You can attribute your primary creativity to anything you choose but I wonder if all sources are admitted. I also am quite sure that whatever your sculpture is, it has form and content heritage from other work. In other words, like all of us, you contribute to a tradition and that tradition, inside or outside of art history, defines the character of your creativity. I had a similar childhood "freedom" (or maybe it was neglect) but I still need to admit that my work has kinships to other work and fits into a stream of creativity belonging to our era. I think excellence is both objective and subjective in that the objective part sets the context and the subjective part is the achievement or recognition of originality -- a leap of faith that could be proven or seen as wrong later on.
----- Original Message ---- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 2:58:57 PM Subject: Re: Question for Mando Not so, William, I was creative from a very early age, probable like millions of other children, but had a mother that allowed me the freedom to explore anything,and everything, even things that got me in trouble. That freedom to explore my world is all i needed. But i must admit that I had a few great teacher that gave me that same freedom through out my interest in sculpture from day one. Had I had well to do parents, it might have led to even more creative exploration. I could have used serious philosopher in my teen age, which I think is more important than an another art teacher's public taste. The fact that some may not like my work ,means little to me. Im sure no one is free of that. The question is, Is "excellence" also a subjective thing? mando On Nov 14, 2009, at 9:28 AM, William Conger wrote: > A lot of people agree with Mando except few of them are serious students. > What can be more discouraging or wasteful than to tell a student to follow > his or her own aesthetic or "creativity" when none is evident to that > student? There is plenty to teach without dictating a manner. Usually the > bad teachers are the ones who encourage a non-critical "feel-good" > methodology without any guidelines or standards in a vain effort to win the > affection of the untalented and uninterested. They might as well tell the > student, "the dumb stuff you're doing and your ignorant narcissism are fine > so don't bother to do anything else and I'll praise it". A good teacher > knows how to foster creativity while also making students aware of what > excellence is and what it requires. Actually, there's no such thing as > "individual creativity" because one of the easiest things to do is to show > how any creative effort has an echo in some other creative effort. No one can > "create" something that's completely different from something already done. > Even the work of insane people has its similarities --and ditto for the > so-called naive or primitive or outsider artists. There is, I think, > personality, a particular range of inflections of character and choice of > valuing and action, but that is not creativity. Creativity is public. It is > sharable and it can be fitted to large concepts and genres. > wc > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 11:06:56 AM > Subject: Re: Question for Mando > > My original feeling from day one, is that teachers get in the way of > creativity, > specially those with the most success. Perhaps true philosophers in aesthetics > would make better teachers of art. > The area where, in aesthetics, all art exists,regardless of taste. Where we > all > perceive the essence of all things, individually differently, is a Gold Mine > ,Why > would teachers want to direct that, in individual creativity by teaching the > successful path of others and discouraging one's individual taste. > I think art was never made to be taught or controlled be anyone,except by the > freedom of each individual's will to make their own path. > mando > > On Nov 14, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > >> Now that Francis has raised the issue of expertise, I wonder whether it can >> be >> avoided when determining who should curate exhibits in a museum or teach in >> an >> art school. >> >> Given your almost exclusive concern with subjectivity -- how do you think >> such >> determinations should be made ? >> >> Or do you strike a laissez-faire attitude, and just let such things happen as >> they will? >> >> >> ............................................ >> >>> The truth is, that, what we see as beautiful," Is beautiful" to each one of >> us, individually. That is based on our individual mind's experiences of >> beauty. The more one experiences, the more "subjective" judgments one makes. >> If beauty was in the object, we would not have be discussing aesthetics. >> Science would have settled that long ago, and they may, yet. >> mando >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Weight Loss Program >> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! >> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=rMJkTI2z4bvE0xF_5h-mMQAAJz6c >> l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
