|
Letters from a Collector to a Studio Potter
|
Archive for the ‘Knowledge and Learning’ Category
Wednesday, January 9th, 2013
 This will be our first full day in Bruges. Given the physical wear and tear and outrageous cost of holidays, most tourists try to get value for money and stuff as much as they can into each day. Holidays become really hard work and leave one totally exhausted. By the end of the holiday, most tourists look forward to restoring themselves by going back to their far less demanding regular jobs. It is not only the limitations of old age, but the wisdom that comes from experience, that helps us organize a more reasonable schedule. Today we plan to visit one or two museums. I do so love Flemish painting and the previous occupant of this rental apartment left 3 day museum passes still good for today.  The day will also include getting my morning English language newspaper at a nearby news agent, finding a restaurant for our big meal in the middle of the day that might involve a soup starter for me but definitely will not include beer, maybe a walk around the city centre, finding a bakery for tomorrow’s breakfast and using the microwave in the evening to heat up a smaller, prepared meal. Our coping strategies when in a foreign land involve careful and constant planning, making of lists and reference to a travel guide written by Rick Steves, a popular American travel writer who has a public television show and writes lots of guide books for Americans traveling to Europe. To give you an idea of his positive if breezy style, here is the opening paragraph to his ‘Orientation to Bruges’,
“With pointy gilded architecture, stay-a-while cafes, vivid time-tunnel art, and dreamy canals dotted with swans, Bruges is a heavyweight sightseeing destination, as well as a joy. Where else can you ride a bike along a canal, munch mussels and wash them down with the world’s best beer, savor heavenly chocolate, and see Flemish Primitives and a Michelangelo, all within 300 yards of a bell tower that jingles every 15 minutes? And do it all without worrying about a language barrier?”
 I am not sure what he means by ‘vivid time-tunnel art’ and will have to wait until Judy wakes up before I can ask her for her opinion. I have read much of the literature on aesthetics and fine arts and have not come across this expression before. Maybe it just means old stuff but most old stuff is not all that vivid anymore. As with finding out how to use the local password and username to get to my email, I will just have to wait for Judy to decide to start the day. I am so dependent on her on these journeys for any number of things. I am thankful that I am still strong enough to lug our baggage around on and off planes and trains. Steves is a quite friendly person with an engaging smile and makes traveling sound so simple and always lots of fun. To his credit, he does cite the cultural resources of each area as well as opportunities for the munching of mussels and the washing down of the world’s best beer. Judy likes him for his practical advice and insights on the most easy and economical ways of enjoying your stay. I don’t know if Europeans bother to obtain guidebooks when they visit other European countries. Given the close proximity and availability of such travel, I don’t think traveling on the continent is as intimidating or unfamiliar as it can be for the Americans. The rest of Europe for them is just a part of their neighborhood.
 Octavio, I must insist that I am not a tourist. All the other foreign visitors to Bruges are tourists. I am a cosmopolitan flaneur, an autodidact intent on close observation and analysis of diverse cultures, an amateur anthropologist making fine distinctions wherever I journey. True, I am all that and more, but cannot deny what I have already confessed in this letter. I carry Rick Steves book on “Amsterdam, Bruges & Brussels” in my baggage and refer to it often for sights to see and where to eat. He also has planned out city walks that tell me where to go and what to look for. But, still, I maintain that I am not a tourist but rather a citizen of the world. I am tolerant of all foreigners in such situations, even those few I might loathe if they were my neighbors in Glendora. I am not just another arrogant American, representing the world’s mightiest empire on holiday in lesser lands. Some American political leaders are now preaching our exceptionalism and the inherent superiority embedded in that claim. I have met some exceptional Americans in my lifetime but they did not gain that distinction as a result of their citizenship. A nation can only nullify those aspects that deserve such credit in the quality of their accomplishments by making such vulgar public boasts. They are most often confusing superiority in weapon’s systems as criteria rather than the quality of life of it’s citizens and the notable achievements of their civilization. An uncritical patriotism is not compatible with any variety of an exceptionalism that could represent a higher quality of character and culture – for an individual as well as for a nation.
And now a moment with Octavio…the poem found at:
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/summit-and-gravity/
Summit And Gravity
There’s a motionless tree
And another one coming forward
A river of trees
Hits my chest
The green surge
Is good fortune
You are dressed in red
You are
The seal of the scorched year
The carnal firebrand
The star fruit
In you like sun
The hour rests
Above an abyss of clarities
The height is clouded by birds
Their beaks construct the night
Their wings carry the day
Planted in the crest of light
Between firmness and vertigo
You are
Transparent balance
- Octavio Paz
Tags: Belgium, Bruges, Flemish paintings, Rick Steves
Posted in Knowledge and Learning, Letters to Octavio Paz, Mentors, Really old friends/philosophers/authors/poets, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Thought Provoking, Travels, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Saturday, November 24th, 2012
 I recently attended a marvelous play with Judy in Los Angeles at the Mark Taper Theater. The name of the play was “Red” by John Logan, and the two character play starred that wonderful actor Alfred Molina as the American painter of the last century, Mark Rothko. An actor I had not seen before, Jonathan Groff, played Ken, his young recently hired assistant. I was enthralled with the play; sat on the edge of my seat, with no break in the intense emersion with what was happening on the stage, thankfully without intermission. Rothko, as you might recall, painted those huge canvases, with rectangular, floating shapes of intense color, shimmering in their supposed abstraction, yet real in their ability to convey alternative worlds. Rothko, as portrayed by Logan and acted by Molina, is terse and abrupt with the young man who enters the stage at the very beginning of the play in a suit, wanting to impress his new employer. Rothko invites Ken to join him in front of one his paintings he is working on. These words are the very first words uttered in the play.
“ROTHKO. What do you see? (Ken is about to respond – ) Wait. Stand closer. You’ve got to get close. Let it pulsate. Let it work on you. Closer. Too close. There. Let it spread out. Let it wrap its arms around you; let it embrace you, filling even your peripheral vision so nothing else exists or has ever existed or will ever exist. Let the picture do its work – but work with it. Meet it halfway for God’s sake! Lean forward, lean into it. Engage with it!… Now, what do you see? – Wait, wait, wait! (He hurries and lowers the lighting a bit, then returns to Ken.) So, now, what do you see? – Be specific. No, be exact. Be exact – but sensitive. You understand it? Be kind. Be a human being, that’s all I can say. Be a human being for once in your life! These pictures deserve compassion and they live or die in the eye of the sensitive viewer, they quicken only if the empathetic viewer will let them. That is what they cry out for. That is why they were created. That is what they deserve… Now…What do you see?”
Of course we know what Ken will say in response. He says “Red”. That leads to another spirited exchange with Rothko being somewhat of a bully but the young assistant holding his own.  It is simply one of the best plays about the creative process and the endemic issues of the human condition when engaging aesthetic experiences. Let’s look a bit at this exchange in the context of this blog. I can’t help but wonder what instructions a potter would give to someone observing his or her pots. Would it differ in some regards with Rothko’s impassioned plea for sensitivity and compassion on the part of the viewer? Surely you would want someone who you are demanding to provide commentary about your pottery or ceramic art to be kind in doing so? Rothko (or Logan’s version of Rothko) is almost pleading for a kind of empathy, that these paintings deserve that empathy. What do your pots deserve? You labored at the wheel, concentrating with every fiber of your being in that act of creation, somehow it survived the kiln and that person arrives and walks in front of your work. Are you anxious? Do you care, as much as Rothko seems to care, about the reaction of the viewer? Have you ever observed someone strolling by your ceramic stuff without stopping, scanning your marvelous wonders, but moving quickly past to see someone else’s work in the next booth?
 On the same type of occasions I always try to provide positive testimony when I engage work I admire and respect. I must be sincere in doing so and will not pay false tribute to work that does not engage me. But even here, I realize that often I cannot or will not do what Rothko implores – to wait, to give it time to work on you – to lean into it, meet it halfway. If I did that to every pot in a gallery or pottery show, I would be there for weeks instead of an afternoon. I cannot be fair to all potters and pots. I must make almost instant decisions based on the first, immediate flash of visual comprehension, to stop in front of that particular pot, to tarry, to focus on it, to blot out any other visual distractions, to be in the moment and try very hard to please Rothko by being a human being for once in my life. It is a terrible responsibility and commitment because my reaction is not just about the pot, it is also about me. Will I continue to make my lifelong effort to be that “sensitive viewer” that makes that pot live or die in my viewing of it? Every verdict about a pot is also a verdict about the quality and effort I have invested in my response to it.
Do you notice something important? Rothko (Logan) did not tell Ken that Ken owed Rothko, the person, the need to be sensitive, kind, and empathic. No (and I think this is really important) he told Ken that he owed the painting itself all that.  Isn’t a painting or pot just a thing? It doesn’t have a soul and it doesn’t have feelings, does it? What do I owe my pots? Surely I don’t owe the potter anything? I already paid him/her for the pot. Rothko (Logan) infers that there is something moral, maybe even sacred about the relationship of the artifact and the observer. We know that in some religions in the temple or church there are objects or relics that are sacred objects, and that possess some special kind of blessing and religious power. The objects themselves, be it the bones of long dead saints or the handcrafted objects used in religious ceremonies, take on the very spirit and character of the God they represent as articulated in that faith. Have I somehow mistreated or underestimated the pots in my gallery? They give me the path to ecstasy and glory and all I do for them is to occasionally dust them.
 Some philosophers are insisting that animals have inherent rights and have feelings, including that of pain. Environmentalists are arguing that everything alive in nature must be respected and protected. Many religions find the sacred in nature itself. If artifacts, as I assert here, can be the catalyst for some of the most profound joy and jubilation for those humans who engage them, then surely we must find ways to honor them for this supernatural power. Does what Rothko was imploring Ken to do and feel in his engagement with one of his paintings resemble a sacred or spiritual experience? Again all this reinforces my original assertion that aesthetics and the spiritual are close kin in their ability to elevate us to a higher plane.
I have just come across further evidence in reinforcing my claims about the relationship of the sacred and the aesthetic. In Volume 4 of the Oxford “Encyclopedia of Aesthetics”, there is an essay by Nicholas Wolterstorff on the subject of religion and aesthetics in which he say this,
“The views on art and religion that have been articulated in the modern West do not appear to fall into any natural classification. One theme that emerged already in the eighteenth century was that of the sublime. When discussing art, wilderness, contemplation, and imagination (imaging), the eighteenth-century theorists spoke regularly not only of beauty but also of sublimity – by which they meant the grand, the majestic, the awesome, to which correspond feelings of being overpowered and being overwhelmed.  Writers reported experiencing such feeling in the presence of mountains and oceans, but also, early in the nineteenth century, when listening to the music of Ludwig van Beethoven or reading the poetry of William Wordsworth. Feelings of sublimity were, as one might expect, also regarded as prominent among the religious affections. Friedrich Schleirmacher located the origin of religion in one’s primordial feeling of dependence: and that feeling, if not exactly the same as the eighteen-century theorists had in mind of feelings of sublimity, certainly incorporate such feelings. Thus, sublimity and its feelings were regularly regarded as connecting art and religion. As to the precise mode of connection, there was little consensus, and often not much clarity. The feelings of sublimity that one sometimes experiences when contemplating wilderness or art – are these merely one species of the genus, feelings of sublimity, with another species being the feeling one has when one senses oneself in the presence of God? Or is the connection closer than that? Are the former feelings themselves somehow religious in character? When one contemplates oceans and mountains, when one listens to Beethoven and reads Wordsworth, are the feelings of sublimity experienced themselves religious affections? Is one somehow in the presence of the divine? Is the feeling of sublimity, regardless of its phenomenal object, a religious emotion – perhaps the primordial religious emotion?”
 I do not begrudge any human being his or her own path to such transcendent experiences – be it a formal religious ceremony or listening to Beethoven or reading the poet Wordsworth or watching a sunset. I also think you could find such joy in my pottery gallery and all readers of my blog have a standing invitation to visit. Of course you do not have to choose one exclusive path but explore many paths and enjoy a host of sublime encounters. We can find the grand, the majestic, the awesome in not only speculator sites but in the humble crafts-person making pottery in an indigenous village far away from us or as well in the spacious museum in an urban setting that holds a vast treasure house of fine art. One can find such things in places like Yosemite Park, where one of my sons is principal of an elementary school there. I have no need to dictate or choose these things for others. Finding them on your own is half of the pleasure.
 We all try to cope; we all somehow try to make it through the day. We try to do an honest days work, hopefully obtain three meals a day for ourselves and those we are responsible for, and faithfully pay the rent or mortgage. This three-part blog has been about the question – what else do we require beyond that? Maybe ‘require’ is not the right word. We can exist, and millions do, just trying to survive, trapped in poverty over the world. However, whatever your economic or social status, all humans have the capacity to celebrate a sunset, to thrill to Beethoven’s ninth symphony, (that’s the one they played in Berlin after the wall came down), to marvel at the mastery and genius of centuries of ceramic art, to hold and appreciate a hand-woven basket or a hand-carved piece of wood now transformed into an animal or some other amazing form.  We know this because all cultures, however distant they are or impoverished materially they may be, have significant cultures they themselves have created and maintained through the centuries. No, I will reinstate the word ‘required’, because we must feed the human soul as well as our stomachs in order to endure the rest. In that sense, we become worthy creatures and our art and crafts become primary evidence of our most noble and creative instincts. Those of us who love beautiful pottery can offer vivid testimony of our transformative elevation into a state of aesthetic grace.
Tags: Alfred Molina, Beethoven, Beethoven’s ninth symphony, Friedrich Schleirmacher, Jonathan Groff, Mark Rothko, Mark Taper Theater, Nicholas Wolterstorff, William Wordsworth, “Red” by John Logan
Posted in Emotions, Knowledge and Learning, Mentors, New favorites, Pottery as Emotional Containers, Pottery Collection, Richard's Garden, Richard's Photos, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Thought Provoking, Transcendence, Transformation, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Thursday, November 8th, 2012
 The nature of transcendence and transformative experiences are not inspired by just pleasant and happy aesthetic experiences. Some of the deepest emotions that roil and rage inside your soul are those that can arouse great pain and anguish. Transformative experiences do not always lead to a happy face and a simple happiness. Aesthetic experiences often touch and torch your very soul. Aesthetic experiences celebrate all strands of human fate and destiny – the full agony and ecstasy of human experience. Is it worth it? I would take my position in the affirmative. What makes the difference between an aesthetic experience that might contain great sadness or even tragic dimensions or that television show or film that depends upon graphic violence of car chases and random murders with the accompanying loud explosions of gunfire and spurting blood? How can some films inspire transformative experiences that move you to tears while others are merely entertaining at best and happily make the two hours rush by before you know it? I doubt that a comic book can be transformative and life changing but surely a great novel can be. You will get what you are looking for – even if you really deserve more than that. Don’t sell yourselves short in the search and selection.
Christopher Butler, in his book, “Pleasure and the Arts: Enjoying Literature, Painting, and Music”, discusses this issue among many. He starts off by quoting the British composer, Benjamin Britten, in his comments on a movement composed by another composer, Mahler.
“It has the beauty of loneliness and of pain: of strength and freedom. The beauty of disappointment and never-satisfied love. The cruel beauty of nature, and everlasting beauty of monotony. And there is nothing morbid about it…serenity literally supernatural. I cannot understand it – it passes over me like a tidal wave – and that matters not a jot either, because it goes on forever, even if it is never performed again – that final chord is printed on the atmosphere.”
After providing this quote, Butler goes on with the following comments,
“We have genuinely painful emotions and anguished thoughts in response to such works of art, and there are plenty of people who simply cannot take the fictional violence displayed in the cinema and on TV, who weep copiously when moved by the story of others’ sad predicaments, and so on. W hen I choose between a Johann Strauss waltz and Richard Strauss’s exquisitely mourning Metamorphosen I know that the latter work is going to be tough for me in a way that the former certainly isn’t….Ella Fitzerald or the Tritsch Tratsch Polka will generally do better in lifting my mood. Nor can I doubt that many of the cruelties described in books and enacted in films have their exact counterparts outside fiction, as in the case of Roddy Doyle’s harrowing description of a battered wife in his novel The Woman Who Walked into Doors. And yet, and so, there seems to be something which compensates us for the unpleasant emotions and sad or revolting thoughts that many works of art can make us have, so that pleasure is also involved. Doyle’s book was extraordinarily painful to read, but one of the many compensations here was the extraordinary heroism, dignity, humour, and resource of the woman narrator.”
A Self-Examined Life or a Sit-com?
Can pleasure be derived, as Butler maintains, by immersing yourself vicariously in art that brings such sadness and even revulsion? We have been taught in this culture to use our spare time to escape our troubles – to contrived fantasylands that offer laugh tracks through entire half-hour sit-com television programs.  In the great tragic plays of classical Greece, playwrights often used the theatrical devise of the Greek chorus that reacted to the behavior of the central actors and provided a sort of narrative but they, unlike those television sit-coms, rarely had that many occasions to laugh. I think Britten is right, not only about that single movement of Mahler’s, but about finding a kind of beauty in loneliness and pain that also provides you strength and freedom. The beauty of disappointment and never-satisfied love allows a greater intensity of joy when you do finally discover meaningful satisfaction and love finally becomes fully satisfied. As in life, it is also true in aesthetic experiences – you pay your dues in order to earn the good stuff. As with all good things, you might have to wait for it. I think a key indication of a person’s maturity occurs at that time in life when you discover you are indeed willing to work for and patiently wait for the developing capacity to enjoy the finer things of life. Unlike your car and kitchen appliances, you cannot claim them immediately and then pay them off on the installment plan. Creating a self-examined life doesn’t work like that.
 So transcendental experiences do not constitute or at least are not limited to a happy times escape into an aesthetic Disneyland. There are two central aesthetic principles that can take you, when experiencing art, to other unworldly realms far away from the tedium of your daily reality. These principles are that of beauty and the sublime. The pleasures of beauty in art can be compared to the glories of nature – the golden hued sunset and the deep seated scarlet of the rose, the towering mountains crested with snow, the dense and varied vegetation of a tropical forest, the foamed breaking of waves on the shore and their quick and regular retreat to the sea, the web of intricate lines on an old person’s face – and more and more and yet more – all constitute examples of the beautiful. Yet we know that nature is also of the bloody claw and razor sharp teeth that devours other animals in a ruthless food chain that allows no mercy and makes death as common in nature as life itself, the raging storms and winds that can flood the land and destroy all the puny structures of human habitation, can crack huge, rooted trees in half and wipe away all lesser vegetation, and can devastate and rearrange the natural geography in capricious patterns of wanton destruction – all constitute examples of the sublime in nature. The beautiful becomes apparent and possible only in contrast to the sublime. My comments in these last few paragraphs, along with those of Butler and Britten, deal with aspects of the sublime in aesthetic experience. Here I might lodge an assertion for your consideration – that you cannot have a profound or transformative transcendental experience without elements of both the beautiful and the sublime.
Protecting Our Environment While Inspiring Our Souls
I want to talk about the idea of sustainability. This is a complex concept embedded in the environmental and ecological paradigm that informs us that we are actively depleting the finite non-renewal natural resources and in doing so are so harming the environment as to wound, perhaps fatally, the ability of the interdependent ecosystems to sustain themselves.  This increasing serious condition requires that we take collective action and seek a transition to a way of living on the earth that corrects this type of behavior. Among many things we need to shift to sustainable practices, to shift to renewable forms of energy such as wind and sun power. We need to soften our footprint on the earth and find ways of cutting down on our wasteful habits of excessive consumption. The huge mounds of our trash in our overflowing city dumps are a tribute to this unsustainable lifestyle. I bring this up because one of the glories of a culturally enriched existence is that it is sustainable. By that, I mean that we can create and engage art with limited impact on our environment and with very good results for us. I want to transfer the notion of sustainability from the natural environment to the condition and situation of sustaining ourselves aesthetically.
 Human beings in their physical selves, in the complicated and interdependent biological systems of their own bodies need to sustain their physical health by regulating what they eat and getting proper exercise. But there is another kind of sustainability I am talking about that has nothing to do with the material or physical side of nature or people. We need to find ways to sustain our souls. Modern life can be quite harsh in what it demands of us. How do we nurture that sensitive, thinking self that yearns for meaning and joy, for revelation and stimulation, for inspiration and celebration? I fear we know as little about the sustainability of the soul as we have sadly demonstrated how little we know about the sustainability of the natural environment. And what we do know in both regards seems to be so difficult for us to implement effectively. Why don’t we take better care of the natural environment? Why don’t we take better care of ourselves? This has nothing at all to do with how much money we have managed to acquire in our bank accounts or the latest model car we are driving or if we have a swimming pool in our back yard. You know what I am talking about.
I am talking not just about the knowledge about the natural environment we must seek and improve in order to develop appropriate public policies. I am talking about what human values need to be developed and encouraged to improve our own ability to live meaningful lives within a sustainable environment. I claim that the transformative power of art can be a key ally in that kind of change because it has the capacity to inspire and change human conduct. Benjamin R. Cohen, in an article, “The Historical Production (and Consumption) of Unsustainability: Technology, Policy and Culture”, in the summer issue of the journal “The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflection on Contemporary Culture” talks about this very issue.
“The problems of unsustainability are cultural as well as biological, exacerbated by human decisions about living in nature that often remain buried in the present debate and, thus, remain unquestioned. It took concerted efforts to build the infrastructure into cultural and environmental landscapes that is now difficult to sustain, an infrastructure of modernity that draws from nature’s resources, distances humans from the land, operates without a sense of limits, and follows from a reduction of ecological realities – above and beyond the scope and scale of humanity – to anthropocentric constructs. This coteries of distance, limitlessness, extraction, and anthropocentrism adds up to produce a world always outpacing our capacity to keep something going.”
What would be the consequences if we shifted from the consumption of unsustainable commodities to the consumption of aesthetic experiences? Can this notion of mine be challenged?  Are there practices in creating pottery and making other artifacts that need to be reformed in order to lessen the impact on the environment? How do we lessen the impact of hundreds of people that travel and assemble in a concert hall or in a theater? I could go on with this idea but you know where I am going. How do we sort all this out so that we can assert that the impact of making art on the natural environment are benign while the impact on the human soul can be profound? I am now looking around my pottery gallery at hundreds of ceramic artifacts, all sitting quietly on shelves that run from floor to ceiling, all appear innocent and harmless to me. I can claim with far more assurance that the transcendental experience of engaging art for the individual is an interior experience that causes no harm to the natural environment and brings great pleasure to that person. My pottery sustains me.  My garden is a meeting ground for humming birds, butterflies and bees. Neighbors love to visit my garden and visit my gallery and marvel at all the beautiful pottery. I think somehow, without really knowing what I was doing, I have during the last 35 years created a sustainable environment for hummingbirds, butterflies and people. If only all people would buy pottery like I did, think what a wonderful world we would have. As I think all potters would agree reading this last statement, the best of all worlds is when your own self-interest is served and yet you are at the same time contributing to a better world.
What are the barriers for transformative experiences? Could it be that we self-construct these barriers? Are we just too busy working and getting our endless chores done that we don’t have time to enjoy the finer things of life? Tell me the truth – could potters and other makers really be miserable people even thought they spend all day, every day, creating that beautiful pottery? I fear, from what I have read, that artists, including potters, can be every bit as neurotic and driven as the rest of us. Maybe that is what we have to expect – that the creative experience – as known both by the maker and those who engage the artifact – is not an automatic escape, not like some pharmaceutical prescription that if you swallow two pills as it instructs on the bottle you will either feel very good or not feel anything at all within the next hour. Art doesn’t work that way.
Infinite Observation and Appreciation
 There are some pots in my gallery that I have had for over thirty years, looking at them every day of my life since I obtained them – and yet – after twenty or thirty years of intense scrutiny of that pot – I see something new about them – some relationship or feature of the form or glaze – some novel and exciting aspect that delights me. Maybe it has to do with the way that the sunlight is illuminating it at that moment of the day unlike any other time I had visited that particular pot. I was willing to invest the twenty or thirty years of daily observation to reach that point – it is always worth it. And I will go back to that same pot for the remainder of my days on earth and still expect to discover fantastic but yet subtle deviations that somehow escaped my past relationship with that pot. Great craft and great art can be defined by the fact they are inexhaustible in their infinite possibilities for the dedicated observer.
Tags: about Richard, Benjamin Britten, Benjamin R. Cohen, Christopher Butler, Ella Fitzerald, Garden, Johann Strauss, Mahler, Metamorphosen, richard jacobs, Richard Strauss, Roddy Doyle, searching for beauty, transcendence, transformative, Tritsch Tratsch Polka
Posted in Emotions, Knowledge and Learning, Pottery as Emotional Containers, Pottery Collection, Richard's Garden, Richard's Photos, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Thought Provoking, Transcendence, Transformation, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, October 22nd, 2012
 The complex feelings involved in attaining a transcendent experience could well be a combination of many emotions and not just a single one. But the emotion being discussed here has to do with the elevation of the human soul and consciousness beyond the grounded reality of our ordinary lives. Most people might associate this special state with a spiritual experience and that would be quite appropriate to use in this way. I am going to employ this idea in this blog as the intellectual and emotional canopy for the aesthetic engagement and celebration of art. I intend to assert that we all need to be replenished and enriched by an infusion of those ennobling experiences that transcend anchored reality and liberates us to soar above and beyond our everyday existence. In a materialistic culture that seeks to emphasize our roles as consumers of perishable commodities, there seems to be few opportunities to experience those intense and memorable moments whose sublime and thrilling beauty enrich our lives. This theme reminds us of the injunction that we humans cannot live by bread alone.
There is no competition evident in seeking revelation and exhilaration from either the spiritual or the aesthetic. In fact they have been partners throughout human history. We know that religion has historically utilized aesthetic principles in constructing crafted temples of worship,  in the soaring and inspiring music that accompanies religious rituals, in the sponsorship of artists in such periods as the Italian Renaissance where they painted vast murals in churches and other religious sites. In some regions of the world, this collaboration of the spiritual and the aesthetic resulted in the three dimensional and often monumental portrayals of such religious figures as Buddha and other spiritual deities. In more secular and modern societies, where art often is without religious sponsorship or content, the revelatory joys of aesthetic engagement depend on the qualities of the artifact itself.
Who is Worthy?
Can only special people enjoy this very special kind of experience? Do you have to be an expert on ceramic art, an authority on the stocking of the kiln, inside knowledge of ingredients of the clay and the chemistry of the glaze, to be truly enthralled by the engagement of the created pot?  Can only an artist appreciate the work of other artists? I can only answer these questions for myself but I would emphatically deny the exclusivity of the transcendent experience to those with expert authority or specialized knowledge. That would be analogous to claiming that a higher spiritual state is available only to the priesthood or clergy of that faith and not devoted believers in that faith. I must maintain that the ability to activate the wisdom and glory of the aesthetic experience to uplift and enrich your life is open to all people. That is not to say such transcendent experiences are easy or accessible without self-discipline and concentrated focus. As with all the finer things of life, there must be a prior investment of devoted attention to achieve those rarefied moments of epiphany that mark the enraptured exaltation of experiencing great art and craft.
There are those who would not limit this ability to various types of people but would limit it by insisting that those qualities that could sponsor such emotions are embedded in only very special varieties of ‘fine art’ and cannot be found in craft or specifically pottery. This is an elitist view that exiles the handcrafted artifact to the lesser level of utilitarian ware. There is an implicit inference here that not only is the ceramic artifacts of a lower status but the maker of that object operates on a lower level of spiritual and aesthetic behavior. In his book, “The Spirit of Ceramic Design: Cultivating Creativity with Clay”, Robert Piepenburg has a chapter titled “Spiritual Principles – Intimate Guidance” in which he talks about those spiritual attributes of the ceramic artist that transcend material expertise and craft technique. Although his remarks in this book are addressed to ceramicists, his comments do not limit the attainment of these qualities to just artists. Nor does his definition of spiritual principles require a special religious membership but are rather universal in nature and can become the rightful property of all that seek it. This is what Piepenburg has to say,
“Where a lot of artists are at right now is a place of personal discovery where they realize that having a spiritual component to their art-making is every bit as important as having it in their lives.  This is especially true with ceramists. While this emergence may be due in part to the primal nature of the clay itself, I think it is mostly a reality shift of consciousness. Any alternation of consciousness, like any process of internal transformation that leads to a new state or quality of being, can be likened to an awakening. If such discoveries lead to a deeper dimension of self they are in essence spiritual and add new purpose to being alive. As for what exactly constitutes spirituality it is never easy to say, but we do know that it endows everything from art to politics with humanness. We also know that it is a precondition to our becoming – to the finding of our own authentic path in life – because spirituality gives intimate meaning and guidance to life. It is the sum total of energy that exists within our heart, mind, and body. Without it we are unable to recognize a deeper sacredness in life, let alone understand the creative process. If we acknowledge the importance of our spirit and its reverence for that which is universally true, positive, and wise then the next question becomes: ‘How do we take it into the studio?’”
Feeding Our Souls
 In the sense that Piepenburg offers here, the making and engagement of art provides the spiritual stuff that can nourish that internal state or condition that gives purpose and reason to being alive. These spiritual and aesthetic resources are obtained by the life we lead. I often read about the importance of diet, the avoidance of too much processed food or the chronic ingestion of food with excessive amounts of sugar and salt as leading to obesity or even ill health. Here Piepenburg is talking about food for the soul and he is talking about ceramics. First we take it into our hearts, minds and bodies, then some of us who are makers can take it into the studio. I like the use of that word ‘cultivating’ in the title of his book. That is the life long chore or task for all of us – to cultivate those inner qualities and assemble around us those aesthetic resources that lead us to a more refined and sublime level of existence.
Transcendental experiences cannot be obtained by some short cuts or immediate acquisition. Like all good things that really count, they have to be earned. People today are spoiled by cheap and easy access to forms of entertainment that can be manipulated in some hand-held electronic appliance. Transformation and transcendence requires a longer attention span and greater effort than that. The difference – if you will forgive my frank honesty – is the difference between a superficial existence or a profound and meaningful existence based on the very best that human culture could provide us. They might be some among us that do not have sufficient self-esteem to believe that they are capable of such experiences. I spent much of my time as an educator trying to convince students otherwise. There had even been times in our history where discriminating practices and laws forbid women and African-Americans and others full access to the riches of our culture in higher education and elsewhere, because they were judged unworthy and not capable of absorbing it. Some groups have had to struggle and fight for the eventual right to attain access to these cultural opportunities. Far too many of us who had and have the inherent privilege of such access have not sought to obtain it. It is that ‘awakening’ that shakes the very core of the inner self, which arouses all the inner energy and drive of your person, to transcend all the surrounding handicaps and limitations, and finally overpower them by transporting the gifts of human culture into the raw fuel of self-construction.
Transcending Passports
I do not think it is necessary to be unhappy with your everyday life to want to occasionally transcend it. I have written often about the infusion of art and beauty into our everyday lives and do not believe this represents a contradiction.  On the contrary, it is in the familiar grounds of our own neighborhood and home that we can import those aesthetic experiences that can elevate our joy and consciousness. We can temporarily transcend in spirit our domestic premises without having to charge our credit cards for the cost of travel. How do we open up ourselves to be carried away – not by motorized vehicles – not by a cramped seat within the sealed tube of air flight – but by a memorable and remarkable musical composition, by a great novel, by a stunning pot whose glazes run like molten rivers of vivid color down its sides. I am satisfied to be of this world and reside in it, but creative human culture provides me a passport to other worlds anytime I seek that kind of journey.
Tags: artists, ceramics, cultural influences, education, Italian Renaissance, pottery, richard jacobs, Robert Piepenburg, searching for beauty, transcendence, transformation
Posted in Emotions, HOPE, Knowledge and Learning, Passion, Pottery as Emotional Containers, Richard's Garden, Richard's Photos, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Sentimentality, Thought Provoking, Transcendence, Transformation, Vulgarity | 2 Comments »
Sunday, August 12th, 2012
 Hope might seem a strange emotion to attach to the making and engagement of pottery. Yet I believe that this basic emotion is the very foundation of an affirmative grasp of life and all that it offers, including pottery. For me, it is also an essential outcome of memorable aesthetic experiences. Hope contains the remedy for despair. Much contemporary and post-modern art prefers despair and its more sensational aspects to the softer if not sweeter elements of hope. It is not sophisticated nowadays for artists to offer hope. Hope requires a greater investment and risk than despair. Despair is usually defined as a symptom of bad things that have happened to you or could happen at any time. Despair eventually leads you to an ever more dire condition. In the extreme, it can finally drive you to not caring. The doors and windows of your soul can close and the lights go out. Great art can lead you both places at the same time and in both cases the rewards can be great. This is a very delicate balancing act. To engage the sublime darkness of the human sprit in some metaphorical or aesthetic guise as created by an artist or author, yet find some fragment of hope in the very same place and circumstance is to my mind the highest form of aesthetic engagement.
Hope vs. Despair
Hope is something you have to handcraft and make for yourself and then implement it despite all the dire issues of your own existence. Despair arrives with the concrete evidence of hurt that has been inflicted upon you. Hope is projection of a wished for future that has no real guarantee.  Hope is the yet unrealized emotion of a personal belief system that can have little basis in fact. Hope is always unproven. It cannot depend on the facts of the matter for its justification. Despair might entail an honest and realistic assessment of the situation. Hope always begins as an exaggeration, an inventory of the potential of undependable possibilities. Another advantage of despair is that it is far more dependable than hope. How we cope with despair is often far more revealing of our character than the unfulfilled dreams or illusions that hope can depend upon.
 Despair becomes clinical depression when it appears to lack a basis for its existence but you cannot avoid its intrusion just the same. The circumstances of your present despair might well be the result of your own past errors. Given the common distribution of our fallibilities, how can we prove to ourselves and others that we even deserve to have hope? Another advantage of despair, when one surrenders hope, the pressure is off and any further injury can be received with a benign if not resigned submission. In that sense, hope requires a resistance of the soul, a determination to surmount difficulties that might seem at the time insurmountable. Courage is an ingredient of hope. Despair is often inflicted on the innocent and that innocence can only intensify the despair. Hope has to be earned if it is to triumph.
Human culture must provide us hope. I will go further than that and personalize this statement. Art has been a central source of hope throughout my entire life. Art contains the reservoir of resources that can give us reasons to live and to get up in the morning. For the potter to approach the wheel, there has to be some element of hope that the outcome will be worth the effort. To create art one has to believe that what comes out of that effort will make a difference in the world. I want to further explore why so much contemporary art concentrates on the dismal and dire aspects of human existence. I want to start with a short essay that got my dander up in regard to my present mood. It is in an anthology edited by David Beech, “Beauty: Documents of Contemporary Art”. It really set off my current funk about so much of what is happening in the arts today. It is a brief; one page essay by Robert Smithson titled “An Aesthetics of Disappointment”. Apparently Smithson went to an exhibit in 1966 in New York City and really disliked the show. The essay was a result.
Land Art
 Just a bit of background about Smithson. He was a seminal figure in the Land Art movement through the 1960s and 1970s, best known for ‘Spiral Jetty’, his 1979 “earthwork” in the Great Salt Lake, that was once covered by water but with the long drought in the West, is now visible and frequently visited. Apparently Smithson thought galleries and museum were ‘jails and tombs’, incapable of conveying the messy nature of reality. His ire was directed at an exhibit organized by an engineer that included artists involved in ‘experiments in art and technology’ I went to an website titled “Art Agenda” where April Lamm concluded that “For the most part the result of bringing 30 engineers together with 10 artists yielded performance kitsch at its worst.” Here is Smithson’s statement,
“Many are disappointed at the nullity of art. Many try to pump life or space into the confusion that surrounds art. An incurable optimism like a mad dog rushed into vacuum that the art suggests. A dread of voids and blanks brings on a horrible anticipation. Everybody wonders what art is, because there never seems to be any around. Many feel coldly repulsed by concrete unrealities, and demand some kind of proof or at least a few facts. Facts seem to ease the disappointment. But quickly those facts are exhausted and fall to the bottom of the mind. This mental relapse is incessant and tends to make our aesthetic view stale. Nothing is more faded than aesthetics. As a result, painting, sculpture and architecture are finished, but the art habit continues. The more transparent and vain the aesthetic, the less chance there is for reverting back to purity. Purity is a desperate nostalgia that exfoliates like a hideous need. Purity also suggests a need for the absolute with all its perpetual traps. Yet we are overburdened with countless absolutes and driven to inefficient habits. These futile and stupefying habits are thought to have meaning. Futility, one of the more durable things of this world, is nearer to the artistic experience than excitement. Yet the life-forcer is always around trying to incite a fake madness. The mind is important, but only when it is empty. The greater the emptiness the grander the art. Aesthetics have devolved into rare types of stupidity. Each kind of stupidity may be broken down into categories such as: bovine formalism, tired painting, eccentric concentrics or numb structures. All these categories and many others all petrify into a vast banality called the art world which is no world. A nice negativism seems to be spawning. A sweet nihilism is everywhere. Immobility and inertia are what many of the most gifted artists prefer. Vacant at the centre, dull at the edge, a few artists are on the true path of stultification.”
Thoughts on Smithson
I am not sure I understand exactly what are the specific elements of that exhibit that so offended Smithson. I am not sure it matters.  I would extend his critical application to much of what goes for art today, probably including some of those aspects that he valued and would protect. He starts this essay and his collaboration with me within that very first sentence, “Many are disappointed at the nullity of art.” I frankly don’t know from the tone of his essay if he is agreeing or disagreeing with what he is stating. Is he being clever or satirical? Perhaps just furious and contemptuous? I don’t know and I don’t care. I find his next statement quite puzzling. If an incurable optimism is a mad dog, what kind of monster would represent nullity and futility? I also disagree with the face value of the statement. Where is this optimism he is talking about? I can’t find it in the cynical, aesthetic black holes of much of gallery art today. Yes, Smithson, many of us are very, very disappointed at the nullity of art. What a very good place to begin this discussion. I do wonder why his statement seems in style and content to serve that very same goal. Why would anyone, including the artist or poet, deliberately attempt through their art to disarm human beings of hope?
At some point, Smithson does annoy me. Is he being serious when he says that painting, sculpture, and architecture are finished? Maybe for him but not for me. His tone in this essay is part of the problem for me. Why is it so important to be so provocative? He utters absolutist statements like the one just stated, and then he criticizes the “desperate nostalgia” for the absolute in others. The artist as agent provocateur can be quite wearing on people’s nerves and became quite tedious. This can be true for writers who take the same pose too. Is art really now just a habit? He seems to insist that the only alternative to the present nullity is an unsatisfactory return to facts, the grounded absolutes of previous aesthetic dogma. I don’t agree. He makes two silly statements in a row – about the mind being important only when it is empty and the other about the greater the emptiness the grander the art. Is he just pulling my leg?
 I think he must have learned this trick from Andy Warhol, a mentor of his at one time. Here again he is doing what he just earlier criticized in others – trying to “incite a fake madness” into a discussion where I would value his transparent honesty and informed point of view. Is he trying to prove by his own performance in this essay that “Aesthetics have devolved into rare types of stupidity?” I agree with his final thoughts about nihilism in the arts but I don’t think it is all that sweet. Yes, vacant at the centre, dull at the edge, but after a careful reading and re-reading, I share his general disappointment with the state of the arts but for very different reasons. I end up suspecting that it really serves his purpose to adopt a jaded, cynical disappointment that offers no hope beyond it. For me, he then becomes a part of the problem.
I have another anxiety in advancing my perspective on these matters. There was a whole range of conforming and conventional know-nothings out there who reject any innovation or experimentation in art beyond their fond memories of the covers of the ‘Saturday Evening Post’ by Norman Rockwell.  Now their grandchildren collect the sentimental, mass-produced stuff by Thomas Kincaid. I do not equate great art with an illustrated realism nor limit my ceramic interests to the stark minimalism of the functional ceramic container as domestic appliance. Nor do I require or limit my received aesthetic messages to contain only good news or morale building opportunities. Hope needs rigor and complexity to makes a difference. It also needs the exuberance that comes from the expression of human feeling.
Tags: about Richard, Andy Warhol, art agenda, artist, artists, Beauty, cultural influences, despair, Emotions, Garden, hope, land art movement, life, pottery, richard jacobs, Robert Smithson, searching for beauty, Spiral Jetty
Posted in Emotions, HOPE, Knowledge and Learning, Pottery as Emotional Containers, Pottery Collection, Richard's Garden, Richard's Photos, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Thought Provoking, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Wednesday, July 25th, 2012
 The maker is more public and exposed than my current situation as private collector. I can hide out in the safety of my home and garden. Potters stand in front of their pottery, and the direct responsibility of one for the other is not in doubt. You cannot disinherit or deny your own work. There is a basic courage in affirming your own work after bringing it into existence. If you do not love your own creations, if you do not have loyalty to them after creating them, than you might well be considered a phony and a fake. Yet that love for the offspring of your muddy hands and the wheel is subject to public scrutiny by strangers who do not know you. How do you feel when people walk by your booth at a ceramic fair or exhibit without stopping? How do you protect yourself when your feelings are hurt by sheer indifference? Isn’t that even a more hurtful rejection than any other kind?
Words of Passion
I want to offer you another notion of this ascension of passion from bodily desires to an inclusive love that leads to the contemplation of beauty, truth, and virtue. In his book, “The Double Flame: Love and Eroticism”, Octavio Paz, the Mexican poet of the last century and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, takes us back to Plato and his book, “Symposium” in which his spokesperson, Socrates talks about his encounter with Diotima, a wise foreign priestess. According to Plato, Diotima tells Socrates of the loftiest and the most deeply hidden mysteries of passion, love and beauty.
“In our youth we are attracted by corporeal beauty, and we love only one body, one beautiful form. But if what we love is beauty, why love it only in one body and not in many? And Diotima asks again: If beauty exists in many forms and persons, why not love it in and of itself? And why not go beyond the forms and love the thing that makes them beautiful, the idea?  Diotima sees love as a ladder: at the bottom, love of a beautiful body; then the beauty of many bodies; after that, beauty itself; after that, the virtuous soul; and finally, incorporeal beauty. If love of beauty is inseparable from the desire of immortality, why not participate in it through the contemplation of the eternal forms? Beauty, truth, and virtue are three and one; they are facets of the same reality, the only real reality. Diotima concludes: ‘He who has followed the path of love’s initiation in the proper order will on arriving at the end suddenly perceive a marvelous beauty, the source of all our efforts…An eternal beauty, non engendered, incorruptible, that neither increases nor decreases.’ A beauty that is entire, one, identical to itself, that is not made up of parts as the body is or of ratiocinations, as is discourse. Love is the way, the ascent, toward the beauty: it goes from the love of one body to the love of many, then from the love of all beautiful forms to the love of virtuous deeds, then from deeds to ideas and from ideas to absolute beauty, which is the highest life that can be lived, for in it ‘the eyes of the understanding commune with beauty, and man engenders neither images nor simulacra of beauty but beautiful realities.’ And this is the path of immortality.”
If the maker can embed a kind of beauty in the ceramic work, then that object can inspire the passionate search for truth and virtue as attributes of ‘beautiful realities’. I would not go along with Plato’s insistence, as articulated by Socrates, that there is only one absolute beauty, that perfect, ideal single form that is the eternal template for all lesser examples.
Variates of Beauty
 I see many varieties of beauty as I look around my pottery gallery, taking in diverse appearances that can be traced to many cultures and styles as expressed in historical context through many generations of potters. I do aspire to attain that ascendant mountaintop where I can gaze at the marvels of past and present ceramic civilizations and celebrate that a small portion of that greatness resides in my pottery gallery. Passion can lead to love – a love that transports us to a profound and virtuous state of awakened contemplation and the embrace of marvelous beauty and sublime expression. When will it be safe in our society to talk about our feelings again? I for one am not ashamed to do so.
Art and craft, basic human culture, cannot flourish where emotions are suppressed. Art, and yes, craft and pottery, has been shifting to just another commercial activity, just another exchange of money for product as a financial transaction typical of how our society works.  If there is no inherent nobility of spirit present, if there is nothing uplifting about possessing works of beauty, then maybe I should just transfer my consumer activity to other products that promise a bigger bang for my bucks. I have been going to craft shows for several decades. There is less and less pottery there because potters cannot afford the high fees required to obtain a booth. So they are being squeezed out. Apparently pottery is not a hot market commodity item or a big profit maker. Well, for me, pottery is not merchandize, and we must find others ways to sing the enriching virtues of pottery. Oliver Wendell Holmes, former Supreme Court Justice, once said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Well, in the same spirit, when you purchase pottery and other craft, you pay for human culture. I think that is a very good bargain indeed.
Consumer Trends
How do you sell a quality of life instead of just more stuff to store in your house? Maybe I should buy all my pottery from China in the future.  It would be cheap and I could get a better deal than those more expensive America potters. Remind me to check out eBay and find some good buys. Pottery is a part of human culture and ceramics is a part of human civilization. Why can’t we seem to tell better stories of why that is important? Libraries are closing throughout America during these tough economic times. State parks are being closed in California. What kind of a society first closes its libraries and parks? Why don’t we seem to care about these things anymore? Have we forgotten what makes life worth living? Where does pottery and craft in general fit into a more compelling and convincing story about those values that makes everything else bearable? Do we still believe in them or have we also lost faith in what we do and the joyous impact it can have on others?
Passionate Poetry
I want to offer you a portion of a poem that Octavio Paz wrote. Poetry contains the essence of highly refined passion. Emotions are distilled in poetry as metaphors for the universal issues of our brief existence on earth. Pottery uses that very earth to provide its own emotional vocabulary. One poem in particular by Paz speaks of something that all potters dread when they open up a kiln. This title of rather long poem, of which you will receive only a sample, is “The Broken Waterjar”, the last poem in a book of his poetry, “Octavio Paz: Early Poems 1935-1955”. This lyrical song celebrates much of what we have been talking about in these three blogs about passion. This is the last part of the poem,
“Tell me, drouth, stone polished smooth by toothless time,
by toothless hunger,
dust ground to dust by teeth that are centuries, by centuries
that are hunger,
tell me, broken waterjar in the dust, tell me,
is the light born to rub bone against bone, man against man, hunger
against hunger,
till the spark, the cry, the word spurts forth at last,
till the water flows and the tree with wide turquoise leaves arises
at last?
We must sleep with open eyes, we must dream with
our hands,
we must dream the dreams of a river seeking its course, of the
sun dreaming its worlds.
we must dream aloud, we must sing till the song puts forth roots,
Trunk, branches, birds, stars.
We must sing till the dream engenders in the sleeper’s flank the
Red wheat-ear of resurrection.
The womanly water, the spring at which we may drink and
Recognize ourselves and recover,
the spring that tells us we are men, the water that speaks along in
the night and calls us by name,
the spring of words that say I, you, he, we, under the great tree,
the living statue of the rain,
where we pronounce the beautiful pronouns, knowing ourselves
and keeping faith with our names,
we must dream backwards, toward the source, we must row back
up the centuries,
beyond infancy, beyond the beginning, beyond the waters
of baptism,
we must break down the walls between man and man, reunite
what has been sundered,
life and death are not opposite worlds, we are one stem with
twin flowers,
we must find the lost word, dream inwardly and
also outwardly,
decipher the night’s tattooing and look face to face at the
noonday and tear off its mask,
bathe in the light of the sun and eat the night’s fruit and spell
out the writings of stars and rivers,
and remember what the blood, the tides, the earth, and the body
say, and return to the point of departure,
neither inside nor outside, neither up nor down, at the crossroads
where all roads begin,
for the light is singing with a sound of water, the water with
a sound of leaves,
the dawn is heavy with fruit, the day and the night flow together
in reconciliation like a calm river,
the day and the night caress each other like a man and woman
in love,
and the seasons and all mankind are flowing under the arches of
the centuries like one endless river
toward the living center of origin, beyond the end and
the beginning.
 I think potters already have taken Paz’s advice and “dream with their hands”. Hopefully your pottery sings for you and the song fills the air with who you are and what you have just made and given to the world. Pottery does break down the walls, speaks a universal language, can aid in the reconciliation of all humans. Pottery is made of earth, fire and water, “flowing under the arches of the centuries like one endless river toward the living center of origin, beyond the end and the beginning.”
To be engaged in the world can only be recorded on your soul and heart if you are open to not only receiving sensations and meanings but also providing your own response in return. Many who read this blog do that very thing with their ceramic artistry. There is no reason to make that effort unless that created artifact contains the compressed summary of your thoughts and feelings. That passionate, expressive content is waiting for the observer, dormant in the ceramics object only when unseen or neglected, activated on contact when viewed and experienced.
We have so far explored sentimentality and passion as emotions inherent in the creative process and embedded in pottery. What are some other emotions contained in pottery? We will see in the next blog.
Tags: about Richard, Beauty, ceramics today, cultural influences, Garden, Greek Philosophy, mentors, Octavio Paz, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Passion, plato, richard jacobs, searching for beauty, Sentimentality
Posted in Knowledge and Learning, Mentors, Peace, the opposite of war., Scotch, an experience..., Searching For Beauty, Thought Provoking, Travels, Uncategorized, Weather and Ceramics | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012
 In a previous blog, regarding the emotion of sentimentality in relationship to pottery and the creative process, I offered George Ohr as a model of a male who displayed a variety of emotional elements in his personality and pottery. He was a true eccentric, bawdy and lustful in his ceramic brothel tokens and other aesthetic and personal vulgarities. Now, I would like to counter some of the stereotypes just discussed about women by offering you one of the great American woman potters, every bit as eccentric and notorious in her way as George Ohr. Of course I am talking about Beatrice Woods. I have been to her former home in Ojai, California, several times, now a museum and workshop for visiting potters. It is situated in a lovely landscape, up in the rolling hills just outside Ojai. There is also an exhibit there with plenty of photographs, text and of course her luster pottery, that tells the legendary exploits of this woman who lived to be over 100 years old, took many of the great artists of the 20thcentury as her lovers and friends, and had an independent and passionate spirit that lasted until the very last day of her very long life.
In his book, “Shards: Garth Clark on Ceramic Art”, Clark has a very touching essay on Woods, titled “A True and Romantic Pragmatist”. He featured her several times in his gallery over the years. I want to provide you two segments of that essay here,
“We were friends for twenty years, and I know why her lovers clung to her friendship even after the passion had passed. Wood has a way of bringing light and optimism into one’s life.  Witty, positive and a fascinating raconteur, she was able to communicate her enthusiasm for life and for the present. While she may have enjoyed telling stories from her long life, she never lived in the past. She was an extraordinary friend. Almost every momentous event of my life during our friendship is punctuated with a letter from Beatrice, congratulating, encouraging, commiserating. I never knew where she found the time to write these elegant, warm, poetic notes. Many times I did not even know how she had found out about those moments.”
In the last passage in this essay, Clark mourns the recent passing of this vibrant and unique person,
“To say that I will miss her is strangely incorrect. There are some people whose passing cannot lessen their presence in one’s daily life.  Certainly, I mourn that I cannot drop in at her studio and home in Ojai and enjoy her laughter, and lively discussions about art, sex and politics. I will miss the aromatic meals off her glittering plates. I will miss walking after her as she shuffled barefoot to her studio to show me the latest ‘horrors,’ as she jokingly referred to her newly fired work in the kiln. But death alone cannot take away a spirit as vital and contagious as that of Beatrice Wood.  She lives on in the life of her many friends, and one must compliment God for the wisdom of allowing her to stay somewhat longer than the average mortal. Certainly she used that time wisely and played out a life that shimmered, glittered, sparkled and seduced every bit as much as the luster pots she made for the last sixty-five years.”
Clark has provided us not only a sensitive tribute to a dear friend recently deceased, but something about this woman and the way she choose to live her life. Her life was a work of art as well as her luster pottery. She dared to create herself and insist that others make room for her. She was born to wealth and privilege but shunned the life it offered and went her own way. She gave up the superficial respectability that her privileged origins provided, but she gained a greater and truer respect in developing her unique person-hood and pottery.
Our Way in the World
 You might respond to my portrayals of both George Ohr and Beatrice Wood by saying they were rare characters, larger than life, and we can’t all be that spectacular in our behavior and character. I would agree with you. Each of us must find our own way of being in the world. But I hope we would both agree, however we are able to demonstrate it, that passion for life and passion for work are essential components for a rich and meaningful quality of life. I am a quiet, shy man in many respects; a short, bald-headed, bookish man that in retirement spends much of my time in the solitude of my home with my books and pottery. Yet a flame still burns and flickers in my soul and I greet each day and the morning sun with an increased tempo of anticipation, marshaling all the energy still at my command at this late time in my life, engaging the day and all the potential splendors and wonders that each day brings to me. I think what I have just said constitutes a summary and definition of a passionate life. How would you describe your life passions?
Searching for Beauty
I wrote a book about searching for beauty and many of the readers of this blog have devoted their lives to creating beauty with clay. This commitment to beauty, however one might define the qualities that make up beauty, also contains, according to some, the elements of the erotic and the quality that we call love. The study of the beautiful is contained in that field of scholarship called ‘Aesthetics”. However academics might wish to shape this discussion into formal theory and reduce it to analytical thought, this study of beauty is essentially a study of feelings. The following quote reinforces the commentary by Garth Clark in his tribute to Beatrice Woods. Here is the quote, in the book, “Beauty: Documents of Contemporary Art”, an anthology edited by Dave Beech, in an essay by Kathleen Marie Higgins titled “Whatever Happened to Beauty?” Higgins talks about the relationship of beauty to our emotions.
“When beauty transforms raw emotion in times of loss, does it necessarily make us more ‘philosophical’, in the colloquial sense of more stoical, more distanced from the wound we have suffered? Loss, besides provoking pangs of anger, regret, and sadness, has a deadening influence on the person engulfed by it.  Loss is depressing. The bereaved often doubt that they can continue in a world devoid of a loved one. Enter beauty. Beauty makes the world seem worthwhile again. Plato described our stance towards beauty as erotic. We are drawn to beauty. Beauty incites ardor. It is the bridge to sense that reality is lovable. Plato, as much as Kant, would say that beauty makes us philosophical. But for Plato this means that beauty makes us fall in love with what is perfect. I want to suggest that beauty typically, perhaps especially in times of loss, urges not stillness but renewed love of life. Beautiful elegies reflect our sense that the only fitting remembrance for one who lives is to renew life, and that our own march forward into dying is itself an affirmation that life, in its basic character, is good.”
We are moving from discussion of that utilitarian passion that accompanies physical sexuality to a generic or cosmic sense of passion as the very stuff that allows an affirmation of life, that makes life good, that celebrates beauty; all this can be accomplished by a special intensity and rush of feelings that brings excitement and joy in our ordinary and daily attempts to cope and survive. Ceramic artists provide those concrete objects that can set off these celebrations of the spirit. I think we have now established beyond any shadow of a doubt that pottery are indeed containers of passion. It is the transfer of that passion to someone like me, who tries to bring his entire self to that engagement that sparks my own transformation to a heightened state of aesthetic arousal. I can only conclude, and perhaps you were not aware of this before, but for those of you that are represented in my pottery collection, we do indeed have a very intimate and passionate relationship. We need not alarm others by disclosing it. I will deny all rumors.
The Comforts of Home
 I am in my pottery gallery right now, just finishing some iced tea. The air-conditioned interior resists the intrusion of a very warm afternoon. I am surrounded by pottery, surrounded by beauty. I would like to feel that I am not only a docent of the pottery in my home, but also the custodian of the passionate efforts that the makers invested in the creation of that pottery. I try to honor the potter in attempting to provide protection for the pottery. We are both invested, maker and collector, we both care very much. I am not embarrassed by proclaiming my feelings, by caring; by feeling both the joy of my close proximity to those things I love, but also, as indicated in the quotes by Clark and Higgins, the pain of possible loss, the fragile and often dangerous connection between passionate love and the universal status of our tenuous mortality and those uncontrollable disasters that can claim what is precious to us. We should not avoid loving in order to evade the pain and loss later on. If you should sometime in the future read in the newspapers that a violent earthquake hit Glendora, think of my destroyed pottery collection, and remind me of what I have just said.
We can hone the ability to express our feelings as we can further develop our skills in expressing our thoughts and creating the artifacts that reflect them.  In writing this text, I am trying to express my feelings about my feelings. I think that is also an interesting idea. When caught in the moment of intense feeling, we are one with that sensation and situation. We are on intimate terms with that thing or person that stimulated our response. But later, after our removal from that intense moment, how do we make sense and learn from our passions? Can we develop the capacity to meditate on those moments that others might say we temporarily lost critical control of ourselves? Can we gain wisdom from our emotional experiences as well as from our thoughts?
We tend to know when we are trying to think something out and then make a mistake. It might be a mistake of fact or a conclusion unsupported by available evidence. I read and evaluated thousands of student papers through the years in which I would point out such errors.  But how do we know when we have made a mistake of passion? We can’t check out the facts or google some information that might rectify and correct our thinking. Affairs of the heart are much more difficult to correct. And they might very well require a time for healing not necessary for more intellectual matters. Our emotions are much more tender than our thoughts. There is a safer distance involved in our opinions about things. We could disagree on what our foreign policy should be right now on what to do about Syria. I would not find that upsetting. But if someone thought my intense feelings about my pottery collection were silly and told me so I would be really upset. You do not display disrespect for another person when you happen to disagree with that person’s opinion about something, but you cannot be said to respect another person if you do not respect that person’s feelings. It is so much easier to ridicule a person’s emotions than a person’s thoughts.
I will continue this discussion in Part three regarding the role of passion in the creative process and pottery as a container of that quality.
Tags: about Richard, beatrice woods, Beauty, California, Garden, George Ohr, life, Passion, pottery, richard jacobs, searching for beauty
Posted in A lifetime of friends..., Emotions, Interesting people I meet, Knowledge and Learning, Mentors, New favorites, Passion, Pottery as Emotional Containers, Pottery Collection, Really old friends/philosophers/authors/poets, Richard's Garden, Richard's Photos, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Thought Provoking, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Tuesday, June 19th, 2012
 I am assuming that all readers of this blog are fully consenting adults. I would require some kind of identification and confirmation of your adult status before allowing you to read further but my meager knowledge of computers and the way they work forbid such regulation. We have the generic question – what is the role of passion in the creative process, in the arts, and in pottery in particular? I will try to restrain myself and maintain my decorum and not embarrass myself or any reader of this blog in leading this particular discussion. Passion in the widest definition of that term would mean any behavior or state of being that demonstrated great intensity of feeling, an exuberant emotional state that can take on physical and emotional dimensions in terms of aroused or celebratory behavior.
The Art of Passion
I am trying very hard to think of any passionate potters I know, but perhaps that emotion was thought best displayed elsewhere and not in my presence. Can the pot show passion if the potter cannot? What form does passion take both in the making of the object and in the final artifact that comes out of it?  Can passion be an innocent emotion devoid of sensuality or is passion displayed outside sexuality a very poor substitute or sublimation for the real thing? I do hope you are prepared for this discussion. Please put away anything that might distract you and really concentrate on helping me through this blog. I might be mistaken but I do believe I have some very passionate pots in my pottery gallery. It would be rude of you to inquire if this very old man responds in kind. A lot of people think passion is an unseemly emotion for old people to display in any form or kind.
Passion’s Longevity
Is passion an ordinary emotion that all of us display in doing what we love to do? I am a passionate gardener though I doubt that this emotion is visible when I garden. Surely someone can see me every morning in the front garden, look at the spectacular, blooming results of my devotion, and realize my emotional investment.  First if all, there is a level of caring in passion, then joy in performing that function or performance, and finally results external to you that you are responsible for and fully justify your efforts. I think all of us can locate in our lives such attitudes and activities. Can such a demanding emotion in terms of energy and focus deteriorate into automatic habit? Can you really spend years of your life with that soggy clay getting your hands dirty on the wheel and yet declare your continuing passion with that experience? Sadly, we know that passion can dissipate and die when associated with other human beings, that has often been the stuff of great poetry. Can it also fade and decline in those things you do that once brought you the greatest joy? How do you protect and preserve passion – with both people and pottery?
Can’t any burst of passion directed toward those objects and subjects of desire become a potential source of great pain and loss if that source of desire is not accessible or obtainable? Isn’t it safer to play it cool, not get too invested, not to take a chance? Doesn’t passion have to be in some sense reciprocal in order to bring personal satisfaction? My garden, in late Spring, is now giving me, in return for my loving attention, the most beautiful and glorious flowers. You have to take a risk when committing to your passions, and the outcome is always in doubt. The bedrock of all passions is the fundamental passion for life itself. I still have it though it has been severely tested at times during my life.
Creativity and Control
When applied to the creative process, does passion lead to innovation and vivid expression or does it distort the artifact by its excess? Don’t most potters believe that they have to control the entire process, plan and design the result, ensure that everything remains predictable and reliable? Doesn’t passion mean at least a partial loss of control; letting go and allowing previously unknown and unruly feelings play a role in the creative process? Isn’t the very idea of mastery in craft defined by the conscious management of a supreme skill, which allows no irrational deviation? How can you combine skill and passion? Aren’t they very unlikely partners at the potter’s wheel?
Passion in the Past
Let us first examine the relationship of passion to sexuality and relate that to pottery. If we go back to classical Greece, we can see vivid portrayals of nude men and boys on some of their pottery.  I remember taking a group of high schools students to the Getty Museum in Malibu, CA many years ago and walking them through the galleries that contained nude sculptures and pottery. Sure enough, it didn’t take a few of the adolescent boys very long to locate that pottery that illustrated the aroused affection of those ancient Greeks of long ago. As for Classical sculpture and contemporary pottery in regard to eroticism, this was what I said in my book, “Searching for Beauty: Letters from a Collector to a Studio Potter”, about this matter, ending with a quote from a book by Paul Mathieu,
“The nose and the penis are always the first to go. Fortunately contemporary ceramics are replenishing the latter. A quick perusal of the classical collection of Greek and Roman sculpture confirms my observation. I have just finished “Sex Pots: Eroticism in Ceramics” by Paul Mathieu. I hide the book from my grandchildren and guests, bringing back warm memories of the surreptitious concealment of certain magazines and illustrations in my adolescence.  I have obviously underestimated up to now just how exciting ceramics really can be. I browse the book, with ceramic evidence of projected penis and dented vulva on countless objects across history and cultures. I do continue to be concerned about the future durability of contemporary works with potentially vulnerable appendages. I fully appreciate the importance of pottery and clay objects in human ritual and the analogous references to the human body in the form and function of ceramic vessels that connect ceramics to human sexuality. Mathieu further explains this idea:
‘…ceramic objects and human bodies remain basically interchangeable as the metaphorical level, but also through somatic analogies within forms and parts. Pottery forms are presentations, abstractly, of human bodies. Through touch and direct contact, they are experienced intimately by bodies, and their inherent functions mimic as well as support bodily functions. This emphasis on tactile aspects, on physical touch, differentiates objects from images, which operate solely at the visual level.’”
 Admittedly, this is a major departure from the serving of tea in fashionable 18th and 19th century drawing rooms with an elegant porcelain teapot and delicate cups and saucers, all hand painted with bright periwinkles or other such pretty flowers. We have established, both in classical culture and in contemporary ceramics, that pottery has been employed to portray human sexuality as inspired by the primal emotion of passion. We simply cannot label these historical references of thousands of years of human civilization as obscene or vulgar. Many are sublime homage’s to the regenerative capacity of humans to reproduce and others are in themselves ritual objects of that same fertility capacity as symbol and metaphor.
Passion – Gender Specific?
At one time in Western culture it was thought that the very existence, much less the expression, of passion was strictly a man’s prerogative. In the same sense, it was once thought that women were reluctant participants in sexual activity, the price they had to pay for domestic stability and the attainment of motherhood and family.  Women who did demonstrate passion were thought limited to those who had become fallen women, devoid of respectability and not the type who married but were kept in another capacity. We have largely forsaken these sexist notions in our society but the residue of these attitudes still haunts us today. It is particularly ironic that women were once thought inherently emotional and thus inherently unstable. Yet the one emotion they supposedly lacked by their very nature was the emotion of passion. In contrast, men were allowed to be emotional in their display of passion as an integral part of their manhood but socialized to suppress all the other emotions as unmanly. When you think about it, this cultural construction of the emotional makeup of humans by gender didn’t make any sense for either men or women.
In the next blog I will continue this discussion.
Tags: about Richard, Beauty, California, Creativity, cultural influences, Emotions, Garden, gender, Passion, Paul Mathieu, pottery, richard jacobs, searching for beauty
Posted in Emotions, Knowledge and Learning, Mentors, New favorites, Passion, Pottery as Emotional Containers, Pottery Collection, Really old friends/philosophers/authors/poets, Richard's Garden, Richard's Photos, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Thought Provoking, Uncategorized, Vulgarity, Women... | 4 Comments »
Friday, May 25th, 2012
 Nineteenth century Romanticism encouraged the expression of the emotions as integral to the creative act and to the resulting object or performance. Here the advocacy and activation of the emotions was at least partially a reaction to the technological mechanization resulting from the Industrial Revolution. This took place not only in music, drama, literature and the fine arts and other media but was expected to be demonstrated in the larger than life persona of the artist or performer. Here the artist as an eccentric and flamboyant character often took darker directions and there emerged the profile of the artist as a self-destructive agent of excessive consumption of drugs and drink and other assorted vices. The glorious culmination of the romantic life was the agonizing propensity for a final tragic fate. Off hand I don’t think craftspeople were usually included in this motley crowd and thus avoided both the notoriety and dangers of Bohemian life. I don’t recall stories of struggling potters, sunken in poverty and near starvation, throwing clay in dingy garrets on the left bank of Paris. Poets seemed to be far better in enjoying that fate.
There is a passage in my book, “Searching for Beauty: Letters From a Collector to a Studio Potter”, that discusses aspects of Romanticism. The quote cites comments in a book by Nicols Fox titled, “Against the Machine: The Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art and Individual Lives”, where I briefly introduce Fox after confessing my own romantic nature.
 I am not sure what to label myself without offending friends, becoming foolish, or revealing my lack of sophistication. How can one confess affinity with nineteenth century romanticism without suffering ridicule? In a chapter entitled ‘Romantic Inclinations’, Nichols Fox describes this impulse:
” ‘Romantic’ was a way of seeing, a certain cast of light that could transform anything. In this new illumination, the imagination could play with the unfamiliarity of familiar things, accentuating the strangeness of the half-visible.  This sensation of newness, of possibility, of transformation defined the word. This was the mind at playful work, allowed to range and create and interact with the ever-changing nature of reality. The Romantics’ priorities were with the exercise of imagination, with excess, with the mystical and, at times, the irrational. The natural world was a powerful and important place where God dwelt: human emotion, intuitions and yearnings were not simply valid, but vital, and could be trusted.’ ”
The pattern of commentary about emotions, including sentimentality, is beginning to form around patterns of definitions that reinforce each other. One is this question of the irrational.  I have always assumed that to be irrational was to be out of control. Irrational behavior might lead to violence and other frightening things. What should be included under the umbrella of irrational behavior? Is the creative process a rational or irrational activity? Some artists and potters talk about the carefully controlled design of the ceramic form, the calculations of the chemicals in the glaze, the appropriate composition of the clay, the temperature in the kiln, the mastery of the wheel through disciplined procedures. Yet I have read and heard other potters talk about the excitement of the process, the surge of that creative spirit that can bring about unexpected results that deviate from past practices and seem to make no immediate sense. Well, how is it for you? Can you train a future potter through rational how-to-do-it lessons or is there something more that comes from the gut or the heart that no one can explain and no one can give to you?
Are the romantics right – can human emotions be trusted? I thought the sign of maturity was supposed to be the successful suppression of emotions.  Are emotions only appropriate under certain conditions and at special sites? I would prefer that other drivers on the freeway restrain their emotions; certainly I would include the brain surgeon, especially if one is operating on me, and also the reader of this blog, particularly when disagreeing with me on some point I have just made. Do both anger and love involve a loss of control? Are some emotions good and other emotions bad? Is it difficult for emotional people to allow the full expression of some of the more benign emotions but suppress others who might do harm? I will now petition the Renaissance writer and sage, Montaigne, for his advice by way of a writer, Sarah Bakewell, who recently wrote a book about him. I have long depended on him as my mentor and guide through life. I know that he will not disappoint me.
Both sentimentality and vulgarity can be extreme emotions. Some have concluded that art requires one or both elements. Some others seek moderation far less exuberant. I want to refer to my good friend and mentor Montaigne in this regard. Sarah Bakewell, in her book, “How to Live” describes his essential moderation in this way,
“By singing the praises of moderation and equanimity, and doubting the value of poetic excess, Montaigne was bucking the trend of his own time as much as that of the Romantics.  Renaissance readers fetishized extreme states: ecstasy was the only state in which to write poetry, just as it was the only way to fight a battle and the only way to fall in love. In all three pursuits, Montaigne seems to have had an inner thermostat which switched him off as soon as the temperature rose beyond a certain point. This was why he so admired Espaminondas, the one classical warrior who kept his head when the sound of clashing swords rang out, and why he valued friendship more than passion. ‘Transcendental humors frighten me,’ he said. The qualities he valued were curiosity, sociability, kindness, fellow-feeling, adaptability, intelligent reflection, the ability to see things from another’s point of view, and ‘good-will’ – none of which is compatible with the fiery furnace of inspiration.”
 Montaigne does identify some admirable emotions but emphasizes moderation in the expression of them. Notice that he advised all to avoid “the fiery furnace of inspiration”. To be sentimental one has to be inspired by optimism. The sense of well being derived from sentimental experiences justifies and reinforces that emotion. Despite the tantalizing pleasures of vulgarity, its great danger is when it is realized that vulgarity, like addictive drugs, often requires a greater and greater dosage to produce the resulting thrill. The inability of being shocked ruins vulgarity. Do you have a creative thermostat which switches off when you need to make a crucial decision in the creative process? Would you argue with Montaigne when he advised us to avoid “poetic excess?” Somehow, however much I admire Montaigne and am influenced by him, I don’t think he understood much about the creative process and those who practiced it.
There is one legendary American potter who never avoided ‘poetic excess’ in the display of his emotions. That potter was of course George Ohr. We all know the essential story here: an eccentric genius thought mad by some, a master at the wheel, long forgotten after death, boxes and boxes of his pottery stacked for years, his rediscovery decades later and his belated recognition as one of our greatest potters. Eugene Hecht, in his book, “After the Fire: George Ohr: An American Genius”, tells us about this strange fellow in the following two passages I have selected from his book.
“Surely, George was already being singularly idiosyncratic – when a vase inadvertently got chipped, he chipped it all around, turning the accident into a disquieting decorative motif. That gesture says a lot about his relationship to both the concept of accident and to the traditional notion of perfection so valued by the craftsman – but of course Geroge E. Ohr was an artist with a very different agenda. The craftsman seeks a kind of utilitarian perfection, the artist struggles to capture some essence of humanity, however imperfect. Constrained chance and spontaneity, driven by passionate intuition and an unfailing sense of the sensual, formed the basis of the dynamic process of creation Ohr was already evolving.”
 Before I offer you the second quote from this book, I need to question you about what this statement means to you. Hecht established the differences between the craftsman who seeks a utilitarian perfection and the genius of George Ohr who was able to take advantage of the imperfections of human existence to capture some essence of humanity. Where are you? Where do you stand? Do you seek a utilitarian notion of perfection or the employment of that “constrained chance and spontaneity, driven by passionate intuition and an unfailing sense of the sensual” that Ohr demonstrated? Can devotion to both approaches result in great pottery? Ohr proves that mastery of the medium and creative genius in highly unique and expressive pottery can be partners and not rivals. Can you be rational on one hand and yet somehow irrational at the same time? Can you be emotional in the expressive power to create unique work and yet employ reason necessary in the sound construction of the object at the same time? Does your own pottery enjoy the integration of human creativity and the making of things? Ohr proves that emotion and reason were his allies in the creative process. How does your pottery prove this?
Now for the second offering from this book about Ohr. I do want you to know, without going into details, that Ohr was a vulgar man, an obscene man. Do you know about his brothel tokens?  I won’t go into further details but in talking about Ohr and his genius, you are also talking about sensuality and lust as chosen elements in his life and work. American culture, given our religious traditions, has been historically very, very nervous about sexual aspects of passion and its unseemly association with aesthetics and art. Ohr breaks rules, conventions and supposed tenets of good taste along with creating great pottery. I really admire George Ohr but I am not sure I would want him as my next-door neighbor. My fire insurance rates might go up considerably, as a devastating fire once destroyed his studio and neighboring structures, along with badly scorching his pots. Here is more from Hecht about Ohr’s powerful emotions.
“Along the way he began turning the vaseforms thinner than he ever had before, and that made possible a whole new range of manipulative gestures that carried the work to a still higher level of expressiveness. The potter was there whirling each vessel into existence. And the sculptor was there, swiftly, spontaneously, taking each beyond itself; imbuing each with the wordless voice of humanity. Those were sure hands, confident in a mature, powerful intuition; an existential intuition that was all passion, grace, and wit, sensuality, and lust, and angst; an intuition that was the man. Liberated from the contemporary tenets of good-taste and energized by the self-assumed imperative to produce no-two-alike, Ohr was forever risking it all at the boundaries of his own wonderful imagination.”
 Wow, that is a potent emotional cocktail that Hecht is attributing to Ohr. We have passion, grace, wit, sensuality, lust, and angst, all involved in “an existential intuition” that combined with “sure hands” that created pottery that articulated, again according to Hecht, the “wordless voice of humanity”. Listen up, my potter friends; we are talking about pottery that contains the wordless voice of humanity. Wow, I think we should pause here to really reflect on this. What potters would you place alongside Ohr in their capacity to provide some of the qualities that I think Hecht rightly accords to Ohr’s pottery? We are not talking about technique here or practical function. We are talking about the most profound and sublime feelings of human beings expressed with clay and taking the shape of pottery.
I am sure you could help me make this case with examples from many ceramic legacies and cultures. We could also select and honor those contemporary potters who have attained an expressive level with clay that communicates essential human emotions in a unique visual voice.  We must assert with greater confidence the central placement of ceramic achievements in the arts with other supreme expressions of human culture from various media. I am going to continue this discussion of the emotional components active in the creative process in ceramics. Without this creative capacity and its proper recognition, pottery is restricted to domestic accessories that serve as household appliances. We need not be embarrassed by the utility that pottery offers in this capacity, but I think we have been habitually modest if not defensive in not fully celebrating the aesthetic and artistic elements that indeed have contributed grace, meaning and beauty to our world over centuries of human civilization.
Tags: 19th Century Romanticism, about Richard, book, ceramics, Eugene Hecht, George Ohr, industrial revolution, mentors, richard jacobs, searching for beauty
Posted in Emotions, Knowledge and Learning, Mentors, Pottery as Emotional Containers, Really old friends/philosophers/authors/poets, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Sentimentality, Thought Provoking, Uncategorized, Vulgarity | 3 Comments »
Thursday, May 10th, 2012
 After bringing up these unsavory attitudes toward sentimentality, I going to take the risk and confess that I too have critical reactions to excessively sentimental depictions in various artistic media. It is not for the same reasons as discussed above. A film I saw recently inspired my reveries about sentimentality. Judy and I went out to dinner and a movie with friends on New Year’s Eve. We went to a huge mall not too far from us located in an adjoining suburb, connected by the freeway that runs close to our house and goes through a string of suburbs on its way to Los Angeles. We saw the film, “War Horse”, directed by Steven Spielberg. I had concerns about going to see the film, concerns about Spielberg’s tendency to make conventional Hollywood films even out of the most unconventional themes. We are due to see the play soon in a month or two. It originated in Britain and was adapted from a novel.  I anticipate a very different experience with the play. The film served the standard Spielberg formula, with intervals of two rather brutal and realistic World War I battle scenes sandwiched between sentimental slabs of overripe storytelling lit by rose-colored skies. The visual scenes of the English countryside with those charming huts with thatched roofs have been seen before on calendars, jigsaw puzzles and on the covers of boxed candy. It was this combination of the inherent vulgarity of war and the sloppy sentimentality of the remainder of the movie that triggered the contents of this letter.
 John William’s lush music lathered the film with sweeping and rolling romantic crescendos that constantly tugged at my heartstrings. Spielberg somehow succeeds in manipulating the audience to care only about the survival of the boy and his horse despite the graphic horrors portrayed of the war, bodies of young men piled in the trenches, rats gnawing corpses, all representing the bloody and savage end of prior European civilization. There is a faint and latent message embedded in the film that perhaps if men only loved each other as much as they loved horses we would have no more wars. It contained almost all the elements I dislike and find all too common in Hollywood movies.
I will offer this review of the film by Andrew Pulver, who, in the Tuesday 20 December 2011 edition of “The Guardian”, had this to say about the “War Horse”,
“Following hard on the heels of the rousing, if charmless, ‘Adventures of Tintin’, Steven Spielberg has opted for a lachrymose, buttery treatment of the Michael Morpurgo book-then-play, which is still packing them out in the West End. The original novel is famous for its horse-viewpoint narration, while the stage version is celebrated for its puppetry; Spielberg has jettisoned both of these (relatively) adventurous devices, and tells it pretty straight. But straight doesn’t mean unvarnished. From the first swooping shots of a chocolate-boxy English countryside, this ‘War Horse’ is rooted in a buffed-up sanded-down version of rural England, where even alcohol-fuelled poverty is given a picturesque, storybook patina.”
I do appreciate that at least Pulver agrees with me on this film. I seem to have two choices in engaging the arts today. Most media in popular culture offers a variation of the sentimental to lure a big box office. The other box office strategy is the vulgarity of violence. The avant-garde in the fine arts regularly offers the vulgar, often under the cover of claiming satire, but most often merely adding to the towering modern and postmodern achievements of the vulgar. A few of the most highly successful artists in the fine arts today have managed to achieve a deadly combination of both. My aesthetic tastes and standards do not appreciate the domination of either possibility. I can tolerate elements of both present in the artifact or performance but only as counterpoints to some greater purpose or meaning. If I reject the sentimental and the vulgar as aesthetic standards, what is left for me? I do not find the vulgar offensive but rather banal when its need to shock becomes a desperate strategy.
I do often find the sentimental offensive, trying to deceive me into believing in the ultimate triumph of a happy ending that ignores the fact that we cannot escape death. Life teaches you that there are thorns even on something as beautiful as a rose bush. Sentimentality requires experiences that successfully turn past reality into today’s fiction.  In this case the falsification of past life transforms present life into a romance. Sentimentality becomes the emotional cemetery for our lives, the buried memories that are awakened and sweetened with the help of stimuli created for that effect. Sentimentality wisely avoids the significant and focuses rather on those intimate experiences and relationships of personal lifetimes. To be sentimental one has to demand that your memories of the past promise to faithfully tell you loving falsehoods. Sentimentality lacks the resources to be profound. But it just might make life worth living for those of us who have known great suffering. Sentimentality often becomes a well-intentioned lie justified for the purposes of overall morale. The lie is in what is left out, the harsh and cruel aspects of the human condition. It a lie of omission, necessary for the sweet bits and pieces to triumph in the one sided presentation stacked to make you feel very, very good.
 Well, I do seem to have rather definite feelings about the employment of sentimentality in the arts, don’t I? It appears that most people might well disagree with me. The film, “Warhorse” was nominated for best picture for an Oscar, although it did fail to achieve that goal. You might well think it is one of the greatest films you every saw. I need to argue a bit with myself about my critical attitude. To love is to feel sentimental. Not just at that moment of joyful revelation, but hopefully ever afterward. Children would not want parents who were not endearingly sentimental in their feelings toward them and demonstrative in displaying those feelings. Judy and I are going to have our 40th anniversary later this year in the fall. We have been planning a trip, maybe to Europe, to celebrate the occasion.  I have a rich memory bank of our lives together, things we have experienced together over the years and now share in our fond recollections. These rich memories form a sentimental web that wraps around and bonds our present lives. Yes, yes, I also feel quite sentimental about my old Golden Retriever, Morris, and to remain completely candid for at least another sentence or two, even though it might weaken my argument, I absolutely adore my 19th century Royal Doulton pottery that has bright and pretty hand-painted flowers against deep blue backgrounds. Do you get the feeling that I am a bit conflicted about the whole subject?
That said, I am going to get back to critiquing sentimentality. I do get so emotional about emotions. I want to compare this sentiment with another quite popular element in our society and in our arts, and that is vulgarity. I have a deep aversion and prejudice of anything sentimental or vulgar that achieves great popular or commercial success solely because of those attributes. In our world today, too often vulgarity and sentimentality have ceased being authentic human emotions.  Today the demonstration of the vulgar and the sentimental are commercial activities and these emotions and the behavior they inspire become contrived for profit in the marketplace. When something vulgar becomes successful or acceptable it stops being vulgar. When something sentimental becomes a success, it remains sentimental. Sentimentality can be bonding in forming a community of people. Vulgarity separates people and can be most divisive. The new or unusual cannot be vulgar on those grounds alone and should not alone be the cause of alienation. The greatest curse of sexism for both men and women is to charge that women are naturally sentimental and men are naturally vulgar.
 Again I must retreat and reconsider my brash declarations of personal taste. Almost all great art, even including the French Impressionists, were once declared to be vulgar as compared with the traditions and practices at the time. Any innovation or change at first appears to be an insult and challenge to what went before it. Sentimentality has a generosity and kindness that can be therapeutic even though on occasion most unrealistic. Vulgarity can celebrate those essential animal lusts that are authentic sponsors of our passionate and excessive expressions. Sentimentality can be used to overly domesticate the unruly powers that make great art possible.
 Some who might be amused or even perplexed that I collect pottery might charge that contemporary pottery is in itself a sentimental attempt to retrain an obsolete way of making things. Plastic is practical, modern and tough. It is only the nostalgia of yesterday – a key ingredient in sentimentality – that keeps us making and collecting something called pottery. Now, don’t get upset. You know I don’t believe that for a minute. But isn’t sentimentality a key element in ceramic traditions? Can we justify maintaining and continuing artistic legacies practiced over centuries based on such a defense of continuity and tradition? Is the only way to make pottery modern to take an abstract expressionistic approach and tear holes and punch dents in them just like you know who? (Initials P.V.) I do have some rather modern pottery in my gallery that I hesitate to pour liquids in because they might leak. Is leaking pottery just more modern and less sentimental than the old fashioned pottery that doesn’t leak? Many modernists would assert that to be sentimental is to be weak and that anything sentimental in a work of art diminishes its artistic value and rigor. But isn’t a love of humanity central to a love of the humanities? Should we be that judgmental of it’s appearance in our art and culture? Maybe I am just a softy after all.
I am not through yet with sentimentality. On to the third part…
Tags: about Richard, Beauty, ceramics, cultural influences, Emotions, Garden, life, pottery, richard jacobs, searching for beauty, Sentimentality, Vulgarity
Posted in Emotions, I saw..., Knowledge and Learning, New favorites, Pots I spoke of in the text..., Pottery as Emotional Containers, Pottery Collection, Richard's Garden, Richard's Photos, Richard's Rants, Searching For Beauty, Sentimentality, Thought Provoking, Travels, Vulgarity | No Comments »
|
Laguna Community Blogs
Buy "Searching for Beauty" from Axner.com