Well.
I certainly didn't start being creative out of the womb, but one
starts absorbing the objective nature
of things very soon after, and sharing the expression of it. whether
that may ever qualifies as excellence,
may be subjectively questionable.
mando
On Nov 14, 2009, at 2:29 PM, William Conger wrote:
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_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAA
AAA=
