[Clayart] museum shops

[Snail Scott]

> On May 14, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Girrell, Bruce <bigirrell at microlinetc.com> wrote
> ...I had none of these feelings when seeing the paintings in what I am sure are fine photographic replicas. They really didn't have much meaning to me until I was six feet in front of them. But standing there, I got it. Viscerally, I got it. I understood why this painter and others like him are so venerated…


I’m a big fan of the high-res images and walk-through virtual reality tours now available on the Internet. They open up a world to students who may never have seen ‘art’ except the pictures in the parts-store calendar.  And for those of unable to travel widely, they at least offer a hint of the actuality. But not everything was made to be seen that way. My students whine when I make them go see work in person around town, but they admit it makes a difference. I’m grateful to teach in a town with a lot to see.

Especially in three-dimensional art, the physical presence of the material is never irrelevant, and is often essential to understanding the work. Moreso than most 2-D work, it occupies a space shared by the viewer. The importance of scale is also increased, when a viewer has to lean in to see detail, looms over tiny objects, shifts their position to see texture and form from other angles, looms over tiny objects, or is force to step back or look up to grasp the entirety of a larger work. With objects for use, that physicality is even more essential, with the ergonomic fit in a hand, mass felt by lifting, and textures perceived by skin instead of imagined by the mind. 

Even 2-D work, if it’s good at all, is not sized at random, and not usually to the size of textbook page or a slide projected on the wall. (Oddly, one of my more forceful encounters with a famous artwork seen in person, was with van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Wedding’ portrait. I remember thinking, “Wow, it really is the size of the book illustration!"

Snail Scott
claywork at flying-snail.com
www.snailscott.com