Re: Judges Comments

This is all sooo curious to me! The analagy of sitting in a cave
and making stuff is just that, sitting in a closet and talking
to one's self. That is to say, if one's work does not talk
to an audience, it does just that, it speaks to no one and wont
ever pass for art, by definition.

As for a piece having a life of it's own, well, that is to me 
what makes it art. 100, 200, 500 years from now someone will still
want to stop and look, touch, hold. If that attraction does not
survive that long it was not art and the maker was not an artist.
A blurt the piece is maybe, with some perhaps momentary resonance
like a, ehm, a political poster perhaps. An illustration, maybe
fantastically well done, but not art.

As for the Artist's "Papers", what, for example, do most of us
now know about Caravaggio? Yet his works still "draw" people to
them to the point that the paintings are priceless. Any one
painting stands alone. And strong. All these years on. 
Altogether apart from the artist. To me that is how you know it
*is* art and it *was* made by an Artist. 'cause *it is still here*
and still speaks to an audience all on it's own.

If a piece has a surviving resonance, years and years on, then
it's fair to call it art, and in turn, it's maker, long forgotten,
an artist.

How does that come about? By *not* being an Artist I think. By
not claiming responsibility. Rather, by giving away the 
responsibility. I did not *make* this pot. It happened on it's 
own, I was just lucky enough to be here to help 'a bit. 

Unfortunately I've not been 'round to help many Happen ;-)







annemarie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "Uncle John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "annemarie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> >
>> > "TwoKats" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> i think the exact opposite.  i think that work is completely tied to
>> >> the creator of the piece, and that the merit of the work rests in the
>> >> hands of its maker.  if a pot had a life of its own, as you say, and
>> >> should stand
>> > on
>> >> its own merit, then any old manufactured piece would do.  when i make
>> >> a piece, i converse with it.  sometimes i find myself planning one
>> >> kind of glaze for it, and it will "ask" for something completely
>> >> different.  my ability to shape the pot, then listen to what it says
>> >> as a piece of
>> > artwork
>> >> is all based in the artist's skill.
>> >>
>> >> i love knowing what is behind a piece of work, whether it is a
>> >> painting, a novel, a sculpture.  sometimes knowing the artist's story
>> >> makes the difference in whether or not i like it.  the same thing
>> >> could be true of judges and shows.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think perhaps you missunderstood me to a degree.  I agree that work
>> > is tied to the creator of the piece.  That is essential for it to be
>> > good, to feel the hand of the potter/sculptor, to maybe understand
>> > where they were coming from, for it to evoke a response, of awe, of
>> > wonder, of pleasure or even sometimes pain or disgust.  That is what
>> > art is IMO it needs to evoke a response.
>> > However that should show in the piece, not in the paper accompanying
>> > it.  If the person has a degree, or not, whether they are already
>> > established artistis or not, should not be the what is taken into
>> > account when judging a piece.  It is whether the piece itself conveys
>> > the artist.  Understanding the artist can sometimes be of help
>> > especially if the piece is depicting pain, or just the life of the
>> > creator.  Umm such a big and complicated topic.
>> > There is also always going to personal choice and what appeals to one
>> > judge is not going to appeal to another, that is life and we all have
>> > to live with it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hello discussionists
>>
>> The long and the short of this discussion is that you don't have to
>> exhibit or show if you don't want to.

> Well if you want to be a potter/artist you do, can't make it unless you sell
> it.  Well most of us couldn't afford to do that.

>>
>> Maybe the best critics of your work are the ones who put their hand in
>> their pocket and pay for it, be it a mug or an art piece. If you can't
>> get your work into the hands of the public you might as well become a
>> recluse and live in a cave surrounded by what ever you've made and hold
>> long conversations with them. I really can't figure out where this semi
>> religious and reverent atmosphere has come from

> The public parting with their money is the absolute best compliment you can
> get.
> Where did this semi religious and reverent thing come in?  Or are you
> refering to TwoKats comments about talking to his/her work.  I have to admit
> that I don't do that unless it is to curse it when it goes wrong.  However I
> do have strong feelings sometimes for the work, you have to like what you
> make.  Or are you talking about how I said being moved by the work, whether
> it  is just awe, admiration, or whatever.  If we did not do that to the
> public our work would never ever sell.  It has to do something more that
> what can be obtained from the Warehouse.  If not we might as well all give
> up.  Very few of us are ever going to get rich working with clay that is for
> sure, but we must feel something for it or it is a waste of time.

>>
>> We have a situation here now that one yearly exhibition that has always
>> been a competition is now making a fundamental change. The organisers
>> have taken the prize money away to take away the competative component
>> and hope to draw on a wider range of entrants who refuse to exhibit.

> Which exhibition are you talking about??  Did I miss something in this
> discussion?  In NZ there are lots of different exhibitions, Portage, Molly
> Morpeth, Norsewear, not to mention more local ones.  What are you talking
> about in particular.

>>
>> I would say that the majority of potters do not exhibit from one year to
>> the next. This includes established and named potters

> Huh? what ones are those, or do you just mean people that sell in stalls at
> craft markets and the like.  That is one option I guess, but a pretty hard
> one to take.  You must make in bulk, cannot sell for much more than mass
> produced stuff and so work your guts out for not much return.  There are
> others like Royce McGlashen who mass produces, has the clay company as well
> as making his own "art" pieces.  Possibly one of the most financially
> successful potters around NZ I suspect and still able to make his own work.

>>
>> However if you do exhibit you need know and to play by the rules, that is
>> if you want to make some sort of impression or to get anywhere.

> Well yes, sort of, though the rules are different all the time and every
> judge has his/her own set of criteria.
>>
>> Imbuing a piece of fired clay with some sort of personality or life force
>> and possibly giving it a name is a croc, and is not going to do it.

> Well I agree the life force thing is croc.  But personality?  Wrong word.
> It is the difference between art and just mass production I guess.  If you
> have no love for pottery, no feelings of wonder or joy or anything from
> either your work or others why do you do it?  Surely it is much too
> difficult a road and not profitable enough to be doing just to make an
> income?
> The feelings when you open a kiln and things have worked the way you wanted,
> or are even better.  So cool.
> Looking forward to a new topic though :o)  I think it is interesting having
> discussions about more than just a few technical things.
> Oh went and had a look at a small John Parker exhibition in Avid in
> Wellington last week.  Took some friends who were actually interested in
> buying some of his work but it was sold out!  Now wouldn't that be nice. :o)
> A