When I read it, I immediately shared it with my husband as Bingler and Pederson have hit on something that applies to an ongoing conversation at our house. The gist of that topic is- there are forms and traditional shapes that are pleasing to the human eye; we both feel that when we throw out tradition in design (and even lifestyle) we lose touch with our history and, to a certain extent, who we are. As craftspersons/artists, we profit creatively when we consider why we make what we make and who we are making it for.
All of this is not to say that innovation and new ideas are wrong or bad, in fact they are very important, but when those ideas turn their backs on human creative tradition, we can lose sight of the amazing work that is our history and find ourselves adrift and unsure of ourselves. Awareness of oneself and purposes can drive a more thoughtful outcome to one's work. John of Salisbury wrote,
"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to [puny] dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature."Equally as important, in my opinion is the need to connect with those we have chosen as our audience. If our work causes us to lose touch with our intended audience, we may be straying from our own course. If your intended viewer is truly yourself only, then this is not a problem. However, if you, like me, want to depend on your art for income this deserves some consideration. Asking myself the question, 'who is this for?' now and then can help me keep focused and remind me of my goals.
I hope this article is as insightful and useful to you as it has been for me. It's one I'll refer to over again to remind me of the truths I feel it contains.
The article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/how-to-rebuild-architecture.html?_r=2
No comments:
Post a Comment