Lame. I have done nothing that i could topically write about on this blog. I've been too busy with other, less cool things like essays and actual work that pays me actual money (as opposed to thecompletely illusory sense of making money that i get when i spend a day making clay objects).
I did read an interesting book review (err...because i am too cheap to buy the actual book) on Searching For Beauty: Letters from a Collector to a Studio Potter by Richard Jacobs. It's a really carefully considered review. I also love certain quotes that the reviewer has taken from the book, especially this one:
Art contains our insecurities and physical limits as well as our talents...We must reach definitions of excellence that forgive and complement the labor of our hands.
I am in two minds about this. On the one hand, I strongly agree. The individuality and validity of a personal style is something that should be factored in when aiming for 'perfection'. But is it in one's best interest to simply assume that your skills are 'limited' and can/should never be surmounted? Are we really capable of overcoming every technical barrier? This is a dilemma that i think about both in regards to my visual art and my other time-consuming pursuit, playing the piano. Classical piano and pottery are scarily similar; there is always a core group of masters who are completely dismissive of anything short of 'perfection' or 'mastery'. Can we redefine excellence or perfection to mean something that describes a person's limitations with absolute accuracy?
I don't know. I do know that i haven't done nearly enough throwing, handbuilding, or piano practice to satisfy the masters, but I wonder how much it will take to satisfy myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment