I have to jot down a few things my maker friends and I talked about just now. Like minutes ago. These may come to something, or not, but these makers have heaps more experience making, read in depth, and think about making, than I, so there's always something to be learned.
This post is not logical/orderly/comprehensive; just notes, stream of consciousness stuff.
I think my question came out of an academic making project being abandoned (?) because the maker thought her thinking wasn't reflected enough in the final piece/s. I asked her if it was necessary, and she said in this case, yes.
This brought me to something I kind of suspected; that I can think, (I enjoy it,) and read some, (though I struggle with high-minded art writing,) but as I think, I'm giving sideway glances to design processes I learned, so my thinking is not purely thinking about an idea, but thinking with the next step in mind. I haven't found a satisfying way to connect my thinking to what comes off the loom; as if there is a big schism/leap somewhere; as if I move on to designing too soon. Or because it's easier, I've increasingly concentrated on the technical aspect of designing that should come after much more exploration. I don't explore enough.
This brought me to something I kind of suspected; that I can think, (I enjoy it,) and read some, (though I struggle with high-minded art writing,) but as I think, I'm giving sideway glances to design processes I learned, so my thinking is not purely thinking about an idea, but thinking with the next step in mind. I haven't found a satisfying way to connect my thinking to what comes off the loom; as if there is a big schism/leap somewhere; as if I move on to designing too soon. Or because it's easier, I've increasingly concentrated on the technical aspect of designing that should come after much more exploration. I don't explore enough.
And then there's the other thing. I've been listening to a sprawling Ross King book called, "The Judgement of Paris: The Revolutionary Period that Gave the World Impressionism" for the third time. It's about that time in Paris and France; the politics of Académie; Louis Napoleon/Franco-Prussian War; when painting's focus moved away from religious and historical "records" to the everyday life and regular people. The story focuses on the life and activities of Meisonnier, (yeah, who?) and Manet, but includes many, many painters and writers we know, and the one who came out as a real vanguard is Courbet.
Needless to say, there's much explanation on what different painters tried to do on the canvas. But I can't get rid of the quasi-envy painting/sculptures, jewelry making and ceramics, even tapestry weaving and felt-making, what I call "free form" making, offer easier canvas/base/platform? to express thoughts, than the grid on the loom. Is this the limitation of our discipline, or is it merely that I haven't found a way?
I reiterate: I haven't found a way to express my thought on the grid on the loom the way I believe my thoughts in my head should be expressed, and I don't know how "graphically" the transfer should be, how digested and regurgitated and morphed the final aesthetics should be. Now I'm only blurting out words that seem to fit the mood.
I reiterate: I haven't found a way to express my thought on the grid on the loom the way I believe my thoughts in my head should be expressed, and I don't know how "graphically" the transfer should be, how digested and regurgitated and morphed the final aesthetics should be. Now I'm only blurting out words that seem to fit the mood.
I'm getting lost in a maze, but I'll keep going. One of the problems I have is that some of the "textile/fiber arts" I've seen are facile; that they have been easy/graphic transfers of the artists' thoughts using textiles. Others have been superb technical achievements without much discernible non-technical ideas, and though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with these works, sometimes unsatisfying. In the second case, it's entirely possible I'm too dense to see, or I'm not meant to see. My friends tonight said the final product should show "the grammar" of my thinking rather than "the words". Of course I'll have to be the judge of when my words end and my grammar begins; I'd imagine it depends on the project, and it depends on the mood of the day, but I am the arbiter, (after all I can't control others' perception,) and I have to be satisfied... with the degree of transformation?
I didn't realize I have been thinking in the back of my mind about what sort of things to make for the Suter Shop; silly-time-consuming stuff that's thrilling and rewarding to make but for which I can't even conceive adequate monetary value, or "nice" stuff, "merchandise", "bread and butter" "products"? The flip side is I could focus solely on quality and craftspersonship; I can strive to make pieces that are parallel and perpendicular and luxurious and joyous and excellent, as these are of such importance to craft.
Tonight it feels like a battle between making excellent craft, (being about the end product,) vs my garnering maximum joy/thrill/satisfaction in the process of making, (being about the maker.)
No comments:
Post a Comment