PORTLAND SCULPTURE TRUST STONE CARVING WORKSHOPS 1998
p...@earthling.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTLAND SCULPTURE TRUST STONE CARVING WORKSHOPS 1998 Sea, sky and unlimited
stone - the Portland Sculpture Trust offers an international venue for
sculpture - the magical environment of Tout, Britain's first sculpture
quarry. Our courses are designed for all levels of experience, from beginner
to professional.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The courses - duration one, two or four weeks - run from 22 June until 11 Oct
1998. The cost is remarkably good value, and there is plenty of excellent
cheap accommodation on the island. You will be taught by tutors who have
specialised in sculpture, stone restoration and carving. For many people who
come to carve for the first time, the experience of working in the open air
workshops - surrounded by sea, sky and unlimited stone - has been a powerful
stimulus for the imagination, leading to the discovery of new forms within
their work. Work completed during previous courses has resulted in students
taking part in exhibitions, international sculpture events and symposia, and
has contributed to the development of their work in college, at BA, MA and
PhD level. COURSE DETAILS *** Short course program - one or two weeks
Achieve a finished piece of sculpture in this time The program includes - An
interpretation walk through Tout Quarry to view sculpture both carved and
constructed in the quarry landscape. - Selection of stone. Demonstrations of
carving tools and techniques. - Establishing ideas and starting points for
sculptural forms. - Individual tuition and development of carving skills. - A
slide lecture each week by tutors. - Informal discussion on what on what has
been achieved, and pointers for the future. - Eating out: Barbecue (weather
permitting), Abbotsbury oysters ... - Take home your finished piece. ***
Four week course program Discovering new sculptural forms This extends the
short course program to also include - Introduction to the Isle of Portland -
studying aspects of the environment; using drawing, photography, and
audio-visual techniques to explore, record and develop ideas for carving. -
Introduction to the quarrying process. Practical experience of splitting
stone. Direct carving of stone into sculptural form. - Industrial visit to
gain an understanding of how Portland stone is transformed into an
architectural product. - Weekly slide lecture: the heritage of stone across
cultures, contemporary artists' work in stone, sculpture in the landscape
and our built environment. *** New course in stone sculpture Linking the
knowledge and skills of Sculpture, Quarrying, Geology Many students have
found that the wealth of knowledge which links sculpture, quarrying and
geology is not available to them in an art school. This new course will offer
the experience of following the quarrying process - where the stone is
removed directly from the rock face - to the carving of completed works. It
will begin in 1999 - duration 2 to 12 months. COURSE DATES Fully booked
weeks are indicated by -- *** Short courses (one or two weeks) June July Aug
Sept Oct 22 06 03 07 05 29 13 10 14 20 17 21 -- 24 28 31
*** Four week courses June July Aug Sept 22 20 17 14 COURSE FEES
Currency: British Pounds sterling Standard Students & Unemployed 1 week
£190 £135 2nd week £150 £100 4 week £600 £400 The cost of the workshop
includes - qualified tuition - use of tools - provision of Portland stone
(which you keep) - open air studio space with weather cover Tool boxes with
a complete set of carving tools will be available for sale to students at the
end of their course. The cost does not include - travel - medical insurance
- accommodation The Portland Sculpture Trust is covered for Public Liability
and Employer's Liability Insurance. HOW TO CONTACT US Coordinator
Hannah Sofaer MA (RCA) Address 31 Easton Square Portland Dorset DT5
1BU UK Phone/Fax (44) 01305 826 736 London Phone (44) 0181 341 6742
Email p...@earthling.net WWW http://come.to/pst
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Lucy Marks
I know we've already heard this, but I am completley insulted to be a
member of this newsgroup. It is highly infested with 'Get rich quick
schemes' and 'fuck me up the ass quick' note, which frankly aren't worth
the space they take up. If people were interested in those subjects I'm
sure they'd post to them. I am also positive that I am talking to a
blank wall, as it is not as if these people that post ever pay attention
to whatever site they may post to.
Hmm. Guess I'm contributing to the trash i'm winging about by making the
effort to complain and give it the time it certainly does not diserve.
Anyway, to the point I really wanted to make; anyone have any decent
conversation topics or debates?
It's quite hard nowaday's to find anyone who is not completely obsessed
by commodities and getting rich quickly, even if it means selling out
and wasting away. I'm seeing a really miserable out look on life, and
wondering if we have somehow grasped the wrong idea of success and
happiness. I am striving towards a goal that lies in the distant future
but for what reason I am not sure and am unknown to what I hope to
achieve out of it.
Our personal opinions are framed on what we experience; whether that be
due to peers telling us what to do, friends advising our actions and our
immediate environment; what I'm wondering is how much of 'our' opinions
are actually framed on our basic, human instinct/ drive? our basic gene
pattern? Does the instinctive actions increase when we are in an
environment that is barren of other persons? and if so would this be a
step back or a step forward in evolution?
Anyway, sorry for the mindless rambings, it is late and my mind is
running on overdrive at present, it has a habit of going for little
walks. Well I suppose at least I'm not waffling about $GET RICH
QUICK!!$. Hmm.
Night all
Lucy Marks.
Andrew Werby
In article <fdfOvBAR...@marksr.demon.co.uk>, Lucy Marks
<lu...@marksr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I know we've already heard this, but I am completley insulted to be a
> member of this newsgroup.
[Since you cross-posted this to 4 different groups, it's hard to tell which one
you are referring to. Alt.sculpture seems to have been fortunate, perhaps by
being so obscure and unfrequented, in avoiding the majority of the spam
postings
you object to- maybe you should hang around here more, or cultivate a thicker
skin.]
It is highly infested with 'Get rich quick
> schemes' and 'fuck me up the ass quick' note, which frankly aren't worth
> the space they take up. If people were interested in those subjects I'm
> sure they'd post to them. I am also positive that I am talking to a
> blank wall, as it is not as if these people that post ever pay attention
> to whatever site they may post to.
>
> Hmm. Guess I'm contributing to the trash i'm winging about by making the
> effort to complain and give it the time it certainly does not diserve.
[Yes, so?]
>
> Anyway, to the point I really wanted to make; anyone have any decent
> conversation topics or debates?
[What do you mean by "decent"? Conversation here has mostly focused on
technique, but no sculpture-related topic is out of bounds- even
indecency in sculpture.]
> It's quite hard nowaday's to find anyone who is not completely obsessed
> by commodities and getting rich quickly, even if it means selling out
> and wasting away. I'm seeing a really miserable out look on life, and
> wondering if we have somehow grasped the wrong idea of success and
> happiness.
["We"? Are you including yourself?]
I am striving towards a goal that lies in the distant future
> but for what reason I am not sure and am unknown to what I hope to
> achieve out of it.
[What goal would that be?]
>
> Our personal opinions are framed on what we experience; whether that be
> due to peers telling us what to do, friends advising our actions and our
> immediate environment; what I'm wondering is how much of 'our' opinions
> are actually framed on our basic, human instinct/ drive? our basic gene
> pattern? Does the instinctive actions increase when we are in an
> environment that is barren of other persons? and if so would this be a
> step back or a step forward in evolution?
[Which way do you want to go? By listening to your friends, are you becoming
more ape-like? Does this bother you? Are simian friends better than no friends
at all? If you can't talk about art with your friends, you can still do it
here, and promote the evolution of the Uber-Brain...]
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
Useful Resources, Technical Tips, and Art in Various Media
Mars...@juno.com
Drewid, darling...
What a perfectly non-responsive, almost hostile-sounding response you gave
poor Lucy for her trouble! It sounded as if you were, for some reason,
OFFENDED by her asking that people do more than use the boards just try to
sell each other "things" (whatever those "things" may be: themselves, their
arts, or their female relatives ("Come meet my mother - she good, she
cherry!"). Judging from your apparent association with things sculptural,
perhaps you first saw her posting in alt.sculpture and took her posting to
all-and-sundry alt.arts groups to mean she was finding fault with the
art.sculpture group as a whole, sculptors in general, and YOU in personal
particular by association? I don't think that is what she was doing, I think
she was just trying to reach as wide an audience within her areas of interest
as she could. No sin in cross-posting. Don't get your panties in a twist
over it. Thick skin, Drewid, thick skin!
And no sin in her saying that she would prefer if boards that are supposedly
devoted to a certain subject actually, occasionally, touch on that subject in
more than a "grab for the golden ring" manner. I completely agree with her;
it is absolutely frustrating to keep tuning in to these art boards looking
for artists and only finding opportunists and hucksters and pimps. I'm NOT
saying there's anything wrong with artists trying to sell their arts, and
there's nothing wrong with people looking for info and materials, etc., so
don't try to make out that I'm saying only people who want to talk about high-
fallutin' "aht" should post... BUT, where's the DISCUSSION that's supposed to
be going on in these boards? That, I believe, was Lucy's question - and
mine, too. I know, for myself, that I have a hard time thinking of anything
to discuss with other artists (or anyone else, for that matter, artists are,
necessarily, a STRANGE, kind of in-bred, breed, communicating through clicks
and whistles and strange, secret hand-gestures), but surely there MUST be
something other than technically-oriented info to exchange when two artists
go bump in the night?
As for Lucy's questions about living in this particular corner of the
universe at this time: I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you were
getting at, Lucy, so I can't think of anything intelligent to say in
response. Can you be more clear as to where, exactly, you want to go with
your line of thinking? All I can say on what little I understood of your
concerns is that, for myself, at least, I would very much like "success", but
I want it on my own terms, in my own time. But I'm not certain that this is
not the way it stands with you or Drewid or any other artist. I'm not
certain that, just because you see a lot of people using the boards to place
ads for themselves means that they are, somehow, selling out. If that IS
what you were saying. I am not sure. Inform me, please.
In any case, I'm interested to hear what you have to say, Lucy. And Drewid,
too, if he can unwrap himself from the thick skin he has developed for all
postings non-sequitor to the purpose of these-here art-related boards.
Say cheese :)
Mars
In article <drewid-2504...@coatppp6.lanminds.com>,
Andrew Werby
> Drewid, darling...
>
> What a perfectly non-responsive, almost hostile-sounding response you gave
> poor Lucy for her trouble!
[Gee, that was me being friendly! (You should see me being hostile-
and this isn't it either.) She was the one who started off with "I'm
insulted to be a member of this newsgroup." I thought I responded
to everything that she had to say; all that I could decipher, anyway.]
It sounded as if you were, for some reason,
> OFFENDED by her asking that people do more than use the boards just try to
> sell each other "things" (whatever those "things" may be: themselves, their
> arts, or their female relatives ("Come meet my mother - she good, she
> cherry!"). Judging from your apparent association with things sculptural,
> perhaps you first saw her posting in alt.sculpture and took her posting to
> all-and-sundry alt.arts groups to mean she was finding fault with the
> art.sculpture group as a whole, sculptors in general, and YOU in personal
> particular by association? I don't think that is what she was doing, I think
> she was just trying to reach as wide an audience within her areas of interest
> as she could. No sin in cross-posting. Don't get your panties in a twist
> over it. Thick skin, Drewid, thick skin!
[If my skin were any thicker I'd be entirely solid. But I will confess
to a certain impatience with postings that confine themselves to
complaints about lack of discussion in these newsgroups, without putting
forward any topic for discussion themselves. This can go on and on, and
is no more productive, or less of a waste of time and bandwidth, than the
spam you both object to.]
>
> And no sin in her saying that she would prefer if boards that are supposedly
> devoted to a certain subject actually, occasionally, touch on that subject in
> more than a "grab for the golden ring" manner. I completely agree with her;
> it is absolutely frustrating to keep tuning in to these art boards looking
> for artists and only finding opportunists and hucksters and pimps. I'm NOT
> saying there's anything wrong with artists trying to sell their arts, and
> there's nothing wrong with people looking for info and materials, etc., so
> don't try to make out that I'm saying only people who want to talk about high-
> fallutin' "aht" should post... BUT, where's the DISCUSSION that's supposed to
> be going on in these boards? That, I believe, was Lucy's question - and
> mine, too. I know, for myself, that I have a hard time thinking of anything
> to discuss with other artists (or anyone else, for that matter, artists are,
> necessarily, a STRANGE, kind of in-bred, breed, communicating through clicks
> and whistles and strange, secret hand-gestures), but surely there MUST be
> something other than technically-oriented info to exchange when two artists
> go bump in the night?
[So instead of asking me where the discussion is, would it be too much
to ask for you to actually discuss something? If there is something besides
technical matters you want to talk about- What is it? This is a place where
if you want something to happen you can make it happen; but whining
because it isn't happening doesn't accomplish anything.]
> As for Lucy's questions about living in this particular corner of the
> universe at this time: I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you were
> getting at, Lucy, so I can't think of anything intelligent to say in
> response. Can you be more clear as to where, exactly, you want to go with
> your line of thinking? All I can say on what little I understood of your
> concerns is that, for myself, at least, I would very much like "success", but
> I want it on my own terms, in my own time. But I'm not certain that this is
> not the way it stands with you or Drewid or any other artist. I'm not
> certain that, just because you see a lot of people using the boards to place
> ads for themselves means that they are, somehow, selling out. If that IS
> what you were saying. I am not sure. Inform me, please.
>
> In any case, I'm interested to hear what you have to say, Lucy. And Drewid,
> too, if he can unwrap himself from the thick skin he has developed for all
> postings non-sequitor to the purpose of these-here art-related boards.
>
> Say cheese :)
>
> Mars
[I'll say "cheese" if you'll say "Andrew". Drewid is my e-mail address,
not my pseudonym.]
Jonathan Clift
Lucy Marks wrote
>
>
>I know we've already heard this, but I am completley insulted to be a
>schemes' and 'fuck me up the ass quick' note, which frankly aren't worth
>the space they take up. If people were interested in those subjects I'm
>sure they'd post to them. I am also positive that I am talking to a
>blank wall, as it is not as if these people that post ever pay attention
>to whatever site they may post to.
>
There seems to have been a spate of such postings (on alt.sculpture) in
the last couple of weeks. I don't like them either but, as you say,
there's little you can do about it unless you can identify, and complain
to, the ISP that they have posted through, and that's not easy with
headers being forged. Curiously, there seem to be less of the sex ones
on rec.arts.fine though it has its fair share of the "get rich quick"
ones. Maybe someone kills them before they get to us. Does anyone know
how killing posts works and who is allowed to do it?
>Hmm. Guess I'm contributing to the trash i'm winging about by making the
>effort to complain and give it the time it certainly does not diserve.
>
>Anyway, to the point I really wanted to make; anyone have any decent
>conversation topics or debates?
You're asking us? We were hoping you'd have something you wanted to talk
about!
>It's quite hard nowaday's to find anyone who is not completely obsessed
>by commodities and getting rich quickly, even if it means selling out
>and wasting away. I'm seeing a really miserable out look on life, and
>wondering if we have somehow grasped the wrong idea of success and
>happiness. I am striving towards a goal that lies in the distant future
>but for what reason I am not sure and am unknown to what I hope to
>achieve out of it.
>
Are you talking specifically about artists here, or society in general?
I don't know many people who are obsessed by commodities and getting
rich quick. The only two I can think of, off hand, I work for! Maybe
that's just the people I mix with. Are you based in a city? Or perhaps
this is an age thing. I'm middle-aged so I grew up pre-Thatcher, as did
most of the people I associate with. Are you perhaps talking about young
people?
In what way are you striving? Is this about the art that you do and/or
how you do it? I'm only an amateur, and work to fund what I do. I've
never sold anything, nor have I tried to, but the validation that would
come from people being interested enough to buy my work I think is real.
And, if someone wanted to give me a lot of money for a work I wouldn't
say no. Whether or not that would change me, and the art I do, I don't
know. I would hope not, but you don't know until it happens. How about
an experiment... you pop a million pounds in an envelope and send it to
me and I'll tell you whether getting rich quick changes my art!!
I don't think happiness is an idea that you grasp. It's an innate
quality that people have. A state of mind. It's possible to be filthy
rich and happy, or dirt poor and equally happy. Being rich just removes
some of the worries that might make you unhappy (or so I imagine).
>Our personal opinions are framed on what we experience; whether that be
>due to peers telling us what to do, friends advising our actions and our
>immediate environment; what I'm wondering is how much of 'our' opinions
>are actually framed on our basic, human instinct/ drive? our basic gene
>pattern? Does the instinctive actions increase when we are in an
>environment that is barren of other persons? and if so would this be a
>step back or a step forward in evolution?
>
I think if you were in an environment totally devoid of other people
that it would dull you to the point where you no longer bothered to
create art.
>Anyway, sorry for the mindless rambings, it is late and my mind is
>running on overdrive at present, it has a habit of going for little
>walks. Well I suppose at least I'm not waffling about $GET RICH
>QUICK!!$. Hmm.
>
>Night all
>
>Lucy Marks.
>
>
>
--
Jonathan Clift
http://www.ipsart.demon.co.uk
Mars...@juno.com
Andrew,
Sorry I didn't use your real name, but 1) I think "Drewid" is kinda' cute
and, 2) I didn't want to get too PERSONAL right away. (Well, that's my
story, and I'm sticking with it - until the glossies come back from the lab!)
You are, of course, quite right - it's got to be tiresome to hear people
bitchin' and moanin' about not having discussions when they could easily
start one themselves. I'm afraid I haven't seen many of those people (the
bitchin' and moanin' ones, that is) - Lucy's was my first in that vein of
thought (not that I am saying you were bitchin' and moanin', Lucy!). I
assume you've seen many. And I get your point that it would be much more
productive for someone to light a candle instead of cussin' in the darkness,
BUT... as I said, artists are a strange breed (at least, the kind I am);
communication is not an easy "task" and, most of the time it's very difficult
to put one's finger on exactly what one wants to say. You don't have a
specific subject you want to discuss, you just kinda' want to talk to another
artist about... whatever. Then let the subjects fall where they may. I
don't know if that was Lucy's point, but it is mine. I certainly wish it
were all as easy as just running something up the flagpole and responding to
those who salute, but even when one DOES that, it's a crap shoot as to what
kind of response you get. Mostly, in my, admittedly, limited, experience,
it's generally people who haven't really bothered to read your post but are
just reacting to a word or a phrase in the header - mouth foaming, eyes
rolling, fingers twitching, searching for a keyboard to pound, the spirit
MOVES them to send you runic nonsense. Then you're back to square one,
trying to figure out how to make a connection with something resembling an
intelligent lifeform out THERE (guess it's becoming clearer why the
MarsWoman?)
Maybe it is easier for sculptors? Possibly a more "concrete" approach to the
world - you know what you want to say and just say it? But does that also
preclude discussion of a vaguer kind? Hmmmm.
'Nuff outta' me for now...
MarsWoman
- Visiting from the Home Office -
In article <drewid-2604...@caulk-ppp40.lanminds.com>,
Ansell
> > >Mars...@juno.com wrote in article
<6i0g5u$v06$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<snip stuff about spammers>
G'day all. I agree that the spam is an irritant - I think of them as
`cybermozzies' and keep hoping that the council will start fogging before
they reach plague proportions.
However, it would be a great shame if the presence of the nuisances were
to make
it difficult for folk here to discuss art simply because they'd fallen out
over spammers! Art is indeed about irony, but there's enough grist for that
mill around already without us adding to the pile. We can I think
short-circuit this situation by picking up on the one thing that all agree
on: the need for further enjoyable conversation about art
To this end I offer conversation on the following topics, or any
variations...
1. Art in the primary school. I list this topic first because I teach art
at primary school level and I should state my perspective early. I'd be
most interested to hear opinions and argument on the trend to `squeeze out'
art instruction as the pressure on what has to be done in the classroom
grows. Here the issue divides neatly into the `development/preparation'
dichotomy of education: art as the development of a very natural human
capacity and art as preparation for earning a living. What do people think
will be the art skills requirements of the advertising industry, in
animation and illustration in ten to fifteen years? Will it all be
computer generated?
2. The distinction between art and illustration. My position here is that
an illustration is what you get when there is no `subtext'. The most
refined form of subtext is the metaphor and I define art in terms of an
exploration of the metaphor.
3. The logic of art. If it be the case that art is one of the many ways
that we communicate with one another, then what sort of truth-value can we
give to an artistic `proposition'? What makes a metaphor work?
4. The role of irony in art.
5. Chalk Mona Lisas on the pavements outside the Louvre - are they copies?
Does the way that the technical brilliance of their execution interacts
with the Paris rain lift them from being mere copies to being a form of
perfomance art?
6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the work
is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
7. What about the garden gnome?
Regards,
Ansell.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
In article <01bd7256$e6687040$LocalHost@pbcustomer>,
"Ansell" <Ans...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <drewid-2604...@caulk-ppp40.lanminds.com>,
> > dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> on: the need for further enjoyable conversation about art
>
> To this end I offer conversation on the following topics, or any
> variations...
> 3. The logic of art. If it be the case that art is one of the many ways
> that we communicate with one another, then what sort of truth-value can we
> give to an artistic `proposition'? What makes a metaphor work?
Logic has a very narrow and abstract scope. Life, or communication, is not
black and white. We do communicate encouragement, assuarance, inspiration,
sorrow and joy. Especially in art.
> 6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
> progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the work
> is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
> in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
As a teacher, you have to consider how a student's work relates to her/his
intentions. As a student I am interested how I succeed to express what I
wanted.
As a gallery visitor I usually reserve me the right to 'interprete' or rather
not. Very often a verbal supplement of the artist disturbs me, sometimes it
reveals the failure of the achievement. OTOH a historical note may put a
work in a contex that makes it easier to understand.
Another question: Are the critics, museum curators, art historicians more
priviledged? Both in literature and visual art critics, I sense a lot of
over-interpretation.
> 7. What about the garden gnome?
... or any other use of art/design object. A good garden gnome might be an
inspiring sight. Or an off the shelf variant may give an accent to the
surroundings.
When I choose something to my living room, the 'artistic' quality is
important, but the main criteria is how it fits in the interior.
- lauri
Mars...@juno.com
<6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the work
is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance in
I don't know about all the rest of your questions/propositions - all that
philosophical theorizing sounds like Tagalog to MOI. However, re: item #6… I
disagree entirely. Art being such a personal matter, it isn't for anyone but
the artist him/herself to say what the work is all about, whether or not it
is successful in achieving its stated (or apparent) intentions. In the same
vein, when all is said and done, it isn't for anyone but the viewer,
him/herself to say what the artwork being viewed is all about, whether or not
it is successful in achieving its stated, or apparent, intentions. It
depends entirely upon what the artist intended and what the viewer needs to
think was intended. Whether the artist likes it or not, whether the viewer
likes it or not. Art is a subjective mattter - LIFE is a subjective matter.
Artists and viewers alike can - and will, and DO, always - draw their own
conclusions, and interpret what they see as they choose, as they need to,
depending upon where their gray matter is AT at the moment. Artists will
create works which either satisfy them or don't; viewers will see works which
either satisfy them or don't, and sometimes there will be a meeting of the
minds and sometimes there will simply be a street-corner brawl. In my own,
personal, experience I have had someone look at a piece of mine which depicts
a person with their back ripped open and another person inside peering out
between the ribs and say - "Wow! Spina Bifuda!" Now, depicting a tragic
birth defect was most certainly NOT my intention, but this was, obviously -
don't even ASK for what reason, the person was heavily medicated at the time
- on the mind of this person and that is what this person wanted/needed to
see at that moment and that is what they saw. I, myself, also recall
absolutely LOVING a piece by Boccioni, I think, called "The City Rises" - I'd
go to the museum regularly to stare at the small, colorful pointillistic
depiction of a bucking horse on a city street being overwhelmed by what
appeared to be a tsunami. Years later I paid a visit to the museum to renew
my acquaintance with this piece and - lo and behold - there was, indeed,
still a horse on a city street, but there were also a lot of OTHER images in
the piece which I'd missed the first thousand times and, ultimately, I
realized the piece was not about life and death and all that jazz, but was
really some kind of 1930's pro-socialist/communist statement. I was too
young and uninformed about history, etc., to know what I was looking at all
the years I had been admiring the piece I thought was showing a horse in
quite a predicament. A let-down, to say the least. Had I been informed of the
artist's political leanings/intentions, I would have seen what I was ACTUALLY
looking at, not just at what I needed to see at the time, and I wouldn't have
wasted my time on what is now, to me, not even a mildly interesting piece of
art. And I expect my Spina Bifuda friend might not have been so "Wow!" had I
actually sat her down and told her to FOCUS, m'dere, FOCUS. So, my point is,
the viewer does a great dis-service to the "art" itself by ignoring what the
artist has to say about his/her own work - and the viewer will probably keep
on doing it anyway, because that is just how the human mind works. It wants
what it wants the way it wants it. As for titles, from my own, personal,
experience: titles, frequently, are PART of the artwork; without them the
viewer would be left standing bug-eyed with their finger up their nose to the
fifth joint. Once they hear the title, however, then the method to the
madness becomes apparent... and they can, then, wander off going "yeah, SO?"
<7. What about the garden gnome?>
Re: the garden gnome - is it art, do you mean? Well, as with the above-
question: well, it may not be to the City Gnome, but it's art to SOMEONE.
Mars
In article <01bd7256$e6687040$LocalHost@pbcustomer>,
"Ansell" <Ans...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <drewid-2604...@caulk-ppp40.lanminds.com>,
> > dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > In article <6htvb4$5g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Mars...@juno.com wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >Mars...@juno.com wrote in article
>
> <6i0g5u$v06$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> <snip stuff about spammers>
>
> G'day all. I agree that the spam is an irritant - I think of them as
> `cybermozzies' and keep hoping that the council will start fogging before
> they reach plague proportions.
> However, it would be a great shame if the presence of the nuisances were
> to make
> it difficult for folk here to discuss art simply because they'd fallen out
> over spammers! Art is indeed about irony, but there's enough grist for that
> mill around already without us adding to the pile. We can I think
> short-circuit this situation by picking up on the one thing that all agree
> on: the need for further enjoyable conversation about art
>
> To this end I offer conversation on the following topics, or any
> variations...
>
> 1. Art in the primary school. I list this topic first because I teach art
> at primary school level and I should state my perspective early. I'd be
> most interested to hear opinions and argument on the trend to `squeeze out'
> art instruction as the pressure on what has to be done in the classroom
> grows. Here the issue divides neatly into the `development/preparation'
> dichotomy of education: art as the development of a very natural human
> capacity and art as preparation for earning a living. What do people think
> will be the art skills requirements of the advertising industry, in
> animation and illustration in ten to fifteen years? Will it all be
> computer generated?
>
> 2. The distinction between art and illustration. My position here is that
> an illustration is what you get when there is no `subtext'. The most
> refined form of subtext is the metaphor and I define art in terms of an
> exploration of the metaphor.
>
> 3. The logic of art. If it be the case that art is one of the many ways
> that we communicate with one another, then what sort of truth-value can we
> give to an artistic `proposition'? What makes a metaphor work?
>
> 4. The role of irony in art.
>
> 5. Chalk Mona Lisas on the pavements outside the Louvre - are they copies?
> Does the way that the technical brilliance of their execution interacts
> with the Paris rain lift them from being mere copies to being a form of
> perfomance art?
>
> 6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
> progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the work
> is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
> in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
>
> 7. What about the garden gnome?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ansell.
Lucy Marks
Andrew,
I apologise for insulting the the newsgroup, but I feel that when a site
like this has the potential to be really great, why not provoke some
more feeling and thought into it, ( and I'm getting defensive now: not
that I'm saying that there isn't any thought and feeling in already. :)
). My main point being that the spaming and porn litter promblem
wouldn't be so harsh if the actual newsthreads out numbered the litter
for once.
As for cross posting; I wasn't aware that I had. I'm not sure if i get
the other two or not, I suppose it depends on whether they all come up
together on one screen, because if they don't I'm only getting
alt.art.colleges.
> But I will confess
>to a certain impatience with postings that confine themselves to
> complaints about lack of discussion in these newsgroups, without putting
> forward any topic for discussion themselves. This can go on and on, and
> is no more productive, or less of a waste of time and bandwidth, than the
> spam you both object to.
I throughly agree with this point, but it's a vicious circle, and quite
hard to ignore. This is a sad attempt at an excuse, but.. ; this is the
first time i have winged; it's not like a make a habit of it. However by
winging at me complaining, you in an in-direct way are also contributing
to the moaning. Ha.
:)
MarsWoman,
Thanks for supporting some of my arguments. It's nice to share a wave
length, once in a while.
>> > What a perfectly non-responsive, almost hostile-sounding response you gave
>> > poor Lucy for her trouble!
>>
>> > As for Lucy's questions about living in this particular corner of the
>> > universe at this time: I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you were
>> > getting at, Lucy, so I can't think of anything intelligent to say in
>> > response. Can you be more clear as to where, exactly, you want to go with
>> > your line of thinking?
Sorry about meaning of life thing, by mind has a thing about going off
on tangents, I'm not very good at explaining them. It's sort of a sub-
consious thought pattern, a bit like explaining a dream, it made sense
at the time, but trying to recall the exact moments is vertually
imposible. Especially if your trying to record them.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
And now if Andy you'll let me, we can put an end to this argument and
begin a crusade of postings with intellectually stimulating and art
related topics.
:)
Lots of hugs and kisses
Lucy marks
Lucy Marks
>
>1. Art in the primary school. I list this topic first because I teach art
>at primary school level and I should state my perspective early. I'd be
>most interested to hear opinions and argument on the trend to `squeeze out'
>art instruction as the pressure on what has to be done in the classroom
>grows. Here the issue divides neatly into the `development/preparation'
>dichotomy of education: art as the development of a very natural human
>capacity and art as preparation for earning a living. What do people think
>will be the art skills requirements of the advertising industry, in
>animation and illustration in ten to fifteen years? Will it all be
>computer generated?
I am extremely concerned about art in the primary school, and other
forms of compulsary education. I was fortunate enough to miss out the
large part of the national curriculum and the structured grading system
used in schools nationwide now.
I say this because; until I reached A-level, Art was about doing
something creative because you want to, for whatever reason, be this to
influence others or to satisfy my personal need to draw or sculpt etc.
The change in structure I noticed when moving to A-level was phenomenal.
To start with the whole class had to do exactly the same, using the same
materials; it started with colour wheels and 'let's identify our primary
colours, secondary colours and colour opposites,' I mean how insulting
is that to a reasonably intelligent set of 16 year olds; most people
take that sort of thing as common sense, or at least learn it at an
early age. Everyone is judged at the same level. The work done generally
contains; a series of still lifes, continuing to details and patterns
and then a final piece to some it all up. Fortunatly in my second year I
was able to twist the structuring of the project: Thus forming a
compromise involving the way I like to work and how the examing board
want me to work, so that I was still able to attain a decent grade.
Now, I'm not saying that all development/preparation/curriculum/
objectives thing is bad, it is not for me to pass judgement on, as that
was not the way I was brought up. My main concern is by pushing children
to meet other peoples standards, their personal perspective on sucess
and failure may metamorphesis into a concern on whether they got the
grade or not.
A question I would like to pose is: Do we need grades in art?
>
>2. The distinction between art and illustration. My position here is that
>an illustration is what you get when there is no `subtext'. The most
>refined form of subtext is the metaphor and I define art in terms of an
>exploration of the metaphor.
>
>3. The logic of art. If it be the case that art is one of the many ways
>that we communicate with one another, then what sort of truth-value can we
>give to an artistic `proposition'? What makes a metaphor work?
>
>4. The role of irony in art.
>
>5. Chalk Mona Lisas on the pavements outside the Louvre - are they copies?
>Does the way that the technical brilliance of their execution interacts
>with the Paris rain lift them from being mere copies to being a form of
>perfomance art?
>
>6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
>progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the work
>is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
>in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
>
>7. What about the garden gnome?
I'll come to the other questions later.
:)
Lucy Marks
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____
Mike Stanger
You bring up some good questions. I believe there is a general dumbing
down of art classes nationally, just like there is in every other area
of public schooling. I don't think that art students necessarily have a
lot of the necessary fundamentals- color theory, for example, that were
once commonly taught. It may be necessary these days to teach art with
the attitude of taking nothing for granted. Along this line, I suspect
that a lot of drawing and painting fundamentals that were once taught
early on are being neglected, too, especially in computerized
classrooms.
I sure agree about grading, and there may well be an overstructuring of
the student's work---goes hand in hand with the dumbing down thing. Kids
shouldn't have to meet others standards, but basic standards in artistic
competancy need to be kept and maintained.
6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the
work is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no
significance in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
I agree. Any art that survives the creator stands by itself, and the
artist's intent and concept, whatever it is or however clearly it was
expressed will be lost or changed by time and later generations of
viewers. Too much art today is over conceptualized. What's high concept
today may well be bad art tomorrow. Who can say what Manet or Fra
Angelico intended? They sure can't now...
Andrew Werby
In article <01bd7256$e6687040$LocalHost@pbcustomer>, "Ansell"
<Ans...@bigpond.com> wrote:
I offer conversation on the following topics, or any
> variations...
[My gosh- somebody actually wants to discuss art! I'm so thrilled, I will
attempt to answer some of these questions...]
>
> 1. Art in the primary school. I list this topic first because I teach art
> at primary school level and I should state my perspective early. I'd be
> most interested to hear opinions and argument on the trend to `squeeze out'
> art instruction as the pressure on what has to be done in the classroom
> grows.
[I'm not sure where you are writing from, but here in California it has
been almost entirely "squeezed out" already. A generation of children have
grown up without any way of expressing themselves in visual terms, and the
results aren't pretty. As the focus has shifted relentlessly towards
instruction in which the students have absolutely no interest of their
own, "educators" have had to scramble to revise test scoring downwards, so
as to conceal a precipitous decline in academic performance. Their only
remedy to date has been to pile on more "busywork", the result-
predictably enough- being ever more alienation. They don't seem to have
grasped the fact that learning is a by-product of interested independant
enquiry, and consider it to be an ever-expanding mass of facts that must
be force-fed to their increasingly unwilling victims. While this works
with some people, some of the time, it shortsightedly selects a narrow
range of talents and intelligence for development, (much like the livers
of the unfortunate Strasbourg geese), while neglecting the much larger set
of possibilities inherent in the human beings they have in their power.]
Here the issue divides neatly into the `development/preparation'
> dichotomy of education: art as the development of a very natural human
> capacity and art as preparation for earning a living.
[Very few people earn a living as mathematicians, essayists, historians,
geographers, or literary critics. But there used to be a consensus that
some grounding in these subjects- as well as in the arts- was necessary to
the development of a "well-rounded" person. This model seems to be losing
out in favor of the production of legions of narrowly focused technocrats.
One might question how many of these are actually necessary or even
desirable to have around, but nobody seems to be thinking very far ahead
here.]
What do people think
> will be the art skills requirements of the advertising industry, in
> animation and illustration in ten to fifteen years? Will it all be
> computer generated?
[I think the skills of lawyers, engineers, and doctors are starting to be
encapsulated in computer programs already, and the process has barely
started. I doubt the mass of middle managers will be any more necessary in
the future than counting-house clerks, which is what our educational
system is still geared to produce. Computers have become an increasingly
powerful tool in the hands of artists, but the machines don't produce art
on their own. The production and consumption of "art", in which category
I'd include advertising, movies, TV, and music, as well as the more
traditional forms, has become a major part of the US economy, and is only
going to get larger. But schools seem to spend most of their efforts in
squelching creative expression whenever it crops up- even (or especially)
in advanced art classes.]
>
> 2. The distinction between art and illustration. My position here is that
> an illustration is what you get when there is no `subtext'. The most
> refined form of subtext is the metaphor and I define art in terms of an
> exploration of the metaphor.
[I'd say this is an artificial distinction. There is a lot of art that
doesn't have anything to do with metaphor (some of the best, in my
opinion) and a lot of illustration that devotes itself to metaphorical
exploration. I think your use of the word is just a way of saying "art I
find shallow."]
>
> 3. The logic of art. If it be the case that art is one of the many ways
> that we communicate with one another, then what sort of truth-value can we
> give to an artistic `proposition'? What makes a metaphor work?
[You're going to have to expand on this one before I can tell what you're
talking about here. What sorts of "truth-values" are there? What do you
mean by a metaphor, exactly?]
>
> 4. The role of irony in art.
[What about it?]
>
> 5. Chalk Mona Lisas on the pavements outside the Louvre - are they copies?
> Does the way that the technical brilliance of their execution interacts
> with the Paris rain lift them from being mere copies to being a form of
> perfomance art?
[Sure- so what?]
>
> 6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
> progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the work
> is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
> in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
[I think a work of art should stand on its own too, but if you're puzzled
about some aspect of it I'd say the artist would be a better person to ask
than the average man - or critic- in the street. Many artists invest their
titles with significance, perhaps more than the work itself, but on the
other hand many tag on a title as an unrelated afterthought or flippant
comment, just to be able to refer to it by some word or number. While the
viewer may not care what the artist's intent was- and the artist himself
might be clueless- I don't think its significance is always nil- in fact
it might be the only thing of significance about the piece.]
>
> 7. What about the garden gnome?
[Let me put it this way: if there was a society that measured its
inhabitant's status by the quality of its garden gnomes, so that everybody
was trying to out-do each other in gnomic display; if promising
gnome-sculptors were scouted out when still in school and given special
classes and elevated rank, if the first new gnomes of the year were
received with breathless attention in the media, and vast fortunes were
expended in collecting the best gnomes of the past, then the garden gnome
would be the premier art-form of that society, and you would see gnomes of
the highest artistic quality. Failing that, what you see is what you get.
(But if anybody out there wants to spend $20K on a garden gnome, I'll do
my best...)]
Lucy Marks
Is ignorance bliss???
In article <6i5msr$pkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Mars...@juno.com writes
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Lucy Marks
>> 1. Art in the primary school. I'd bemost interested to hear opinions and argument on the trend to `squeeze out'
>> art instruction as the pressure on what has to be done in the classroom
>> grows.
>
>[I'm not sure where you are writing from, but here in California it has
>been almost entirely "squeezed out" already. A generation of children have
>grown up without any way of expressing themselves in visual terms, and the
>results aren't pretty. As the focus has shifted relentlessly towards
>instruction in which the students have absolutely no interest of their
>own, "educators" have had to scramble to revise test scoring downwards, so
>as to conceal a precipitous decline in academic performance. Their only
>remedy to date has been to pile on more "busywork", the result-
>predictably enough- being ever more alienation. They don't seem to have
>grasped the fact that learning is a by-product of interested independant
>enquiry, and consider it to be an ever-expanding mass of facts that must
>be force-fed to their increasingly unwilling victims. While this works
>with some people, some of the time, it shortsightedly selects a narrow
>range of talents and intelligence for development, (much like the livers
>of the unfortunate Strasbourg geese), while neglecting the much larger set
>of possibilities inherent in the human beings they have in their power.]
I can't believe that things have got so bad already. With the rate of
change happening so rappidly at the moment, we're all going to turn
round in 10 years time to find that genuine artists are a dying breed.
It could be said that Art derives from a desire to create. (this next
bit I read somewhere, but basically it puts into words, something that I
have felt for a while but was unable to express very well verbally:)
it's not completely acurate)
'Desire can be predominatley intrinsic, based on our personal
instinctive drives, or primarly extrinsic formed on societial role
models or framed on the media and popular culture.'
I feel that with having the extrinsic desire forced upon people from an
early age, these people will not develop their personal instincts
properly. You can't force opinions onto people, there's something
awfully wrong with that. People are already gaining a warped perspective
on life in general, I don't think it would be too healthy to let that
spiral out of control.
(Just a quick moan: Don't you just find people that say 'what's the
point in art,' 'art is an usless subject' and won't even listen to your
reply, HIGHLY irritating.)
I have to go now, I'll write more hopefully on the other topics later.
Lucy Marks
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
In article <drewid-2904...@caulk-ppp9.lanminds.com>,
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
>
> In article <01bd7256$e6687040$LocalHost@pbcustomer>, "Ansell"
> <Ans...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I offer conversation on the following topics, or any
> > variations...
>
> [My gosh- somebody actually wants to discuss art! I'm so thrilled, I will
> attempt to answer some of these questions...]
> dichotomy of education: art as the development of a very natural human
> capacity and art as preparation for earning a living.
What do people think
>> will be the art skills requirements of the advertising industry, in
>> animation and illustration in ten to fifteen years? Will it all be
>> computer generated?
> 2. The distinction between art and illustration. My position here is that
> an illustration is what you get when there is no `subtext'. The most
> refined form of subtext is the metaphor and I define art in terms of an
> exploration of the metaphor.
First, I think the English word 'art' may be a problem here.
It refers to a skill and commitment like "the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance". Thus it includes crafts and design. 'Fine art' is supposed to
mean non-utilitarian 'pure art', but it has
an unfortunate undertone of snobbery or social strata.
The difference of fine art and illustration, is for me,
the commission in the latter. Thus I think that most
portraits are illustrations, as well as traditional church art.
Thus much of illustration has high art value.
As 'art' I regard something when the artist has a free choice
of subject and means. The skill and expression may lie
below or above illustration.
At least in Nordic countries there is
another form of commercialism, - the scholarship art.
This is made to raise money from public funds and museums,
on a false premise that it is art.
Commercial art as such I have nothing against.
On flea markets you see works that are produced sales appeal in mind.
I believe most byers understand this, regard them as
decoration items, garden gnomes.
A vast majority of art lies in the middle category. Honestly made,
but do not deserve a place in art history.
The creative process was important to the artist,
and hopefully the result means something to someone.
Then there are the influential artists and illustrators that reach
and - maybe- deserve a larger audience. Fine Art.
* * *
As well as construction industry needs architects who have visions,
Advertising industry will need artists. The image processing
may open new possibilities and tools. But people without
visions produce crap like seen in most home pages in geocities.
- lauri
Ansell
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote in article
<6i4c71$jjm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> > > > >Mars...@juno.com wrote in article <snip>
>
> > 3. The logic of art. If it be the case that art is one of the many
ways
> > that we communicate with one another, then what sort of truth-value
can we
> > give to an artistic `proposition'? What makes a metaphor work?
>
> Logic has a very narrow and abstract scope. Life, or communication, is
not
> black and white. We do communicate encouragement, assuarance,
inspiration,
> sorrow and joy. Especially in art.
>
the perspective of the artist logical considerations of any sort are no
more than optional technical selection, but I do believe that when an
artist has their work criticised, then they would prefer it if this was
based on some meaningful logic. Classical logic is hopelessly inadequate
for this task, yet we do want to fully criticise artistic work.
While it's the case that the sort of communication you mention is
carried in some works of art, the fact remains that there are other works
of art that concern themselves with none of them. If this be the case then
surely the art is in the mechanics, or manner of the communication, not in
what is being communicated. Without this approach art seems to become
something mystical and beyond coherent criticism.
>
> > 6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is
in
> > progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the
work
> > is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no
significance
> > in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
>
her/his
> intentions. As a student I am interested how I succeed to express what I
> wanted.
>
relationship where lesson outcomes must be assessed one way or the other,
but of the way the completed work of an artist enters and informs the
community at large.
The key here I think, is the annonymous work. If it be the case that we can
fully assess the artistic merits of an annonymous work, where by definition
the artist's intention must be unknown, then it follows that such
intentions have no role in artistic evaluation.
An interesting implication of this is that once the work is deemed
complete by the artist, then he or she must stand in relationship to it as
viewer and no longer as the artist. To the degree that an artist wants his
or her own communication to work through the piece, then to that degree it
is propoganda, illustration, cartoon or what have you. If an artist wants
to know the communication carried by the art in the work, then they must
exchange ideas with others.
If the meaning of art is communally arrived at as the result of some
fairly refined discussion, this in turn implies that art is not obvious.
Art then, is the way that subtext is communicated not so much from artist
to audience, but as the outcome from a mutual engagement with enigma: the
message within a message, the power of the metaphor to operate on many
levels (which BTW, I think creates the logical dilemma of art).
>
> As a gallery visitor I usually reserve me the right to 'interpret' or
rather
> not. Very often a verbal supplement of the artist disturbs me, sometimes
it
> reveals the failure of the achievement. OTOH a historical note may put a
> work in a contex that makes it easier to understand.
>
from the way you finish with `or rather not'. I take it that you mean
interpret in the sense of putting the meaning into words and I agree that
an individual's engagement with a work should be wordless - unless of
course we're dealing with poetry and/or literature. But if this is where it
stops, if you don't try and share your experience of the work with someone
else, then surely it's more a pschological phenomenon than an artistic
matter?
>
> Another question: Are the critics, museum curators, art historicians more
> priviledged? Both in literature and visual art critics, I sense a lot of
> over-interpretation.
>
reading it years ago. I've more recently seen television interviews with a
new generation of art `professionals' and they seem far more into making an
art of art criticism and art display. But sometimes they don't think good
ideas through. I went to see an exhibition of some of Rodin's smaller
pieces and where these were work-in-progress studies for larger works,
large photographs of these sculptures were placed on the wall behind. If
you stood back far enough you could place the working model `over' the
appropriate part of the photograph and see the piece in context.The only
problem was that they didn't tell anyone and in the time that I was there I
was the only one who seemed to notice.
> > 7. What about the garden gnome?
>
an
> inspiring sight. Or an off the shelf variant may give an accent to the
> surroundings.
> When I choose something to my living room, the 'artistic' quality is
> important, but the main criteria is how it fits in the interior.
>
the idea that once in the garden you'd get the feeling that you were deep
in the counrtyside. The garden was essentially a glade in which three ponds
were fed by waterfalls, apparently from a swimming pool higher up a small
hill, although in fact from a pump that reticulated from the bottom pond
back to the top pond - the swimming pool of course was chlorinated.
These waterfalls were made from fairly large granite rocks and it was
easy for me to build a small cave into the bottom waterfall so that it was
almost entirely hidden by the sheet of falling water. Almost, but not
entirely. Next to this bottom pond was a shaded grassy area with the
cross-section of a huge log placed as a table and from the seats around
this table it was possible to see into the cave. Inside this cave I placed
a plaster gnome just two inches high and with a truly infectious grin and
as far as I know he's there to this day.
Was this art? I think I wanted it to be. I wanted him in that hidden cave
in the same way that gnomes were born and continue to live in the hidden
caves of our minds. But nobody ever saw him! I lived with that garden for
five years waiting for someone to notice that cave and its tiny occupant.
But according to my own argument this can't be art if I'm still the only
one who's seen it. Ah well, such is life! At least people enjoyed the
garden.
Regards,
Ansell.
Ansell
Mars...@juno.com wrote in article <6i5msr$pkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> <6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
> progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the
work
> is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
in
> the artistic evaluation of a finished work.>
>
> I don't know about all the rest of your questions/propositions - all
that
G'day Mars. I don't want to ignore a long reply, but for some reason or
other you seem to be telling me off - now why would that be? What's Tagalog
to MOI?
Regards,
Ansell.
Ansell
Mike Stanger <msta...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in article
<354607...@cyberhighway.net>...
<snip>
G'day Mike, thanks for responding. For a more general reply on the topic
could I refer you to a prior part of this thread. However, you write:
>
> I suspect that a lot of drawing and painting fundamentals that were once
taught
> early on are being neglected, too, especially in computerized classrooms.
>
were taught these fundamentals, but in my own case (the UK in the fifties)
I hardly remember an art class at all at primary school, let alone a bad
one. Certainly the fundamentals that I now teach were self-taught.
I have to wonder too at the notion of computerized classrooms. I've
heard of them, but never actually been in one, or indeed in a school where
there is one (an average of two computers per classroom is my experience,
but then maybe I'm assuming too much in your phrase `computerised
classrooms?). This worries me a great deal if it is indeed the case that
much of the commercial art that is today produced by people using their
artistic skills to earn a living, is going to be produced through computer
software. Computers are not just a legitimate new medium for serious
artists, they're what the people who pay the wages want.
D'you think there will be a commercial art market for noncomputer
artists in anything but the near future?
Regards,
Ansell.
Ansell
Lucy Marks <lu...@marksr.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<XIUcaHA7...@marksr.demon.co.uk>...
>
> I am extremely concerned about art in the primary school, and other
> forms of compulsary education. I was fortunate enough to miss out the
> large part of the national curriculum and the structured grading system
> used in schools nationwide now.
G'day Lucy and thanks for your response. You're clearly referring to the
UK education system and although I was educated in it, or by it - I'm not
too sure which, I've never taught in the UK so I'll keep my points general.
You write:
> I say this because; until I reached A-level, Art was about doing
> something creative because you want to, for whatever reason, be this to
> influence others or to satisfy my personal need to draw or sculpt etc.
> The change in structure I noticed when moving to A-level was phenomenal.
> To start with the whole class had to do exactly the same, using the same
> materials; it started with colour wheels and 'let's identify our primary
> colours, secondary colours and colour opposites,' I mean how insulting
> is that to a reasonably intelligent set of 16 year olds; most people
> take that sort of thing as common sense, or at least learn it at an
> early age.
Here I think you lay out all the good reasons why the art ed. process
needs to be stood on its head. We have this idea about the creativity and
imagination of younger children which seems to assume that no skills are
needed for its full expression, with the result that primary art is all too
often craft and waterpaint horror stories, while secondary art is full of
kids who haven't got any sort of technical repertoire for their creative
expression; the catch 22 is that these then become teachers and the lack of
skills is perpetuated. The irony in all this is that primary school kids
are never more enthusiastic in art lessons than when they're being taught
the sort of skills you mention.
<snip>
You wrote:
>
> Now, I'm not saying that all development/preparation/curriculum/
> objectives thing is bad, it is not for me to pass judgement on, as that
> was not the way I was brought up. My main concern is by pushing children
> to meet other peoples standards, their personal perspective on sucess
> and failure may metamorphesis into a concern on whether they got the
> grade or not.
>
> A question I would like to pose is: Do we need grades in art?
>
I think the most straight-forward answer would be `no', but if I may
reshape the question to `Is there a useful role for grades in art?', then
my answer changes to `yes'. Here I might make an aside to not only clarify
my perspective, but to also present the dilemma of an art teacher in a
state school. Our `compact' with the parents of our kids is to equip their
children to deal with a society that requires very specific survival
skills. However we may admire the methods and aims of other types of
school, be they religious or Steiner or whatever, the curriculum presented
in state schools is the result of an education policy and these find their
way into schools because enough parents vote for them.
This means that underlying my entry into a classroom is the question:
What do I need to teach these kids about art so that one day some of them
can make a living from it - in areas such as advertising, illustration and
so on, as well as the Art market? Not only are these skills gradeable in a
reasonably objective way, but primary kids with talent get much positive
feedback from the way their talent is reflected in high grades. My own
policy in art is to make grading voluntary.
>
> I'll come to the other questions later.
>
I'll look forward to more of your ideas.
Regards,
Ansell.
Mike Stanger
Ansell wrote:
G'day Mike, thanks for responding. For a more general reply on the
topic could I refer you to a prior part of this thread. However, you
write:
> >
> > I suspect that a lot of drawing and painting fundamentals that were once taught early on are being neglected, too, especially in computerized classrooms.
> >
> Your comment here suggests that where you went to primary school you were taught these fundamentals, but in my own case (the UK in the fifties) I hardly remember an art class at all at primary school, let alone a bad one. Certainly the fundamentals that I now teach were self-taught.
You read me right...In primary school, around the age of 11 or 12,
almost all the kids I went to school with were taught a little color
theory and were introduced to a few materials--charcoal sticks, etc. I
don't know if that is the case today here in the US. I also don't know
how widely across the US this was done then, either.
> I have to wonder too at the notion of computerized classrooms. I've
> heard of them, but never actually been in one, or indeed in a school where there is one (an average of two computers per classroom is my experience, but then maybe I'm assuming too much in your phrase `computerised classrooms?). This worries me a great deal if it is indeed the case that much of the commercial art that is today produced by people using their artistic skills to earn a living, is going to be produced through computer software. Computers are not just a legitimate new medium for serious artists, they're what the people who pay the wages want.
There seems to be a big push to place computers in US classrooms. Some
areas of the country may have many computers in their rooms, some only
one or two, or even less. In US colleges, a lot of art departments are
spending as much or more time teaching computer graphics than
traditional methodology. I have worked lately with 3 young people in
their 20's who were digital hot rods, but couldn't paint their way out
of a parking lot. Intrestingally enough, their lack of traditional
training really kept the work coming my way; I would draw or paint it
and hand it over to them for scanning and digitalizing. (Of course, I
did a fair bit of straight digital work as well.)
> D'you think there will be a commercial art market for noncomputer
> artists in anything but the near future?
Actually, I think that before the turn of the century there will be a
bigger call for trad work than ever, and greater attention payed to
teaching trad methods. Computer stuff is computer stuff, and it has a
look to it that will grow stale to the eye in time. I personally don't
think the time will be that long in coming, but then I play the 5-string
banjo as well, and have been predicting a great banjo revival for the
past 20 years, so what the hell do I know???? (I'm sure I'lll get flamed
on this one!)
Mike Stanger
Mike Stanger
Good points, all. If ya give a kid a brush,some paint, and some paper
and show him how to do it, he's gonna be less likely to try it out on
your wall with spray paint.
Stanger
Mars...@juno.com
What, because I didn't agree with your premise and used my own, personal
experience as collateral I'm "telling you off?" Sorry you found my reply
"long" - as far as I see it was no longer than others' who replied to your
post; perhaps it just seemed long to you because you were so busy taking
personal offense at not a ding-dong thing. As for my comment about
"philosophical theorizing" - I was simply saying that - in MY PERSONAL
OPINION - discussion of art doesn't ALWAYS have to be such a hyper-
intellectualized pursuit. One CAN talk about art like a normal Joe and STILL
have it be a valid, intelligent discussion. As you are, purportedly, a
teacher of little kiddies, I expect you make a point to talk to THEM simply
about "art" and NOT turn every class into a dissertation about "AHT" - the
point is, after all, not to IMPRESS but to COMMUNICATE, no? I just don't see
any reason why discussion of "art" has to suddenly become some high-brow,
abstract debate just because one is talking to "artists". Art is a valid
enough pursuit on its own merits without people have to try to tart it up for
show. And that is MY personal opinion, and MY personal preference, and I was
just saying that I couldn't get into your other questions because I didn't
get a WORD of what you said and I was telling you exactly WHY I didn't get
it, in case you wanted to re-phrase for better clarity, so even actual in-the-
trenches artists like myself can participate in your newsgroup "classroom"
experience. As you're a "professional educator" and communicating ideas is
your business, I thought that was info in which you'd be interested. Guess
not. Dress to impress.
Thanks for taking my honest post so lightly -
Regards right back at you times twelve.
Mars
In article <01bd740b$b3475260$LocalHost@pbcustomer>#1/1,
"Ansell" <Ans...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Mars...@juno.com wrote in article <6i5msr$pkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > <6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
> > progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the
> work
> > is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
> in
> > the artistic evaluation of a finished work.>
> >
> > I don't know about all the rest of your questions/propositions - all
> that
> > philosophical theorizing sounds like Tagalog to MOI........
>
> G'day Mars. I don't want to ignore a long reply, but for some reason or
> other you seem to be telling me off - now why would that be? What's Tagalog
> to MOI?
>
Lucy Marks
As a child I was given pens, crayons, sissors, sellotape and paper, I
still drew on the walls, and the furniture, and anything else I could
lay my hands on.
:)
Lucy
In article <35487A...@cyberhighway.net>, Mike Stanger
<msta...@cyberhighway.net> writes
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Ansell
-------<354874...@cyberhighway.net>...
>
> Actually, I think that before the turn of the century there will be a
> bigger call for trad work than ever, and greater attention payed to
> teaching trad methods. Computer stuff is computer stuff, and it has a
> look to it that will grow stale to the eye in time. I personally don't
> think the time will be that long in coming, but then I play the 5-string
> banjo as well, and have been predicting a great banjo revival for the
> past 20 years, so what the hell do I know???? (I'm sure I'lll get flamed
> on this one!)
> Mike Stanger
>
just a bit of pause about the trad. methods revival idea.
I do think though, that you've made an oversight here:
>
> Computer stuff is computer stuff, and it has a look to it that will grow
stale to the
> eye in time.
>
`computer stuff'? I'm no expert here, (gawd knows, he thinks, eyeing his
computer warily), but no sooner have I tamed this beast than the bloody
thing's obsolete. The fact that the computer stuff of today does indeed
weary the eye is likely to be yet another impetus to computer and software
development, rather than a reason to return to more traditional styles.
Maybe we have `Black Canvas' numbers one through to five (or whatever it
was), because traditional techniques and media have now been done and they
hold no more suprises for the younger artist?
Regards,
Ansell.
Lucy Marks
>>
>>2. The distinction between art and illustration. My position here is that
>>an illustration is what you get when there is no `subtext'. The most
>>refined form of subtext is the metaphor and I define art in terms of an
>>exploration of the metaphor.
>>
>>that we communicate with one another, then what sort of truth-value can we
>>give to an artistic `proposition'? What makes a metaphor work?
>>
>>4. The role of irony in art.
>>
>>5. Chalk Mona Lisas on the pavements outside the Louvre - are they copies?
>>Does the way that the technical brilliance of their execution interacts
>>with the Paris rain lift them from being mere copies to being a form of
>>perfomance art?
>>
See answer to statement 6.
>>6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
>>progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the work
>>is finished.The artist's intentions and even title are of no significance
>>in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
>>
Who cares if it gains your interest in the first place, it has some
value and relevence. Even if you utterly dispise it, it has provoked an
emotion and that will become another brick in your wall of life. If we
didn't have stimulus from the world around us, we'd be a very apathetic
bunch of morons.
>>7. What about the garden gnome?
>
The garden gnome knows.
Lucy Marks
In article <01bd73ef$e46f0160$LocalHost@pbcustomer>, Ansell
<Ans...@bigpond.com> writes
> Here I think you lay out all the good reasons why the art ed. process
>needs to be stood on its head. We have this idea about the creativity and
>imagination of younger children which seems to assume that no skills are
>needed for its full expression, with the result that primary art is all too
>often craft and waterpaint horror stories,
you haven't yet learned the appropriate skills to communiate through
language, and so you express your self thorough different mediums. it's
a time you can never recreate in your life, and I enjoyed evey minute of
it.
>kids who haven't got any sort of technical repertoire for their creative
>expression; the catch 22 is that these then become teachers and the lack of
>skills is perpetuated. The irony in all this is that primary school kids
>are never more enthusiastic in art lessons than when they're being taught
>the sort of skills you mention.
teaching these 'technical skills' or against? I'm not sure that art can
be teached as such. It's a universal language, and a very personal
thing. People will only learn as much as they are interested in. You can
give someone a brush, tell them that red and yellow makes orange, tell
them to copy other peoples work, but this is more likely to discourage
them, in my experience. You can't force feed them, you have to let them
get to what they need in their own time: You'll find this way people are
a lot more responsive. They'll ask for what they want when they need it,
only at that time do you help. They'll discover that yellow and blue
equals green in their own time. Don't dictate, suggest. I have found
that a lot of peole have lost their confidence in art subjects through
people telling them what to do, how to do it and so forth, and they
don't paint for themselves anymore. I'm just waffling here, but it
really saddens me to see people give up on things that they've enjoyed
in the past. The main thing I will stress is that true enthusiasm is
very important.
> This means that underlying my entry into a classroom is the question:
>What do I need to teach these kids about art so that one day some of them
>can make a living from it - in areas such as advertising, illustration and
>so on, as well as the Art market? Not only are these skills gradeable in a
>reasonably objective way, but primary kids with talent get much positive
>feedback from the way their talent is reflected in high grades. My own
>policy in art is to make grading voluntary.
As a young teenager I was told that art was not a career. I however
would not accept this, but to keep them happy I told them I would do
something like advertising or something, so that I could continue it as
a subject. Now I refuse to listen to what these type of people say, as
I'm am going to make my best shot at being an artist. I know that I
would not be happy doing anything else. It seemed to me that, these
career adviser types, considered a well paid job to be the sucessful
job, but I suppose that is what you get from being brought up in a
materialist thatcherite tory government. As a child I admired my brother
for being a really good artist, but when it came to choosing his options
at 13 for his GCSEs he was advised not to chose art, as it wasn't a
valid subject; he listened to them and has not really painted or drawn,
accept in design since. Life is too short for regrets. It's quite
strange that within the system, a choice that you make at 13 can
significantly change your entire life. Hmm. But I suppose that goes for
any choice you make ever. Chaos theory.
We only have ourselves to blame.
Lucy.
P.S. It's never to late to do anything.
Mike Stanger
Good points, all. I sure wish I had a crystal ball to peer through these
clouded times. You are probably right re/ future software development...
I guess only time will tell. My hope is that the best of both is yet to
come.
Mike
Jo-Anne L. Sullivan
Wow!! Interesting discussion I came in on. I, also "lean toward
traditional artwork" in re: to longevity and impression overall.
I take too much time trying to painstakingly recreate the human body,
using glasss eyes, teeth, hair, costuming, etc. and often even try to
make it function like one, too; as a puppet or animated scultpure. The
time and money involved in "bringing my characters to life" is enormous
compared to doing the same on a computer screen.
But, still....my sculpture can sit in a corner, on a pedestal, shelf, or
in a showcase and be "real", with a texture, and evene a taste and
smell, if you want to go that far...:)
If you are interested in seeing my work (latest work yet to be put onto
page), then, please visit "A Gallery of People" - by Jo-Anne L. Sullivan
http://www.escape.ca/~sullivan/
I would be interested to hear what "category/ies" other viewers and
artists would "place" my work into...:) (just curious)
Jo-Anne Sullivan
Patrick Patriarca
Lucy Marks wrote in message <1LzkqCAm...@marksr.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Is ignorance bliss???
>
>In article <6i5msr$pkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Mars...@juno.com writes
>><6. Whatever an artist may think, imagine or intend while the work is in
>>progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the
work
(yadda ....u know)
There have been things I would preferred to have missed thus being
"ignorant" of an experience . Or as *they* (and I ) say - "That was a bit
more information than I needed."
mdeli
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 07:39:46 -0600, lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
snipped the convoluted stuff.
> Thus I think that most
>portraits are illustrations, as well as traditional church art.
>Thus much of illustration has high art value.
Well except for landscape and still-life that includes most
everything.
>The skill and expression may lie
>below or above illustration.
How about off a little to one side.
>Commercial art as such I have nothing against.
Is that a confession?
>On flea markets you see works that are produced sales appeal in mind.
And even in the finest galleries.
>I believe most byers understand this, regard them as
>decoration items, garden gnomes.
?
>. But people without
>visions produce crap like seen in most home pages in geocities.
And people who have no skill produce crap whatever their "vision."
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Ansell
------<v6Sy2GAt...@marksr.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bd73ef$e46f0160$LocalHost@pbcustomer>, Ansell
<Ans...@bigpond.com> writes
> > Here I think you lay out all the good reasons why the art ed. process
> >needs to be stood on its head. We have this idea about the creativity
and
> >imagination of younger children which seems to assume that no skills are
> >needed for its full expression, with the result that primary art is all
too
> >often craft and waterpaint horror stories,
>
> Horror stories? This was art expression at it's best. It's a time when
> you haven't yet learned the appropriate skills to communiate through
> language, and so you express your self thorough different mediums. it's
> a time you can never recreate in your life, and I enjoyed evey minute of
> it.
>
unstructured environment always end in `horror stories', but more what
happens in an unstructured classroom when thirty kids are all having a go
at the same time (in most primary schools those teaching art are not art
teachers). The point though, is more to do with the difference between
creative play and learning progressively how to give expression to
creativity.
Your comparison with language acquisition can be extended; in the same
way that kids need to build language skills as their thinking becomes more
complex, so they need to develop artistic skills as their creative
ambitions become more complex. Just the simple skills of knowing how to mix
colours to get a wider variey of effect is liberating to the junior primary
child and to have a framed landscape that looks every bit like a landscape
is exhilarating. There is no other time in school when I see children
beaming with pride and pleasure more than when I hand back their work
framed and ready for the wall.
> >
> > ...........................while secondary art is full of
> >kids who haven't got any sort of technical repertoire for their creative
> >expression; the catch 22 is that these then become teachers and the lack
of
> >skills is perpetuated. The irony in all this is that primary school kids
> >are never more enthusiastic in art lessons than when they're being
taught
> >the sort of skills you mention.
>
> I'm not sure what your trying to get at here, are you in favour of
> teaching these 'technical skills' or against?
>
school. As with the acquisition of any physical and conceptual skills there
needs to be adequate time for the practice of these new skills and in this
case this means creative practice and it maybe that this is what you refer
to.......
>
> .............................................I'm not sure that art can
> be teached as such. It's a universal language, and a very personal
> thing. People will only learn as much as they are interested in.
>
human capacities. I've got a partial handle on it and I agree that what you
write here is the essence of the difficulty....
>
> You can
> give someone a brush, tell them that red and yellow makes orange, tell
> them to copy other peoples work, but this is more likely to discourage
> them, in my experience. You can't force feed them, you have to let them
> get to what they need in their own time: You'll find this way people are
> a lot more responsive.
>
well) is that successful teaching is in fact sixty percent acting.
Enthusiasm is the key to successful learning in all areas of the curriculum
and generating it is a skill independent of the subject-matter being
taught. Certainly some subjects make the task easier than do others and art
is one of the easier ones; Rolf Harris comes to mind as the model for
teaching art at primary level and little wonder that he's made a better
living from entertaining adults.
To be sure you have to introduce skills with timing and preparation, but
the teacher/pupil relationship is not as passive as your comment seems to
suggest. I must take some of the responsibility from the child when
deciding what they need to know and when they need to know it - this is
surely at the core of teaching as a profession. If I do this badly, then my
students will become confused and their enthusiasm will wane.
>
> .........<snip>.......... Don't dictate, suggest. I have found
> that a lot of peole have lost their confidence in art subjects through
> people telling them what to do, how to do it and so forth, and they
> don't paint for themselves anymore. I'm just waffling here, but it
> really saddens me to see people give up on things that they've enjoyed
> in the past. The main thing I will stress is that true enthusiasm is
> very important.
>
there ought to be more of it.........8-)
school maggie was still selling vegies, or whatever it was. But now we face
an unprecedented situation in the prospects our children face when they
eventually try to earn a living. It may be an urban myth, but somehow it
has the ring of fact about it, that by the time the children I see tomorrow
leave school sixty percent of the jobs that now exist will have ceased to
exist, and of those jobs that will be available sixty percent haven't been
invented yet.
We primary teachers are trying to see ten to fifteen years ahead in our
efforts to equip kids to cope and hopefully thrive, but they'll be dealing
with an environment that we find almost impossible to imagine (and trying
to imagine it is a hobby of mine). To add to our difficulties in this
respect the curriculum we teach is essentally politically motivated and
sold to the electorate on the basis of what adult voters find most
comfortable, rather than on any realistic expectations of what these kids
might have to deal with when they grow up.
> We only have ourselves to blame.
>
you when I needed you?'. I must be able to answer, `I was there".
Regards,
Ansell.
Ansell
-------<0as0eJAX...@marksr.demon.co.uk>...
> >>
>
> >>5. Chalk Mona Lisas on the pavements outside the Louvre - are they
copies?
> >>Does the way that the technical brilliance of their execution interacts
> >>with the Paris rain lift them from being mere copies to being a form of
> >>perfomance art?
> >>
> See answer to statement 6.
>
in
> >>progress, he or she has no privileged `interpretive position' once the
work
significance
> >>in the artistic evaluation of a finished work
> >>
> Who cares if it gains your interest in the first place, it has some
> value and relevence. Even if you utterly dispise it, it has provoked an
> emotion and that will become another brick in your wall of life. If we
> didn't have stimulus from the world around us, we'd be a very apathetic
> bunch of morons.
>
think that there's an aspect to evaluating art that has some surprising and
probably unwelcome consequences for an artist's proprietry attitude toward
the meaning of their own work:
If we can fully evaluate annonymous works, then authorial information
about the artist and what they might have had in mind is irrelevant to a
full artistic evaluation. Another respondent on the same issue, took this
head on and argued that this meant we couldn't fully evaluate annonymous
works and this seems to me the only way that the artist's intentions can be
seen as relevant in the evaluation of artistic merit. I don't agree, but I
do acknowledge it as a viable position to argue. What isn't viable is to
argue that we can both fully evaluate annonymous works of art and at the
same time claim that an artist's intentions are important for a full
artistic evaluation of a work.
>
> >>7. What about the garden gnome?
> >
> The garden gnome knows.
>
summed up my situation.
In case you didn't see it:
`I designed and built a garden once on a quarter-acre suburban block
deep
in the counrtyside. The garden was essentially a glade in which three ponds
were fed by waterfalls, apparently from a swimming pool higher up a small
hill, although in fact from a pump that reticulated from the bottom pond
back to the top pond - the swimming pool of course was chlorinated.
These waterfalls were made from fairly large granite rocks and it was
easy for me to build a small cave into the bottom waterfall so that it was
almost entirely hidden by the sheet of falling water. Almost, but not
entirely. Next to this bottom pond was a shaded grassy area with the
cross-section of a huge log placed as a table and from the seats around
this table it was possible to see into the cave. Inside this cave I placed
a plaster gnome just two inches high and with a truly infectious grin and
as far as I know he's there to this day.
Was this art? I think I wanted it to be. I wanted him in that hidden cave
in the same way that gnomes were born and continue to live in the hidden
caves of our minds. But nobody ever saw him! I lived with that garden for
five years waiting for someone to notice that cave and its tiny occupant.
But according to my own argument this can't be art if I'm still the only
one who's seen it. Ah well, such is life! At least people enjoyed the
Yes indeed, the garden gnome knows.
Regards,
Ansell.
Lucy Marks
Two flies were playing football in a saucer. One said to the other: 'We
shall have to do better than this next week, we're playing in the cup.'
A tractor was driving up a road one day, it turned into a feild. It was
a magic tractor.
Why did the hedgehog have dandruff? Because it left it's head and
shoulders on the motorway!
Rich Pierce
See:
http://www.architrave.net/fineart/armynavy/
I'd be interested in any constructive criticism or expressions of
interest. This site has never been advertised before.
Thanks. RIch Pierce
reply to rich.pierce@ (nospam) usa.net
delete (nospam) to reply
Stephen Rowley
Thank you Lucy.
Here is one in return.
What's brown and sticky?
A stick
See ya
Strolls