Mud Babies: Curious ancestors of abstract art movement?
William Palmer
an interesting article about the man who just may have
invented abstract art. George Ohr was a primitive folk
artist who was sometimes called the "Mad Potter of Biloxi"
(Mississippi). Though no one can deny that artist Ohr was
quite an original, his unique pottery was ignored by the
art establishment during his life. The TIMES explains that
after Ohr died in 1918, thousands of pieces of his pottery
were left "to languish in a dusty car repair shop."
Yet today, Ohr's "mud babies," as he termed them, are
selling for $20,000 each! According to the TIMES,
Ohr--although "dismissed by many contemporaries
as a grandstanding buffoon"--may "have been among
the world's pioneering abstract artists." George
Ohr admirably overcame the poverty of his youth
and his lack of formal education and learned to do
something entirely original with his considerable
talents, in order to express his artistic yearnings,
while in lesser folks the desire for creative
expression might well have been crushed out at an
early age do the hardships faced by those in Ohr's
social and ecnomic strata. On the other hand,
I can't help but think about the pretentious
artsy-farties with their art school educations
who are praised by the art establishment for
producing rubbish that has none of the uniqueness,
charm, and bizarre fascination of George Ohr's
amazing mud babies. a.g.b-p
Chris
Was he poor as a youth? Doubtful; his father was a blacksmith and later
owned a general store. Rather middle class.
Lack of formal education? Both Whitman & Twain were working by the time they
were 12 (as apprentice printers). Lincoln had virtually no formal schooling,
Even Edison only had a few months in school, it wasn't uncommon, and
certainly not a handicap. Ohr did (formally) learn the trades of smithing
and pottery through apprenticeship.
The dusty auto shop? That was owned by his sons, who converted his workshop
into Biloxi's first auto repair garage, after George packed up his stuff and
stopped making pottery in 1809. His family wanted him to continue selling
his work; he refused.
Not recognized? He did win a medal at the Louisiana Purchase celebrations in
1904; was written up in a reputable journal in 1899; his Biloxi Art and
Novelty company was reasonably successful. Successful enough that when it
burned down, he had no real problems rebuilding a much bigger and better
shop, that became a minor tourist Mecca.
FWIW, in terms of artistic recognition, he was probably his own worst enemy;
he presented himself as a flamboyant showman, rather than a serious artist.
and he deliberately priced a good deal of his more creative work well out of
the range of normal buyers.
Cheers;
Chris
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02120...@posting.google.com...
G*rd*n
Abstract art has been around since prehistoric times.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Andrew Werby
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02120...@posting.google.com...
[William, you've been hanging out here too long- you're starting to corrupt
your (otherwise perfectly servicable) vocabulary with RAFisms like
"artsy-farties" . While I've always liked Ohr's work (most of it) I can't
see why he should be singled out as an abstract artist. Most pottery, after
all, is non-representational. Ohr actually made both representational (his
series of face jugs come to mind) and "abstract" ceramics. The latter,
while they include some rather daring (for the time) rippled and folded
works as well as more traditional pieces, don't really challenge the viewer
to revamp his or her artistic theories and preconceptions. The Japanese were
working along similar lines at the time (and earlier), creating raku
teabowls, etc. with a calculated roughness of effect, but nobody so far has
claimed that they were the precursors of Kandinsky et.al. (or maybe they
have, but I don't believe it.)
George Ohr made good pots; his flair for showmanship did nothing to hurt his
career. The vicissitudes of his early life (real or imagined) should not get
in the way of our perception of them. To think otherwise gets us onto a
slippery slope, where we start judging artworks by the artist's biography
and not by what's actually in front of us. While everybody's attracted by a
Cinderella story, it shouldn't be a precondition for appreciating someone's
art. Or do you believe that "affirmative action" should be applied to art,
and museum shows should be awarded not to the best work, but to that which
comes with the most pathetic story attached?
"Blind from birth, neglected and abused as a baby, artist Joe Blow suffered
amputation of his arms when begging on a railroad track for money to buy
flowers for his mother's funeral. Nevertheless, he perservered in his art
career, painting with brushes tied to his feet, using old newspapers and
ditchwater to make these amazing abstractions now on display at the Museum
of Modern Art..."]
I think I feel a fart coming on...
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Nerd Gerl
<20021205145221.920$U...@newsreader.com>...
> Fire away, Andrew. But you forgot to mention that Mr. Blow was also black
... a gift.
> and gay
... an attraction.
and schizophrenic.
... an awareness.
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
>
William Palmer
> Ohr's story is interesting enough without the histrionics.
Not so fast! Plainly, you are making some glib
assumptions about the purpose of my posting. Try
to grasp that I don't envision my role as a net
writer as one of being a "reporter of what is
being reported" or a mere digester of current news
stories. You might say my intent in the case of
a posting such as that is twofold: a) to draw
reader attention to a story readers might want
to find and read, b) to add my particular
interpretation so I am not simply condensing
a story that is currently available elsewhere.
Therefore, I really see no "histrionics" in
my post, and in fact I think your characterization
is outrageous. Yes, my own view resulted in a
folksy tale, a homespun tale, but in view of the
subject, I still feel that was a good approach
to take. So. a.g.b-p
Chris
your sole reason for all these posts is to achieve some sort of immortality
as the most chronic content-free poster to a newsgroup, like on RAP.
As for the post itself, hyperbolic storytelling one of the clearest signals
of a writer's ignorance of his subject, and you've got that in spades.That,
and gushing, breathless purple prose - a la your 'thesis' w/r to the heirs
to "the best in 19th Century realist art" - particularly when it is devoid
of facts. You know, the "folksy tale, the homespun tale" approach... Rather
puts me in mind of the sort of froth that is generated by our (Canadian)
Royal Commissions (once you live in a social democratic state for awhile,
you can spot this stuff a mile away.)
But it is amusing, and I do think a Palmer/Nilges cross could be quite
entertaining. It would be a bit like a plum pudding - you could provide the
gooey matrix while he could drop names into it like raisins & candied fruit,
and if you were both soaked in rum it might actually be tasteful. How about
it?
Cheers;
Chris
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02120...@posting.google.com...
William Palmer
> Aw c'mon William. First of all, you already made no secret of the fact that
> your sole reason for all these posts is to achieve some sort of immortality
> as the most chronic content-free poster to a newsgroup, like on RAP.
That's a silly allegation if I've ever heard one.
The fact is, I take Usenet at face value. It is
a great place to share information and ideas, while
learning a lot too. Swimming in the thoughtstream,
that's what I call the process.
>
> As for the post itself, hyperbolic storytelling one of the clearest signals
> of a writer's ignorance of his subject, and you've got that in spades.
Look, if you are taking potshots at me because I
never heard of George Ohr until I picked up THE
LOS ANGELES TIMES the other day, you are far off
the mark. My knowledge of Ohr was limited to
that interesting article. There is nothing in
my post indicating that I had any pretense to
knowlege of him beyond that, so it is really
unfair for you to poke fun at my "ignorance of
the subject." Simply put, I had the same
knowledge of Ohr that anyone else had who never
heard of him until he read the story in THE TIMES.
What would I have to gain by being phony about it?
Usenet has far too many fakes and poseurs now--I
studiously avoid joining the club.
I never really had much interest in the art of
primitives. Yes, I think that Grandma Moses'
art is wonderful, and of course anyone with even
modest education in art history is familiar with
Theodore Rousseau. But moving along to something
a bit different here, would you not agree that even
the term primitive is rather nebulous and possibly
unhelpful? Who is to say that Grandma Moses and
Theodore Rousseau were any less educated than
many others not called "primitive" by the art
establishment? I will be the first to agree
that while--as I have said--I don't care too
much for the art of primitives, as someone who
DOES have some knowledge of illustration,
including comic illustration, there are highly
regarded comic book artists who very likely
were not as educated as either Grandma Moses
or T. Rousseau. Yet, nobody calls the comic
illustrators I refer to "primitive." So, what
does the term really signify (as far as its
meaning in art, I mean) or is it one of words
which suggests so many different things to different
people that it is essentially meaningless?
That,
> and gushing, breathless purple prose
Come on! I can write purple prose, and I did not
do it there. I would characterize that post simply
as being rather rough and unpolished, but essentially
coherent enough to allow readers to follow me. And
original. In fact, I would characterize much of my
Usenet writing the same way.
- a la your 'thesis' w/r to the heirs
> to "the best in 19th Century realist art" - particularly when it is devoid
> of facts.
I don't think any helpful facts were left out.
Basically, that post represented my opinion.
Summing that opinion up, my view is that the
group of painters I mentioned were the most
talented and original "heirs" of 19th century
realism (in the latter part of the 20th
century, I mean, because I think the surrealists
were the best "heirs" in the earlier part of the
century). Even that represents a change in my
opinion regarding things I have posted in the
past. My initial belief was that the near
ancestors of the Surrealists were the Symbolists,
but after futher reading (both in books and in
posts) I now believe that some 19th century
realists influenced the Surrealists, as well
as the Symbolists. So you see, I scarecly
view myself as an infalliable figure
sitting high over the net and deigning to
share a small portion of some vast knowledge
with the less enlightened. If you are swimming
in the thoughtstream you are learning... a.g.b-p
You know, the "folksy tale, the homespun tale" approach...
Now that you mention it, there may heve been a
bit of Paul Harvey there. (Kidding, kidding)
Rather
> puts me in mind of the sort of froth that is generated by our (Canadian)
> Royal Commissions (once you live in a social democratic state for awhile,
> you can spot this stuff a mile away.)
>
> But it is amusing, and I do think a Palmer/Nilges cross could be quite
> entertaining. It would be a bit like a plum pudding - you could provide the
> gooey matrix while he could drop names into it like raisins & candied fruit,
> and if you were both soaked in rum it might actually be tasteful. How about
> it?
[...]