Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Sculpture Roundtable Discussions > Sculpture focus topics
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 12-13-2008, 09:08 AM
cheesepaws's Avatar
cheesepaws cheesepaws is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,137
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Oh, Joe! You so funny! - pretending you don’t get the difference between students using writing as a tool for focus and self-direction – a sketchbook of sorts - verses a veteran spouting the (supposed) truisms of Modernism. Students, in general, are still far too insecure to lie with the likes of Smith.

At least I can use the Smith quotes you supplied as part of a writing/response project next semester – so I guess they still have SOME value.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-13-2008, 01:22 PM
tobias tobias is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 749
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

I intend to take over the world . Install myself as the one true god. And be worshiped! I thought about being king but that just doesnt seem as cool.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-13-2008, 03:05 PM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tobias View Post
I intend to take over the world . Install myself as the one true god. And be worshiped! I thought about being king but that just doesnt seem as cool.
Now Theres an artist with proper ambitions.

And guess what T; you can do this without any of them even noticing.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-13-2008, 03:41 PM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
We should be more open-minded about our shared passion. I will never claim to know anything as absolutely as some here taut. That attitude is bravado at best. I love the “scribblers.” I respond to them and rely on them. Lets show them some love already!
I think in developing an artist (sort of like a science fair project?) that stimuli from many sources is essential as well, but unless you use that as a springboard to get them to think for themselves you're just cranking out cookie cutter artists. To develop their own voice that they believe in whole-heartedly is not bravado, it's survival.
It is also egocentric at best to suggest that a piece of art does not exist but as an artifact unless our pea-brains discover it. Yeah, perception blah blah, but outside of "activating artifact" being a nifty title for a course, it's pompous and arrogant to claim this land in the name of the queen of England to all the inhabitants who already live there. unless it's animatronic or a space machine.
__________________
Taking my own advice
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-13-2008, 04:11 PM
chris 71's Avatar
chris 71 chris 71 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ont canada
Posts: 1,054
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

my favorite part of the book is always the pictures just fill the book with pictures thats all. and then it is important
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-13-2008, 04:46 PM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Oh, Joe! You so funny! - pretending you don’t get the difference between students using writing as a tool for focus and self-direction – a sketchbook of sorts - verses a veteran spouting the (supposed) truisms of Modernism. Students, in general, are still far too insecure to lie with the likes of Smith.
Uh? Is this like the talking cure class where you boost their self esteem by sharing stuff and then they can go on and make ART. I'm blowing it here man, but I wasn't being funny, in that part anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-14-2008, 10:41 AM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris 71 View Post
my favorite part of the book is always the pictures just fill the book with pictures thats all. and then it is important
don't be embarassesd, the pictures typically are the best part, unless you are secretly a philosophy major.
__________________
Taking my own advice
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-14-2008, 11:57 AM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris 71 View Post
my favorite part of the book is always the pictures just fill the book with pictures thats all. and then it is important
Chris 71's observation, which may represent a large portion of the art book reading public, poses an interesting dilema for goudagrubbers's position.
He claimed that without scribblers, Michelangelo's works were just funny looking rocks. Well, without readers, scribbler's words are just funny looking chicken scratches surrounding the pictures.

Meanwhile, Chris has responded to the pictures in the book and gained an understanding and appreciation for the art that he sees. So, does this mean that without photographers, Michelangelo's works are invisible...or without the literate, scribblers are irrelevant, therefore art cannot exist...or, before photography there was no art because there were no art books for the scribblers to scribble around...

Or, before Cheesepaws consumed so much blue cheese that the mold got to his head, his ideas were more sensible...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-14-2008, 03:02 PM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

what did you say? I wasn't paying attention...
__________________
Taking my own advice
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-14-2008, 11:26 PM
cheesepaws's Avatar
cheesepaws cheesepaws is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,137
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Well I can hardly imagine that putting forth the idea that the visual arts are intertwined with (and perhaps inseparable from) literature and history would ever strike such a nerve. I apologize if I have been less than concise in putting my ideas on the table (new kid + not much sleep = foggy brain). Even so, I stand by my assertions.

If you scroll up a bit, my involvement in this conversation was a direct response to one of Evaldart’s posts to a young member who was tasked with writing about his art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by evaldart View Post
While lengthy dissertation might indeed impress the rugular folk, it really wont help the Art in the eyes of its own maker. Research and analysis of your favorite artists is indeed a pleasurable thing to do in between creative episodes, but such activity should be put with other avocational pass-times such as collecting stamps and gardening. Articulation of accumulated facts and fancies is just another brain teaser - it does not represent human growth. Sustenance will tell us what we NEED to learn and the artmaking will tell us what it is VITAL that we learn. Critics, historians, poets, novelists are SCRIBBLERS. They do not know anything about making Art (though the good ones can be entertaining), They are a creative sort, within the limits of little words (and some big ones) but they can't really help us all that much. Its easy enough to know what Michelangelo was about by looking at his work...its not very nice that some grasping academics would make things up and feed it to the gullible as fact or truth.
Now, I have no beef with Evaldart. In general - I think he is a bright guy, a decent sculptor and a hell of a writer (no insult intended ). Occasionally, however, he lays it on a bit thick for my liking – perhaps overly righteous in his individual position on artmaking and inflexible in his hierarchical notions of creation/expression. I have found this kind of dismissive stance uncommon among artists – who tend to be more inclusive of influences and open to opposing opinions. It is strange to me and I was/am drawn to responding to his more extreme posts every so often. I don’t sense that E. minds a bit of conversation regarding the matter or I wouldn’t respond in the first place.

If I am wrong E – PM me and I will refrain from responding to your posts.

That said – there are a number of issues in this thread that suffer from what I am guessing is miscommunication. At the core of this argument is some definition of who the “scribblers” are and why writing CAN BE important to developing one’s own work. Note the use of “can be” – as I point out above, I don’t subscribe to a “one size fits all” view of art. From my perspective, the “scribblers” are the historians, critics, theorist, poets, novelists, etc. who have the capacity to inform what we artists create. Our involvement with these fine fellows is complex. As artists we have been largely informed of classical art via the text (and pictures) researched and assembled by art historians. I tried to imply in earlier posts that this primary source of information is hard to separate from our love of art if not the literal making of our work. Likewise, reading the texts of critics and theorist of visual culture seeds the brain with all manner of information including connectivity with history, popular culture, psychology, biology, mathematics, spirituality and on and on and on. I get the sense that we all agree that such research is not a bad thing (if it is your thing). Where we disagree is that some – like Evaldart – suggest that this particular interface with information is somehow removed from the art making process. I have yet to have it explained to me how this is possible. This is to no way infer some semi-physical connection to texts whereby one reads a book and then turns and makes a sculpture about it. No, I am suggesting that this collected information – literature, poetry, history, technical texts – all feed into our heads and hands in peculiar ways. For some it may be a subconscious relationship – for others it is a very deliberate and direct response. It can’t help but come through in the work.

Joe too added to the conversation by quoting David Smith. One very fine quote is as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jOe~ View Post
Perception through vision is a highly accelerated response, so fast, so complex, so free that it cannot be pinned down by the very recent limited science of word communication. To understand a work of art, it must be seen and perceived, not worded. Words can be used to place art historically, to set it in social context, to describe the movements, to relate it to other works, to state individual preferences, and to set the scene all around it. But the actual understanding of a work of art only comes through the process by which it was created—and that was by perception.
The bit that reads: “Words can be used to place art historically, to set it in social context, to describe the movements, to relate it to other works, to state individual preferences, and to set the scene all around it.” - is pretty close to how I define Art. The notion that art can only be understood by visual perception (although we can infer from the quote, and that because he is a sculptor, that he would not object to including physical perception in there as well) strikes me as being far too elitist. Again, my argument is that the basis of his statement is grounded in an intellectual rationalization – perception - which, as we all know, is fluid - if not just downright abstract. He exhibits a bit of a double standard by claiming one abstract notion (words) is insufficient where another abstract notion (perception) will suffice. I can only resolve this discord by assuming he means that ONLY the creator – the artist – can understand his own work. I reject this idea primarily based on person experience and my personal belief that Art MUST serve a social function to be named Art. This social function can be as basic as “to be seen” or as grand expounding on some specific societal/political/psychological/etc. position. Art that exists exclusively for the maker may afford amazing individual revelations (that, in turn, may bleed into the communities surrounding the artist) – but, there is nothing to stop any viewer from having an equally valid “understanding” of a work of art as the creator. Can anyone disprove that the Art doesn’t reside – in part – with the viewer? Again, I believe in an inclusive model of Art.

Also on Smith - his quotes do not exclude the influence of word (text for the sake of argument) on the inception of his creations. What texts influenced him? Angered him into reaction? Inspired him to pick up a tool? Or told him how to use it?

Lastly, in quoting Smith – someone whose words/writing obviously embody some of Joe’s own beliefs – he underscores the connection we all can have with words. If words can’t inform an existing work of art, then they shouldn’t have the power influence our creative actions either. You can’t have it both ways – can you?

This is probably a good place to explain this quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesepaws View Post
I never listen to artists, they are far too selfish to know much about what they actually do (when they don’t just lie outright).
I know some of us discussed the notion of artist as liar a few months ago. I stand by my assertion that all artists tend to misrepresent their own work as well as their field in general. Part of this is the afore mentioned fluidity of perception – artist speak of what they perceive their process to be, which may not always correspond with fact, truth, or the perception of others. There is also a bit of theater in art – I (for example) change my titles and dates frequently. Likewise, when asked what my work is about I have given two different (and conflicting) answers on two different occasions - but both were correct at the time. It happens. We are often asked to definitively explain the intangibles of our processes before we have had time to understand exactly just what happened. (How many of us have looked at an old sculpture and finally understood what it is “about” or what we were trying to accomplish!?) We lie – not maliciously – but because we are asked for answers that don’t always exist. As such, I am VERY suspicious of artists speaking on their own work OR offering truisms they claim apply to all artists. Smith’s quote is great – but I don’t feel it applies to me. Therefore, I am either not and artist (which could probably be argued) or Smith’s quote is a lie (but perhaps true for him).

On the other hand, I tend to respect the writings of critics and historians. We can look back on Evaldart’s quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by evaldart View Post
Critics, historians, poets, novelists are SCRIBBLERS. They do not know anything about making Art (though the good ones can be entertaining), They are a creative sort, within the limits of little words (and some big ones) but they can't really help us all that much. Its easy enough to know what Michelangelo was about by looking at his work...its not very nice that some grasping academics would make things up and feed it to the gullible as fact or truth.
If you accept that Art is more than the creative act of an individual – that it includes how the object or experience is perceived by the viewer – then the critic/historian is every bit as informed about art as the maker. If the Art is only process – then everybody BUT the artist is excluded. That exclusion denies Art as the backbone of culture and humanity – and works in opposition to the very idea of history.

True enough, critics and historians art not artists. They rely on words to communicate ideas – but I find those ideas are every bit as creative and important as the Art they discuss. Many “scribblers” I have met (quite a few) are far more dedicated and obsessive at their craft than artists – and equally passionate about what and how they research and write. I highly value what they say – I wrestle with it, digest it and sometimes disagree with it – but I would never resign them as secondary (or worse) to the larger notions of what Art is or how it functions.

To claim “its easy enough to know what Michelangelo was about by looking at his work” strikes me as monumentally naive – since exposure to his work and Michelangelo’s very name – has been exclusively through those dedicated to preserving such work through the lens of historical (art historical) relevance. (Unless, of course, some of you old timers where around back then.) I would argue that, in fact, it is VERY difficult to know what Michelangelo was “about” without the tireless efforts of art historians who strive to connect his artifacts to today’s Art. Remember, I subscribe to the notion of Art having social relevance – the particular relevance of Michelangelo’s work is largely lost to the past. What we “know” as his Art is a reconstructed from the objects he left behind (sculptures, for example) and other bits of information gleaned by historians. Some of this information is broad - such as the political state or the role of religion in his day; others are specific – as in Michelangelo’s relationship with the Medici. Together – we get a sense of how this artifact functioned as Art. Without the historians - those who saw the significance of the work BEYOND the aesthetic - Michelangelo’s works might not have survived long enough for us to feel their influence – thus my statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesepaws View Post
Without the scribblers Michelangelo’s sculptures are just funny lookin’ rocks. History, criticism, theory, poetry - activates artifact (and artifice) and lifts it to the realm of art.
In retrospect – I see where what I wrote is a bit hyperbolic. My apologies. Even so – the idea of Art given relevance through history (as well as though its aesthetics) strikes me as pretty obvious. If you still disagree – please explain why you feel this would this cause any loss of artistic authorship or creative value?

I should add – I see the designation of artifact to be an amazingly elevated idea. I can only dream that some of my Art is relevant or valued enough to survive and become artifact and to be etched into the history of visual culture – if only for a bit. I get the sense that some think I am using “artifact” derogatorily or in opposition to Art - which is not the case. The artifact/art relationship is a function of art history – I am not suggesting that living artists simply animate artifact to make art or some similar thing.

Glenn, I hope this answers your question posed here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennT View Post
I like good writing just as much if not more than the next person (probably more), but I'm not confused about wherein does the power lay to raise artifact to art. That is the gift and the responsibility of the artist.
On the subject of Michelangelo - I am still waiting for you (or anyone) to tell me how we can distance Michelangelo’s David from the biblical character. Talk about the power of text in Art! Did ya’ll notice how many amazing classic works of Art draw from the scriptures for subject matter! Can you honestly tell me that David would have been sculpted without that referent! There is the connection between Art and words in a nutshell.

OK – that brings me to Grommets concern for my students (which is sweet). :

Quote:
Originally Posted by grommet View Post
I think in developing an artist (sort of like a science fair project?) that stimuli from many sources is essential as well, but unless you use that as a springboard to get them to think for themselves you're just cranking out cookie cutter artists. To develop their own voice that they believe in whole-heartedly is not bravado, it's survival.
This was in reference to my teaching sculpture through writing assignments and readings (in addition to tool demos and verbose lectures). I can assure you that the surest way to get students to think for themselves is NOT to show them too much. By this I mean, I avoid telling noobs to go look as so-n-so or show them too many slides of work or over-train them on technical processes (that all happens down the road) – otherwise all they do is copy. Real learning comes from experimentation and risk taking. Reading and writing assignments introduce students to all sorts of conceptual problems/relationships that require visual/spatial and uniquely individual solutions. Once they are thinking for themselves - I cut them loose. I suspect we are agreeing in this – with the exception of your final statement. I am concerned that you think (creative? professional?) survival has any place in the classroom. They “survive” or they don’t – it has little to do with what I teach – which is primarily abstract reasoning. Not everyone gets it and certainly those that are capable of it don’t all use it in the same way (or for Art at all). There should be no supposition that text-based projects or reading assignments are antithetical to teaching sculpture. It’s all relevant.

Lastly, Chris, you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris 71 View Post
my favorite part of the book is always the pictures just fill the book with pictures thats all. and then it is important
Looking at pictures can be amazingly rewarding (one of the main reasons I get Sculpture Magazine – such fantastic photos) but be careful of discounting the squiggly lines around the pictures or the collections of books with no pictures at all. There are amazing things in these volumes and wouldn’t you feel better discounting them after you have read them rather than not knowing what we are all ranting on about at all? If you like, I can mail you some readings…..

Thanks for letting me try to get some of my ideas out there. I doubt I have done a much better job of explaining myself. I'm sure there are still things I have written that some of you might disagree with or not really get. I will never claim to have al the answers or that my ideas are for everyone. I think the fact that we are having such an amazingly complex conversation around these topics is engaging, enlightened and fun.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-15-2008, 02:03 AM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesepaws View Post
I can only resolve this discord by assuming he means that ONLY the creator – the artist – can understand his own work. I reject this idea primarily based on person experience and my personal belief that Art MUST serve a social function to be named Art. This social function can be as basic as “to be seen” or as grand expounding on some specific societal/political/psychological/etc..
All good rationale Cheese except I'm curious about this. I think in a sense you make Matt's argument for him here. The social or "cultural" influences in any given work are then proportionally related to its acceleration toward artifact and away from art if the above is true. No one who hasn't read the bible and knows the story of David and Goliath would be able to relate to the narrative aspects of Michelangelo's David, yet they would still be able to appreciate the craft of his work and perhaps still view it as great art and not artifact. Without social function or an appreciation for social function then the bonifide abstractionist begins with artifact and with this notion (one based on logical conclusion following your own reasoning) I disagree. Still, I do tend to think that art must serve rather some myth in order to be called art, it's just that we're accelerating further and further away from old myths as a society and embracing new ones, less universal and more compartmentalized based upon clique.. Al Gorlioni and global warming come to mind and swaths of socially functioning polar bears et al.. (not to put down anyone's polar bears, I've made one myself..).

Last edited by StevenW : 12-15-2008 at 10:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-15-2008, 05:52 AM
Portoro Portoro is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 342
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

“From my perspective, the “scribblers” are the historians, critics, theorist, poets, novelists, etc. who have the capacity to inform what we artists create.” - Cheesepaws

This is correct. I also wonder of we can give up the use of ‘scribblers’ to refer to professional and entirely serious people (writers, ARTISTS, academics, historians, etc) who use verbal language. It sounds too like sheer prejudice to me.

A number of artists in this thread also seem to confuse ‘direct’ carving (get a piece of stone and see where it leads you) with sculpture in its wider sense, which often involves a lot of forethought, analysis, research and accumulated study, and can be narrative to boot. Of course, there are various sculptors who make a particular commitment to the intuitive approach. Personally, I would fear being set adrift like that – I like thought to be a part of the process, and I like to analyse the forms I make, either at the drawing-up stage or in retrospect. And that means some research at times, including reading art historians, and this has helped me refine my work and helped me dramatically improve my understanding of form.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-15-2008, 06:36 AM
chris 71's Avatar
chris 71 chris 71 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ont canada
Posts: 1,054
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

hi cheesepaws i think its cool you responded at bit to my one liner but i think if glenn had not qoeted me i would get no further thought or mention. which is cool and even a little hurmorus
i think i am like the special ed kid here that maybe through his fumblings trying to understand what you smartys are always talking about might on ocassion say something half ass smart or maybe just smart ass by accedent.
i have in all uhonesty never even read a book all the way through not cause i dont want to but just it would take me to long to interpert it properly.
but i bet i have read a few books worth of stuff here reading everyones post here. and the books worth of stuff i read here is really great because it is writtin by not just one person.
maybe i should try and explain what i ment with my one liner just in cause it might be of any importants here. maybe not. but anyways if you read a book writen by one person about a sculpture you are getting his views on what he is seeing but. it is only one view that maybe cant even be put into words that well. i know you are also getting the historical informatin too.
i think a picture can be worth more than a thousand words and the actually work in person well that is the most imporant. if i read a book on Michealangelo's David i know i would learn all kinds of cool stuff. but if i just looked at a picture of it i can see so much more than anyone yammering on about it can tell me. i think. and having made some sculpture myself lets me see so much more than the thousands of words that the picture is worth.
i am still trying to understand why it is so imporant to have it all writin about. other than to pass down the memeroy of it from the time it is from.
but to me the pictures say so much more so if it is imporant to put it in books for it to be quantified or worthy of being art or artifact i think the books filled with pictures might be better than the ones filled with words sometimes. maybe.. unless you need to learn how to do a emergency traciatoamy real fast but hey the pictures in a book about emergency tracanitaomy might help more than the words too anyways i dont know what the heck i am saying here just know how i feel if you read all my yammering well thanks it makes me feel good

Last edited by chris 71 : 12-15-2008 at 08:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-15-2008, 07:29 AM
cheesepaws's Avatar
cheesepaws cheesepaws is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,137
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Chris - you should give yourself a bit more credit. I like what you add to this conversation - every bit as important as any of our rantings. Writings on Art simply add to the conversation - take it or leave it - but I would hate for you to be missing out. Even so - this is for you:






Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-15-2008, 08:26 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

I think at the root of this discussion, the importance/place of words relative to art is a difference in individuals in the way they apprehend the world. Some folks I've noticed need words. They need labels and nouns to make sense of things--first. If they can't name it they can't make sense of it. Example,an extreme case. My brother who is married to an English prof., has a happy marriage because they both see the world primarily through words. I sent him to my favorite museum of N.W native culture. He hated it, and said so at some length, because there were no descriptive/explanatory labels. I'm the opposite. I need no words. The aesthetic factors trump everything. My brother and his wife, highly educated that they are, don't "get" art, its creation and expression. She even asked me once to explain the Beatles. Sure they can talk at great lengths about deep readings in books and all the stuff prof.s make up to earn their pay, but they don't understand creativity and how art is made. Instead of Smith again,I'll go at it from the ideas put forth by Sir Herbert Read: "the image always precedes the idea in the development of human consciousness." " The mind's growth is its expanding area of consciousness, and that area is made good, realized, and presented in enduring images, by a formative activity that is essentially aesthetic." Add equal amounts of Sir Herbert Read, Smith, Picasso, Eastern psychology and you'll "understand" half of where I come from. The important half though, is purely non verbal.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12-15-2008, 08:41 AM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Cheese, there are plenty of artists on this forum who make a couple bucks as educators. And we've all got our special way of doing that...and hopefully those teaching philosophies echo our individual passions and priorities as they relate to the REAL thing we do which is make sculpture.

Regarding the hierachies...of course sculpture is the best art form, and of course the lowers means of being creative should be put in there place. This does not mean that other Arts are not useful. I suspect that your are doling out credit to less relevent artforms simply because you have respect for some of those people doing those things. You dont want to diss them. Hey, yer a nice guy. I'm a nice guy too...and I even expect the poet, who I might be arguing with about Kafka or Jack Kirby, to presume his own superiority (I'd rather he did). But I find it a little timid and mal-convictioned to elevate ALL mediums to the level of YOUR OWN medium...out of "appreciation" or "respect".

I have undoubtedly been driven often in my creative life by things I have read. But I have been just as driven by any number of other past-times that get eaten-up along the way...in those "in-between" times when your charging up or bracing for the next explosion. An exceptionally odd subway trip can be as important in your life as "Ulysses". But a subway ride cannot ever be as important as your first day getting to know a new tool or process.

Please address everything I utter as you see fit. I would'nt have it any other way. I would rather, obviously, chatter at length with the cast here-in than any lame-assed think-tank pandering ridiculously to human "success".

I'll address some more of that ambitious post of yours later...whew,.

Last edited by evaldart : 12-15-2008 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-15-2008, 09:44 AM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

congrats on the new baby?
your own lengthy discourse supports my assertion:
Quote:
their own voice that they believe in whole-heartedly is not bravado, it's survival.
You believe whole-heartedly in your own PR. It is what you are selling to your students, and they are buying because of your rational-seeming argument and the strength of your convictions. it is your unique contribution and no different in its role than Evaldart's assertions for himself in its function. survival.
If you don't inspire a similar zeal in your students and the means to find their own voice you are doing them a disservice. They will be far less likely to be successful at this stuff. They may get a job and be successful, but they will not be a successful artist. And YES, I do think you owe it to them to give them the tools to be successful on some front. They either need the strength of their convictions and a belief in their skills, or be really good at making omelettes or something.
__________________
Taking my own advice
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-15-2008, 10:50 AM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

I think that a quick summary of my usual process of creating art will help add some perspective to this discussion.

I primarily do work on commission, which means that my work is already meant to integrate itself into a social, cultural, and sometimes historical context. I begin by doing research, which first involves talking with a client or committee and finding as many clues as possible as to what they are hoping to have accomplished by the art work. Then I go to the written word and photos of related works to learn about the social/cutural/historical context, as well as to see if there is anything I can learn from the mistakes or triumphs of past works of art.

Now, that I have done that preliminary work, comes the real important part. Having prepared my mind with an understanding of the task at hand, I meditate upon and open myself up to the source of my inspiration, which is God as individualized in His/Her relationship to me. This is a light that never fails, so it is a matter of my making the proper attunement.

Having recieved the inspiration, it is a matter of using my heart, mind, and body as a vessel to produce the work as best as those tools and my art-making tools allow. I am completely dedicated to the vision, but the process is open in that I am constantly learning as I go and looking for further inspiration along the way to clarify and improve the expression.

That being the case, all I can hope for from some present or future art historian is that they be inspired by the work and then use the tools of their craft, verbal language, to help lead others to a place where they too may respond to the work and receive an inspiration.

The inspiration is aready there, with or without the activity of the critic. The role of the critic at best is to lead someone else to appreciate it. At worst, the critic takes the role of the spoiler and diverts attention away from the inspiration with a thousand other silly distractions meant to debase the creation in order to elevate the intellect of the critic in the mind of the reader.

For an artist who works in a totally different manner than I, creating at whim without a specific social/cultural/historic reference, or who goes with no particular plan and attacks or shapes the material as instinct or inspiration guides them, there may be even less there of tangible substance for the critic to go with, and more creative latitude for their verbosity to take flight and create a drama about the work that may either acknowledge or supress the merits of the piece.

In either case, the art criticism at best will help guide the reader to open their mind and heart to the intention or inspiration of the artist, who may then benefit from all that the artist put into the artifact. Yet all of this is already there, and it is just as likely that a person with no knowledge of any literary associations with the artifact will be so moved in the presence of that artifact as to be transported to that space where the artist had hoped it would take them.

People are different and also have different learning styles, such as kinestetic, auditory, or visual. The literary arts are of great benefit to some but not all types of people. There are probably some people who would best benefit from a work of art by 5% exposure to the art, and 95% exposure to writings about the art. Same for the reverse proportions, and anywhere in between. The cave painters of 30,000 years ago most likely had 0% exposure to writings about their art, but seemed to have been able to appreciate it just fine. The stained glass of the great cathedrals of Europe were meant to speak for the illiterate, telling the entire story with pictures in glass with color, form, and light.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-15-2008, 11:24 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Well, again Glenn we are in agreement as you are restating most of what I just said . The biggest difference is that you meditate on God for the source of your inspirations, I meditate on something else. Of course that is a big difference even though we agree on so much.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-15-2008, 11:32 AM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Portoro View Post

A number of artists in this thread also seem to confuse ‘direct’ carving (get a piece of stone and see where it leads you) with sculpture in its wider sense, which often involves a lot of forethought, analysis, research and accumulated study, and can be narrative to boot. Of course, there are various sculptors who make a particular commitment to the intuitive approach. Personally, I would fear being set adrift like that .
Hmm,... Good post, but would you be set-adrift or set-free? That's the crux of the matter..

Milton was the Michelangelo of the scribblers and his two poems (essays really) L-Allegro and El Penseroso encapsulate this argument quite readily. L-Allegro, the happy and carefree man who devotes his life and talents to play and whimsy and El Penseroso, the studious and pensive man who must define everything in relation to some formal analysis and then act upon it. Each have their merits, yet neither is dominant nor a "better" approach in the grand scheme of things... Is one of Brancusi's direct carved works, simple in form any less important or valid than a carefully planned Rodin with all his maquettes, literary research and sketches? I would argue the latter moves more quickly toward "artifact" than the former with or without any derogitory element based solely upon it's social context, or "narrative"..

Direct carving also has another meaning, which is often overlooked and that is to say that the artist him or herself executed the work and this originally came about as a backlash toward the likes of Rodin from what I understand..

Last edited by StevenW : 12-15-2008 at 11:38 AM. Reason: superfluity..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-15-2008, 11:57 AM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jOe~ View Post
The biggest difference is that you meditate on God for the source of your inspirations, I meditate on something else.
I think that is a great idea for an art book title, or at least an exhibit;

" Inspired by God....or Something Else: Art of the 20th Century"
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-15-2008, 01:04 PM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

How about Art of the 20th century, all that and a bag of chips, and yeah, God if it floats your boat.
__________________
Taking my own advice
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-15-2008, 01:52 PM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
How about Art of the 20th century, all that and a bag of chips, and yeah, God if it floats your boat.
Glenn, duck! She is throwing her slippers at you!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-15-2008, 02:17 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jOe~ View Post
Glenn, duck! She is throwing her slippers at you!
False alarm. She already used her slippers for the body of her "crab from hell" sculpture!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-15-2008, 02:34 PM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: What's your intension as an artist?

Polarizing proclamationism and narcissustential exclusive singularism are part of the proper attire for discussions that involve super/trans/post/extra-human concerns such as Art and...the things that might be Art. If you haven't got enough confidence in your current positions in this area then how can you be at all confident in the unbegged and unbridled and needfully isolated activities that occur by the manifesting of your creativity. Theres no room for doubt in the "during"; but the "after", since its a new day and you might feel slightly changed, might well scrunch your nose and shake your head. So the newest confidence makes ajustments...or it moves-on to another thing...not necessarily caring about the work that yesterday's "other self" made. It is our job to be aware of these subtleties of change within ourselves, sense the momentum, sometimes ride it and sometimes wipe out. The most obvious "given" is that everyone is different...that doesnt need to be said. Interperception commerce is what we do here and with folks in general. Some of this can help us and some achieves nothing. But pay good attention to the "intra"perception goings-on...the YOU thats actually up-against it all. Those fleeting and quiet thoughts have got the goods. And, sadly enough, they control the gorilla.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert