Jump to content


Photo

Does Any One Else Miss This Nutcase?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#41 clay lover

clay lover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 812 posts
  • LocationSoutheast

Posted 03 June 2014 - 07:40 AM

I'm with Carl all the way.  People craving attention and art that does the same thing both make me want to cross the street to avoid them.



#42 CarlCravens

CarlCravens

    Long-time Dabbler

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • LocationWichita, KS

Posted 03 June 2014 - 09:32 AM

Vaguely confused about what we're considering to be beauty and novelty here..

 

 

That's the crux of the matter, I think... beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Voulkos made his Stacks for a reason, and it probably wasn't "let's see if I can throw some stuff together and get someone to buy it."  He either found them aesthetically pleasing, or he was trying to make some kind of statement, etc.  People bought them because *they* found them pleasing, or they supported the artist's statement, or possibly because they were following the crowd, making an investment, etc.

 

I wouldn't want to discourge anyone from making the art *they* want to make.  Whether I like it or not doesn't really matter, unless they want me specifically to buy it.  As long as the artist likes it, and it fulfills the purpose for which it was made (making the artist happy, making a statement, making money), that's fine with me.  But I don't have to appreciate it, or even call it "art" except in the broadest terms.  (That guy who sold a pile of money at auction by calling it art?)


Carl (Wichita, KS)

#43 Stephen

Stephen

    novice

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 03 June 2014 - 12:21 PM

Not arguing, just throwing tossing in some thoughts.

 

IMHO, when a ceramic piece becomes whimsical or abstract it often sheds the need to conform to any particular litmus test on skill to be appreciated and admired for just what it is and the emotions it stirs. Sure anyone with minimal skill may have been able to create it and I'm sure often the person who is moved to admire or even buy it may not care. The value of an unknown artist produced piece is simply tied to the piece, not the artist.

 

Having been made by a known and collectible artist makes it part of that artist portfolio and that does add value and I think to some extent a greater appreciation is often assigned to the piece by those that like abstract art because now it has a back story and that may well add an additional dimension to the work because it can be taken as part of something bigger. Pablo Picasso created more ceramic pieces than paintings and all of his work seemed to be best appreciated as part of a 'period' that he was working through as an artist. 

 

Peter Voulkos demonstrated a mastery of technique throughout a long and distinguished career as a potter and educator. He also demonstrated mastery of technique as an abstract ceramic artist but I see no real connection between a beautiful piece of functional ware he made in the 50's with an abstract piece he made that was meant to be in a museum, art gallery or some  appropriate setting and presented in such a way to evoke a certain feeling or emotion. They just are way too far apart in what they are as pottery pieces.

 

For the record I have questioned abstract art my entire adult life until the last few years of trying to understand this path I've chosen. While I tire of the internet, it has afforded me the opportunity to span the globe on a whim and view so many different types of pottery from so many different artist that like and dislike seems to give way to trying to understand the intent.



#44 Bob Coyle

Bob Coyle

    GEEZER

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe

Posted 03 June 2014 - 02:17 PM

The problem I have with abstract art is that a whole lot of it is not very good, yet people insist that it have some meaning beyond what it looks like. Seems like most people think there is a statement behind Peter Voulkos abstract works but nobody seems to know what that is... but by golly there MUST be a meaning somewhere. People have said that they see great skill and mastery in Peter's later works. I am not sure what skill they are talking about, but I am willing to be educated.

 

Here are two of Peter's works. To me they look sloppy and careless, though I am sure that people will say no,no... they are spontaneous!

 

So what is the deeper meaning here, and ...truthfully now.. would you pay $5000 for them if  you saw them at a craft fare?

Attached Files



#45 Tyler Miller

Tyler Miller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 03 June 2014 - 02:57 PM

Bob, I think it's about approach.  The question isn't whether there is meaning present, but whether you can find meaning/aesthetic pleasure in it.  If you can't, it's nothing against you or the artist, you just don't like it.  Sometimes that happens.

 

It might be best to think of it like food experiences.  When you go to a restaurant and try a new style of cuisine from a country you've not experienced before, it's like looking at a contemporary artist's work.  You need to assess what you're having within some kind of context.  There's nothing like stir-fried chicken feet within traditional american cuisine, nor anything like a cheese sandwich in Chinese.  Now, I like chicken feet, but my girlfriend hates them.  She orders something else, and it tastes good to her. She and I both don't like certain traditional North American dishes, though, too--I'm not a fan of meatloaf, or scalloped potatoes, for example.

 

The point, I think, with abstract expressionist art is that every time you view an artist's work, you're stepping into a new restaurant with a menu from a country you've never heard of.  You try what they've got to offer, explore the menu and its flavours, try to contextualize them, and then use it as a way to think about the flavours and textures of the food you've already had.  That's the process of acculturation, I think.  I don't know, though, just my thoughts.



#46 CarlCravens

CarlCravens

    Long-time Dabbler

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • LocationWichita, KS

Posted 03 June 2014 - 03:30 PM

Man, you're making me hungry.  Meatloaf and scalloped potatoes are comfort food to me.  Gotta go tell my wife what I want for dinner, now.

 

And get where you're coming from... but sometimes I can't help but think that the artist is pulling our legs, telling us that "Yeah, yeah... where I come from, hens teeth and bull pucky are a delicacy!  You'll love this dish I cooked up."  And because folks can't tell the emperor he's naked because, what will the neighbors think!, folks say, "Yeah, yeah... this is good stuff you're feeding us, we'll buy two!"  Dude, that's not even food (art)!

 

I'm not saying it's common or that it even happens at all... but that's how far away from "getting it" I am with a lot of abstract work, that I feel like someone's trying to pull a fast one on the art-appreciating public.  (I'm still convinced that the guy who converted his art grant into sacks of money and called it "art" didn't actually believe it was art... that he was just pulling a stunt.)

 

There's a large stainless steel abstract sculpture here in Wichita called "Tripodal", which sits in front of the Century II conference center.

 

http://www.360cities...5.10,-6.60,70.0

 

I think Tripodal borders on ugly, but it's been there since I can remember... except when it was removed because the interior framework was rusting.  And I missed it... Tripodal is part of Century II's identity for me.  And a lot of people missed it, because they raised money to have it repaired instead of letting the city put something else in its place.  For me, now, Tripodal has context, it has a kind of meaning that only applies to people who live in the area and appreciate having it around for bizarre emotional reasons.  Tripodal is part of *my* identity, it's part of my memories of Riverfest.

 

I *expect* that this is how abstract art works for a lot of people.  Either the piece conveys some kind of meaning to them ("it makes me melancholy, for reasons that are personal to me") or the piece in a particular context means something to them ("I knew and admired Volkous and this piece reminds me of the time I spent with him").  And I totally get *that*... but that kind of assocation doesn't come with seeing a picture of a blob of clay on the cover of a magazine.


Carl (Wichita, KS)

#47 Tyler Miller

Tyler Miller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 03 June 2014 - 03:44 PM

 

 

And get where you're coming from... but sometimes I can't help but think that the artist is pulling our legs, telling us that "Yeah, yeah... where I come from, hens teeth and bull pucky are a delicacy!  You'll love this dish I cooked up."  And because folks can't tell the emperor he's naked because, what will the neighbors think!, folks say, "Yeah, yeah... this is good stuff you're feeding us, we'll buy two!"  Dude, that's not even food (art)!

 

I'm not saying it's common or that it even happens at all... but that's how far away from "getting it" I am with a lot of abstract work, that I feel like someone's trying to pull a fast one on the art-appreciating public.  (I'm still convinced that the guy who converted his art grant into sacks of money and called it "art" didn't actually believe it was art... that he was just pulling a stunt.)

 

Yeah, that stuff gets to me too.  The sarcastic and ironic abstract expressionist stuff.  I think it's increasing in popularity among artists and will be the death of the movement.  It's killed a lot of good poetry and other media already.  Younger generations seem to have it out for sincerity.  Hopefully that changes.



#48 Stephen

Stephen

    novice

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 03 June 2014 - 05:13 PM

Yeah but come on, Peter Voulkos was/is a really big deal in our medium and art in general.

 

I mean I guess you can say "so what, that cup sucked" or "my 5 year could beat that in 5 minutes before bedtime", but that really is missing the point. As a potter and as an artist he made an impact, a major impact. I guess I just respect the hell out of that and there is no way to separate that from his work for me, so yeah I might even buy something he made that I don't particularly like if given the opportunity and I had the dough.

 

If it was from an unknown then it wouldn't be five grand and to buy it at any price would depend on the individual piece but I think that is true of almost anyone who likes abstract art. I just don't see an appreciation for some abstract or expressionist art as shallow. Like all art there is some great work and crappy work out there depending on your likes and dislikes and only you can decide which one defines the work you are looking at.  

 

here's Peter Voulkos  LA obit:

 

http://articles.lati...al/me-voulkos17

 

http://www.franklloy...asp?ArtistID=34

 

and countless others, everywhere.



#49 Bob Coyle

Bob Coyle

    GEEZER

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe

Posted 03 June 2014 - 06:56 PM

 

Yeah but come on, Peter Voulkos was/is a really big deal in our medium and art in general.

 

I guess I just respect the hell out of that and there is no way to separate that from his work for me, so yeah I might even buy something he made that I don't particularly like if given the opportunity and I had the dough.

You are not alone Stephen, quite a few posts stressed Voulkos's contribution to ceramics, and how that has to be factored in. I keep getting told that I should be more open and try harder to see the meaning. Seems like a whole lot of work to appreciate a piece of art.

Seems like if you say you don't like some of  Peter Voulkos' work it is kind of like saying that the pope is not infallible in front of the synod of bishops. :)

 

Sorry, I just can't see assigning automatic artistic merit based on anything other than how the individual piece visually and emotionally grabs me.  I know that no piece stands alone, it is all part of a body of work but if the same piece by an unknown gets a YUCH! but gets a WOW! if it is done by someone well known, then I think that something else is going on.

 

So...how about it... How much would you spend to buy those pieces, if you didn't know they were made by Voulkos?



#50 Tyler Miller

Tyler Miller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 03 June 2014 - 08:06 PM

So...how about it... How much would you spend to buy those pieces, if you didn't know they were made by Voulkos?

 

 

I'm not sure it's a fair question.  If Michelanglo or Donatello were at a craft fair, what would you pay for their Davids?  What about the Sosibios vase?

 

If I were to buy them in a craft fair or art show, I'd be buying them in the context of a decorative piece for my home.  They don't fit with what art I keep in my home, but I know several people who would buy something very much like them and feature it prominently on their wall or on a table.  In that context, price is whatever you make of it, I suppose.  I'd buy it if it fit a decorating budget and pass it over if it didn't. So maybe $200 as a maximum based on what I can afford right now.



#51 Colby Charpentier

Colby Charpentier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • LocationProvidence, RI

Posted 03 June 2014 - 09:09 PM

 

 

Yeah but come on, Peter Voulkos was/is a really big deal in our medium and art in general.

 

I guess I just respect the hell out of that and there is no way to separate that from his work for me, so yeah I might even buy something he made that I don't particularly like if given the opportunity and I had the dough.

You are not alone Stephen, quite a few posts stressed Voulkos's contribution to ceramics, and how that has to be factored in. I keep getting told that I should be more open and try harder to see the meaning. Seems like a whole lot of work to appreciate a piece of art.

Seems like if you say you don't like some of  Peter Voulkos' work it is kind of like saying that the pope is not infallible in front of the synod of bishops. :)

 

Sorry, I just can't see assigning automatic artistic merit based on anything other than how the individual piece visually and emotionally grabs me.  I know that no piece stands alone, it is all part of a body of work but if the same piece by an unknown gets a YUCH! but gets a WOW! if it is done by someone well known, then I think that something else is going on.

 

So...how about it... How much would you spend to buy those pieces, if you didn't know they were made by Voulkos?

 

 

Re-read your own posts. You're not stopping at stating that you dislike all Voulkos works. You're condemning others that do appreciate the works. You're also suggesting that in order to appreciate an artist's ouvre, one must not only approve of, but enjoy *every single piece* ever produced.

 

And honestly, if the American gallery system wasn't as systematically (FUCKED) (excuse my french) as it is, I would suggest that craft fair artists should take their work elsewhere. But both of those arguments are fuel enough for years of discussion, and aren't fully appropriate for this forum in my opinion, as those views are likely offensive to others. Also, the topic is thoroughly depressing and unpleasant to discuss.

 

And I'm only dismissive because of the offense I take to the above-quoted display of logic. I find humor in the proposition at hand. As Tyler mentions, craft fairs have nothing to do with the work or artists we're discussing. Maybe researching the American studio/workshop movement may help?

 

Going back to Soldner, what were his more important messages at workshops? Be comfortable as a maker? Be honest? Just things to think about. I'm not suggesting that one must know the whole story to appreciate any of the work. I am however, suggesting that devaluing the work beyond aesthetic merit oversteps the bounds of your prerogative. It's ludicrous.

 

And furthermore, what are the acceptable outcomes of Art for you? Would you like to be spoon-fed drivel and pleasantries? Voulkos has nothing to do with that. What's at stake in taking down heros of American ceramics? If he was still alive today, would you challenge the now 90 year-old Voulkos to a throwing contest? I can admit that when I started as a studio assistant, I struggled with that last one. I went through a rough time of saying, I can make some Artist's work better than they can (that was my job anyway), and compared my youthful, athletic body to that of some world-renowned artists with health problems and otherwise. I couldn't make work, I couldn't work for them either during that time, and it took a lot to get back in the studio. Ego is a funny thing, and the only thing it's good for in the studio is motivation.

 

In any case, carry on disliking the work aesthetically, but don't go as far as to consider that your visual and emotional connection to any work is the ultimate measure of its significance. What you describe as "automatic artistic merit," is value assigned to the work of a giant, the same way Elvis memorabilia drives demand. Do you have similar qualms with Monet or any of them?



#52 Bob Coyle

Bob Coyle

    GEEZER

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationSanta Fe

Posted 04 June 2014 - 10:31 AM

Sorry if what I said offended you Colby, or anyone else... but you are right, this discussion is getting out of hand and is stirring up too much dust. so I will sign off on this subject and say no more.



#53 Stephen

Stephen

    novice

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 11:19 AM

Hi Bob, I certainly was not offended at all. I think Colby just got a bit emotional is all.

 

I do think Colby makes some strong arguments that once you move away from mimicking forms or expressions loosely or with exactness then you hit a place in art where stirred emotions or intent starts to weigh in.

 

Almost anyone can take up a potters wheel, pick up a paint brush or start carving sculptures and with enough instruction and enough hours practice become pretty damned accomplished. I get that the ones that stick with traditional forms and work within the confines of a familiar range (a vase looks like a vase) are the ones you like and assign value to BUT that work is just part of what's out there and those that are not making traditional vases, painting realistic landscapes or carving lifelike bust are creating really meaningful work that is really worth the 'work' you mentioned earlier to try and understand.

 

I do hope you come across something at some point that drives the point home because I think it will be an Aha moment for you, it was for me.

 

I'm going to leave it at that as well and I hope I also did not offend anyone.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users