To be fair that’s the way I study, with plenty of distraction.

Anyway, the reading was very motivational and very timely.  I’ve found it true on many occasions that the ‘psychology’ of art-making can either be elating or crippling.  Usually it’s both.  Whenever I feel elated at something that happened during or after the making of art I usually (inevitably) find it followed closely by a crushing disappointment of some kind.  One thing I learned from this at least in the student capacity is to ignore the highs…or at least demystify them enough so that when the lows come they don’t hit me right in the junk.

I found it interesting and revealing that on page 14 of the article, it explains how fears can manifest in sneaky and weaselly kinds of ways such as: laziness, resistance to deadlines, irritation with materials or surroundings and preoccupation with the success or achievements of others.  I found that I could relate to all of those on various levels…and there have been times when I let those things really hinder me.

At first nothing really stuck out to me as being worthy of comment, but it was only because I wasn’t really looking close enough.  On page 7 the author mentions one of the key differences between a maker of craft and a professional artist as this…”The great poets are the ones who read poetry.”  In other words, it’s not enough to just produce paintings and pottery and write short stories, there’s a certain amount of education and research involved.  I don’t know how far I’d personally take that idea, though on the surface I definitely agree with it.   It’s like my fiction writing teacher said, if he was stuck on an island and had the option of taking something to read or something to write with…he’d choose something to read.  The idea that there’s a need to feed yourself with the works of other artists just rings as truth in my heart.

I also appreciated the portions about technology and the role it’s played in the art world.  There was a comment that was made about how in general ‘progress’ is measured by the technological and scientific advancements of the world.  I enjoyed hearing how a handful of modern thinkers and artists reject that idea out of hand.

To some degree I agree with the problem the author posed of ‘museology’ in regards to objects considered ‘craft’.  On the other hand, it really depends on a lot of factors.  A lot of the pots and bowls that date back hundreds of years were probably going to fall under the category of craft if you could get into a time machine and travel back to that period.  But five hundred years later they are worthy of being in a museum?  A thousand years?  Where do you draw the line?  Is something that was considered craft fifty years ago possibly worthy of being in a museum now?  What about something that was made yesterday and that sits in everyone’s living room?  Obviously there are lines and specifications somewhere, whether spoken or written or whatever.