Logs
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/ Zen and Craft
"The way we are, we are members of each other. All of us. Everything.
The difference ain't in who is a member and who is not, but in who knows
it and who don't."
--Burley Coulter (Wendell Berry)
Paul Lewing on fri 16 dec 05
on 12/15/05 6:15 PM, Stephani Stephenson at steph@REVIVALTILEWORKS.COM
wrote:
> I think the study of creativity and addiction examines the myth of the
> mad artist, the addict/artist.,
> And I think it debunks that myth , that's the whole point!
> I think the myth is part of an image, a popular, a one time
> 'romantic' image... a misconception.
Too true. My wife was telling me tonight about just having read the new
book "Against Depression". The author says that EVERY time he gives a
lecture on the topic, someone (and he's seen it so often he now can spot the
individual ahead of time) will stand up and ask, "What about Van Gogh?
Wouldn't the world be poorer if he hadn't suffered from depression and made
all that great art as a result?" His answer is "No. Depression is
debilitating. Think how much MORE great art he's have made if he hadn't
been depressed".
Of course, we'll never know. But I do know that back when I was in school,
studying with Rudy Autio, Rudy was drinking heavily at normal times. And
when Pete came to visit, the drinking kicked up several notches. I also
know that Rudy made almost no art in that period. In Ms. Lackey's book on
him, there's not a single clay piece from the 7 years I was there. All that
horse-and-naked-lady stuff arrived after he quit (or at least cut way back
on) drinking.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Hank Murrow on sat 17 dec 05
On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Paul Lewing wrote:
>
> "What about Van Gogh?
> Wouldn't the world be poorer if he hadn't suffered from depression and
> made
> all that great art as a result?" An answer is "No. Depression is
> debilitating. Think how much MORE great art he's have made if he
> hadn't
> been depressed".
Say Paul;
Van Gogh suffered from Geschwind's Syndrome, named for the neurologist
which first recognized it as a separate malady. Sufferers display
extreme graphology(drawing incessantly, VG did 1200 largish drawings
during his last 12 months!), a tendency toward religious extremes, a
tendency towards self-inflicted wounds, and conversational
viscosity(inability to let go of a conversation). This last drove
Gaughin nuts and he left for the Pacific after rooming with Van Gogh in
Arles.
Cheers, Hank
www.murrow.biz/hank
| |
|
