The Great Book of Alphabetically ordered liquefaction aka Formless

This blog is a visual aid from verbal regurgitation caused from Formless and a lot of coffeee.

bY AnNeLiSe and JeSsIcA 

lets cite and refrence

I mean hey this is a research class right? Entropy huh, well i read it again and now everything is soo clear. The idea of work as opposed to the physicality of the work it self as stated on page 207 "certain artists, however, wondered what would remain of a work if it were torn up, or rather what would remain of the concept of the work of art it the very act of tearing were to be the sole technique". This process sounds very similar to what we are trying to achieve in the final project as the concept of our colaberation could very well become a lump and therefor the obvious motive behind creating a lump would be to show the entropic process. Does this spell a simpler meaning to the process when it comes to art making? somewhat if you even consider what you are working on as art, does your work become an extension of your feelings or is it simply a response to teh way in which you view the world around you. Possibly a concoction of the two? Either way the book leans towards your creation becoming garbage at one point or another. Jean Arp's paper collage would be a fine example of philosoartist that i find difficult to understand how this work can be referred to as art. I would consider it more along the lines of a demonstration of a philosophical concept by means of paper collage. Is that seperation important? Not really. Should it be noted, yes. crap time for class- ill finish posting later

Been a While

Okay, so ENtropy was the biggest thing that stuck out to me this time around. That seems to be the case with most of us, but for me this concept hit not only in this class but in my life and in astronomy and even in my mold making class. It has been a really rough term for me. I feel like my thoughts, my relationships with other people, my grades, my ability to think and reason, and my ability to coexist with people in this society are all experiencing this entropic process. It's horrifying. I am being stripped of the way that I exist. It is amazing. I am broken. I am raw. I am so deep in this weird, transitory state that I don't know anything about myself or the world for sure. My thoughts are purely scrambled. I even spaced the fact that I needed to post on here. These readings, like our others were difficult to comprehend especially in my current state of mind, but I enjoyed reading them. I sat in the AAA Library on the second floor over in the dark corner seats with the windows that I like so much and I read them. I read them all the way through. I should have posted then when it was all fresh ('cause entropy is all I got left) but I read them multiple times and I had a good time doing it. It went over my head mostly but I enjoyed myself so that was cool. I think I have a fever so I am going to stop writing now, but this is my stab at a response to the readings. Maybe, if I can remain in reality long enough, I'll go check it out again and read them over.

another bitchy blog? I guess one has to read to find out. Its funny i was in italy this past summer and although i was in a cheerfull mood the entire time i looked back on the blogs recently and discovered that i bitched about many different things when i was blogging. Mostly about the thrones of tourists and how we were simply a part of the group i had grown to despise. This past reading was absoulte jargon to me even after two rereads it simply didn't click. Or possibly i didn't want it to click and as a response i blockaded my reasoning behind a brick wall of not being interested in the ideas put forth in the book. I also keep coming thinking about how i would like to take another ceramics course at UO but possibly have something to show for it besides a blog, a video and a disheveled jar which is holding my most sacred memories. Silly thing is i'll bet that jar doesn't make it home with me so i'm seriously doubting its importance to me. When in fact i'm trying to reduce my possessions to the amount of which i could stuff a trunk and live happily the idea of focusing on the process of artmaking and once finished with the work i can return it to earth works well in my current state. That way i can hold every project on a hard drive. So does this post have anything to do with the reading? Why yes as it makes as much sense too. Am i looking forward to 12 more hours of critique? I wouldn't miss more than a?

One late but worth the wait blog for a response to liquid words. Well being worth the wait makes is appear that i have wrapped my self around this text soo many times that i could cite it word for word. That simply isn't true and i would be checking my self into state institutions if that was the case. As for one reason or another the reading did in fact make sense and by further reading i don't think that was the intention of the authors. It tends to place the idea of an idea into the relm of fine art? Soo weird! Sometimes i simply regret that i didn't go to some craft school and define art theory for myself as opposed to having others try and accomplish this for me. In fact this reading at times along with meeting graduate students only brings out a somewhat depressing feeling. Because for one reason or another people actually conciencously or unconceincly belittle others soo blatantly its appalling.

Besides that banter i only would like to comment on the reading and its reference to the asphalt spill outside Rome. Its comforting to think that a confused construction worker and a photographer could stumble into moma by dumping excess asphalt and being able to talk about it. I mean common fellas i know your trying to deconstruct the boundaries of art but can't it retain some aesthetic beauty? In response to this i'm planning on peeing on a dirt mound by my house while recording the pee's effect on the ground. Then i talk about how its a direct representation of my material presence on earth and how this is a universal language and blah.

Entropic closet X (tra)

In Italian, "tra" means between, often used as a reference to a time frame. X tra - extra - too much - not enough time - in between times/moments - non-permenance - x marks the spot? - does it? - this spot - this place - in time - a moment - never arriving - arriving - journey - motion - falling - rain - growth - transition - trasferirsi - to move oneself - transmutation - permanent change? - permanence - change - cambiare - sempre - there is - there isn't - ho cambiata - cambiero - passato - presente - futuro - breaking down - building up - experience - a $2000.00 shot of Napoleon's whiskey - why? - perche no? - cause I can -
When I think about art, my initial thoughts go to a museum, then maybe a gallery, a show, etc..., all these places where the art is regarded as something sacred or special. Ancient works are often referred to as "treasures", and indeed, I agree, yet, when proposed the idea of ..."What Remains of a Rembrandt Torn into Little Regular Squares and Flushed Down the Toilet..."a huge manuscript on Rembrandt by Jean Genet, which Genet himself torn up and flushed down the toilet, is a very interesting concept to me. I have seen many Rembrandt's, they are haunting in the way in which one is confronted by the portraits' humaness and the figure stands more naked before you with their gaze than if they were nude. They are magnificent. "Genet writes of Rembrandt: 'It is from the moment when he depersonalizes his models, when he strips all identifiable qualities from objects, that he gives both the most weight, the greatest reality...But it was necessary that Rembrandt recognize and accept himself as a being of flesh...of meat, of blubber, of blood, of tears, of sweat, of shit, of intelligence and tenderness, of still other things, to infinity, but none denying the others, or better, each saluting the others.'" ..."You are me, as you are we, and we are all together..." - Lennon; to truly see the self, to see the self as all others, to see the self as these separate objects of disintegrating waste or accumulative intangible qualities or defects - defecate - waste - waste away - death - dissemination - and then what is true, what perchance is truth? "Everything is approximate, even less than approximate, for if you peer more closely, even the most perfect painting is a filthy, wart infested approximation...Form had turned to formless, the finite into infinite, the individual into totality."

Life, death and unity

As I began reading “Water Closet” I found myself lost and frustrated as I often do when reading this book. To be honest I couldn’t really connect or follow it until about half way through the chapter. I began to understand and even enjoy the reading when I started to understand the ideas of entropy, unity and death. The author quotes Bataille saying “essentially all beings are only one.” I really like this because it communicates the way that people, and indeed art as well, are all connected in life as in death. Not only do humans live and die but so can art and other non-living things. They also quote Jean Arp where a beautiful image is created where decomposition and death create new life and continuity in a new way. Arp talks about how imperfections in art showing the process of the art, or decomposition of the art can be viewed as something beautiful rather than imperfections and deaths of art.
When the authors begin talking about the idea of cutting paper into unique strips and claiming it is special in it’s process, I can not relate. I think I understand what they are saying, the process of doing something, for example cutting paper, is unique to one experience, moment and time. When the moment is later remembered by looking at the art it can not be re-experienced only viewed and remembered. I think they are saying that the experience is sacred if for no other reason that it can not be recreated at any other point in time. To me this is easy to understand, but I find it boring and even a little inconsequential. Why dwell on a moment that can not be relived? Certainly every moment is unique, but how you capture that could be more interesting that cutting paper in my opinion. Maybe what I can gather from this is that my own experiences can be unique and more interesting if I share them in other ways. Maybe it is a challenge to me rather than inconsequential nonsensical blabber.
Mcollum’s talks about the beauty in nature is fascinating to me. I really like the idea of emphasizing, duplicating or recreating nature in art pieces. Nature is the purest and most interesting form of art to me because it is everywhere and in no way created by anyone. I like the innate beauty that nature offers. The display of fossils and dinosaur tracks is beautiful because it recreates life and nature millions of years ago. I really respect this recreation of life long after it died and decomposed and is now being burned in my car as fuel. I see a connection between this idea of recreating life from long ago and this entropic idea of decomposition and unity. I like the connection between life and death and the display of both.

-sean

"inside-out"

Thinking of entropy I think of a process going from order to disorder or going from a state of obtainment to loss. A state of transition where something is is further removed from the comfortable state it was previously. The idea of Egyptian paste and the process of "burn out" intrigues me because it turns objects "inside-out" filling in once empty spaces and exposing enclosed ones. This state of "inside-out" and "outside-in" seems disorderly because it is the opposite of reality. In X Marks The Spot, Bruce Nauman and his casts of interstitial space explore the idea of distorting reality by creating material forms of formally empty spaces created by solid common objects. The idea of order through containment must be thought of differently as open and closed spaces are switched, redefining what is the apropriate and familiar way to look at objects. Would we recognize our world if empty and solid spaces were switched? It seems not.

Water Closet and X marks the spot

really liked the ideas in Water Closet and X marks the spot. The thoughts that I found most interesting were the ones on tearing up the concept of the work. Figuratively, and/or even literally tearing up the physical work, breaking it down so there is nothing left. Looking at the process of making and forming of the work but also the end result, or the absence of the end result and merely the documentation of the making. Perhaps how this Egyptian Paste project may end up, it could collapse and there may be an absence of an end result. It relates back to entropy by measuring the amount of randomness or disorder, or loss of information that may occur during the firing as all of the objects we coat are burned out and the form takes on a new shape.

Entropic closet X

'"Strong communication" is not accessible through the language of common usage.' ' The human being is dissolved in "strong communication," by opening a tear in [oneself] through which [one] loses "a part of [ones] own being to the profit of the communal being...."'
How much of our daily communication is strong? Much more than we are aware of. How many times have I had an intense, emotion filled conversation with someone and not until the next day do i understand what was talked about, only to find that the topic was about a completely different thing? How much do we dance around the thing we really want to communicate? Perhaps accessing "strong communication" is painful. "Loss" is often congruent with grief. And yet we are at a loss when we miss opportunities to access the profits of the communal being. Communal being? seems to me the phenomenon I have accessed in certain altered states in which there is connection with all things, the idea of separation vanishes as does attachment to the ego or self - the loss of self. The profits? as infinite as all that is.
"'...I knew I was identical to this man.' The identity of the self is canceled in this revelation. The self is disseminated, since if all men equal one another, 'each man is every other man.' 'No man was my brother: each man was myself, but temporarily isolated in his individual skin.' 'Essentially all beings are only one. They repel each other at the same time that they are one. And in this movement-which is their essence-the fundamental identity is annulled.'"
These thoughts bring me back to "The Sacred" project, each drop of water, an individual, yet they fall onto the land, seep into the groundwater, which flows to a stream, which flows to a river, which flows to an ocean, which evaporates into the atmosphere, which collects and becomes rain, new rain, which falls again. This clay that I use contains the minerals from the bones of my ancestors, from the fossils of transgressed oceans, the sedimentary layers of the earths crust worn down to clay by the drops of water.

negative space

When I was reading x-marks the spot about how that artist filled the empty space under his chair with clay and that became the art form. I like that idea of taking spaces that get over looked and creating a solitary form from it. I started searching negative spaces on google and found a couple different artist. I looked at the monumental creation called double negative. It has been eroded over time, but is still recognizable from the air. Then when were started discussing what our group's objectives or thoughts were for the entropy final project, we discussed negative space. I brought in my first pair of running shoes and I am going to fill the inside of them with the paste, so hopefully the shoe burns away and the inside form is left. Everybody in the group started thinking of things they wanted to fill and we began determining if the object needed to be personal or just any object. Then we thought back to things that are sacred or personal and the image of a shrine came to mind. We could put anything in the shrine and for whatever meaning, it will have meaning because it is in the shrine. Then we digressed back to negative space and decided to fill the entire kiln with the shrine and our objects inside. When we first put the shrine in the kiln with all the objects inside. It will have order and look like an untouched shrine, but then we will fire it and the order will be burnt away. Entropy will be evident and the shrine will represent the space within the kiln after firing.

Congealing the Paradigm

X Marks the Spot
Finally an article…where the boat doesn’t seem docked at the asylum. Entropy. I wonder, is life and design nothing more than framing empty space?

Novel concept of Bruce Nauman to cast empty space. We need it, we design for it, we work around it, and yet it has no substance. Dealing with that invisible elephant in the middle of the room is always a problem. We place items in space, create items that won’t work without space to move through, or allow other things to work. It is the final ingredient in the recipe, and it won’t work without it. Yet the space has no visible context.

Casting Empty Space -
When I think of casting to reveal a form the image of the plaster casts of the victims made from the ruins of Pompeii comes to mind. Maybe the most surprising casts ever made, these empty cavities revealed the final moments of people dying from the volcanic eruption. Shocking and poignant, but there is nothing left of them but empty space….like the underside of the chair. Yet the person who has long since vanished can be seen like a still photograph.
But, unlike Nauman’s work, without a title you have no idea what his work is, in this case the cast is a revelation of the unknown. You don’t need a title to know what it is once it dries. With these empty tubes or spaces, unless they had plaster poured in them, they would simply have been empty space.

I find it interesting that in casting the footprints of dinosaurs he runs into the conflict if repeated too much; industrial or biological. Is that any different than the plaster cast of a dog from Pompeii that is now repeated over and over? I don’t think I'm going to order one for the family room, but somebody must be. (tried to include picture in document but didn't go - picuture of 20 plaster casts of same dog)

Is life a case of entropy, that we are constantly moving toward change. Filling a space, yet eventually we vanish unless we are cast like the people in Pompeii. But, the only way to make that is to vanish. At least the foot prints in the muck were not of an animal at the moment they were dying.

Again I find my mind saying does casting a hundred fragments in 4 colors and then displaying them appeal to my sense of time well spent? No. But, in 2000 years will people be making casts of decayed items from a dump, and wondering about us like the ancient animals?

Definitions of Entropy

So, there is apparently many definitions of entropy, and they all seem to have rather different meanings. I think that one of the definitions (or meanings of the word), namely: 3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message, is what Yve-Alain Bois is talking about in the first part of Water Closet, especially when he refers to Bataille's "own entropic interpretation of the phenomenon of mimicry as 'depersonalization by assimilation to space.'" As always, I feel there is a great "loss of information in a transmitted message" when I read this book, but now at least I know what to call it :)

In more general terms, then, I think this first part is about the 'entropy' in communication as Bataille sees it, to various degrees. For example, he–– Bataille––criticizes Genet for "maintaining a 'glass partition' between himself and us", apparently a view he shares with Sartre (To make a comment on that from my own perspective, I would say it is impossible to communicate to anyone without having some sort of 'filter' between you and the recipient, no matter how much you are trying to send out a 100% clear message). So, all in all, it is about communication in one way or the other. One of the more extreme forms of 'communication' is then described in what Genet calls a "epiphany" where he "knew I was identical to this man ..." Oh well, I'm not 100% sure that the other man felt exactly the same as he did ...

When, as always in this book, Bois is talking about how different artists can be said to take use of these different 'theories', it always becomes much clearer and more interesting(?) too. I found Jean Arp's notes on 'papiers déchirés' to be very interesting, and especially how he describes the meaninglessness of perfectness, and how everything is an approximation, at the best. It seems to me that his picture 'papiers déchirés' is an attempt at describing entropy in an almost finalized stage, as in another definition of entropy [4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.] except that it is not the universe he is describing, but something that at one point was 'form' now is something else, or as he says it "form had turned into formlessness". To me, this seems to be in harmony, so I don't quite understand the comments in the book that he moves away from this, and to a "return to an essential order, to a harmony ..."

Jumping forward a bit: I really like Allan McCollum's piece "Natural Copies from the Coal Mines of Central Utah". For the most part I like it because I think it can 'communicate' to a lot of different people on a lot of different levels. It has an immidiate 'superficial' appealing appearance to it, but also a much deeper, layered quality that will only become clearer if you take interest in it and explore it more thoroughly.

... more to come, if needed ...

The Empty Closet -

The Water Closet
The first article brings out a variety of feelings for me. It seems my inborn desire to try and organize things or at the very least sort things out. Of course if you looked at my desk at home you would really wonder exactly what my definition of organized is. But, compared with what these articles are about….there is no comparison. What these articles are really about is taking things that are organized and breaking them down. The real question I struggle with…is this even scholarship…is this creativity....is any idea good a good idea? Let’s tear up something and flush it down the toilet….so cleaver..?….my dad didn’t think so when he had to call the plumber. Is this a search for the childhood play. Or interviews with the few people who survived a suicide leap from the Golden Gate Bridge.,true story..when ask when did they decide that it was a bad idea? All said the moment just after they let go… To describe the thinking that went into these articles as mainstream would disingenuous on my part. After a while my sense of reverse entropy kicked and I wondered who in the world some of these people were….and why am I reading about them?
George Batille –AKA - Lord Auch, Pierre Angélique, Louis Trente described as “metaphysician of evil”, interests are described as: sex, death, degradation, and the power and potential of the obscene. Major influences include Marques de Sade and Gilles de Rais a serial child killer. Rejected traditional literature.. ultimate aim of all intellectual, artistic, or religious activity should be the annihilation of the rational individual in a violent, transcendental act of communion. A real life Librarian for 20 years. Imagine how much more he could have done with the Internet…computer and a camera. Supposedly he had some enthusiastic supporters. Sorry…don’t feel the need to bring him home to meet the family.
Jean Genet - French writer, a dramatist and convicted felon – a man addicted to theft – eventually free - he wrote who about the underworld and homosexual love.
Jean Arp – now here is a guy – who I feel got over himself – the ritualistic tearing that he tried – and some of his work that was supposed to be random sure doesn’t look like it…he give it up and never went back to it. As is quoted on page 208: “ I believe even more than I did in my youth, that a return to an essential order, to a harmony, is necessary to save the world from endless bedlam.”
So…is there a point? Are we missing brain cells if it’s hard to make sense…out of nonsense?
I feel there is somebody like Victor Spinsky and his artistic friend hiding in the bushes watching all this…( like his stories about the garbage man trying to empty his ceramic garbage can only to have it shatter in his hands or the fake giant reptile left by the freeway that stopped traffic).. and are laughing their asses off!

Entropy and Identity

I shall first begin by responding to Water Closet and then proceed to speak about X Marks the Spot in a later blog post. The underlying idea behind Water Closet seems to be that of the entropy of identity through means of communication, by compromising our individuality in order to connect at some level with another being. Bataille speaks about the human being as "dissolved in 'strong communication,' by opening a tear in himself through which he loses 'a part of his own being to the profit of the communal being." (pg. 205) This degradation of individuality breaks down into uniformity. Then he goes on to talk about Genet's train experience, or realization in which he and another traveler became the same person, upon peering into each others' eyes. "The identity of the self is canceled in this revelation. The self is disseminated, since if all men equal one another, 'each man is every other man.' No man was my brother:each man was myself, but temporarily isolated in his individual skin." (pg. 207) Now, is he talking about our individuality as being purely superficial, and aside from physical appearance, we as humans are all the same? So, the breaking down of our individuality can also be an unspoken communication?
I don't know what the idea behind Trailing is. The point seems to be nothing more than the bond between a subject and object, forming something by beginning with nothing, going through some process, and ending with nothing. I am confused as to what message I am supposed to understand from this idea or process of Trailing.

Dicks and books

I really enjoyed the last project and I wanted to share some of my processes and thoughts around my project. The actual quote I used as my inspiration was in a song sung by immortal technique, "I jerk off inside books and give life to words, leaving concepts stuck together you've probably never heard." On a side note, if anyone is looking for disturbing, offensive revolutionary music check him out. He is very crude and it is certainly not for everyone. I was really fighting the idea of using a quote as my inspiration and I feel like I was able to stay on that path while still using this quote as a guide. The reason I say that is that it is not the quote that is important to me but rather the idea of giving life to words. I chose to show words coming to life in this visual representation, it is not the quote that gives it definition or importance.
Honestly going into this project I was frustrated and did not like the project. I thought it was far too weird for me to try to interpret text with clay. Abstract art has never been something that I have understood or really appreciated and this was an assignment that really embodied that to me. Once I started, however, I really began to appreciate the project and my work. I experienced a feeling of growth in that I was able to create, understand and appreciate a new level of art that was different than others I have experienced.
In preparation for my project I knew I would have to look at penises other than my own. I did not want this to be a portrait but rather my personal view of power, life, birth and growth in the form of a penis. Against my comfort level I printed off about a dozen different pictures of penises of varying sizes and shapes, though all were circumcised. It is interesting that I chose all circumcised penises as I myself am uncircumcised, but that was the choice I made. I think I feel like a circumcised penis is easier to recognize than an uncircumcised one and is very unique in appearance. In addition to these pictures I could not get a clip from the movie "superbad" out of my mind. The scene involves the characters adolescent addiction to drawing dicks. He talks about how it was traumatizing to him and at the point where his teacher discovers his habit he "had just finished a big, veiny, triumphant bastard." I have included the clip so everyone can see where some of my inspiration came from.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IlZpE8LQp-c

P.S. you may have to copy and paste the link so it works.
-Sean

Info for Groups

here's Elisa's e-mail address: epandolf@uoregon.edu
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the internet again until Monday. I would really like to chat before Tuesday however. Let's get it goin on!

Info for groups

Hey guys my email is djohns11@uoregon.edu.

Lance

Permanent Text

What strikes me the most about words is the emotion that they illicit from us. It is strange to think that a mixture of lines can have so strong an impact on us, or that they can have none at all. Words written in one language have tremendous meaning for one person but for a non-speaker they have no effect. The written word was developed to preserve our emotions and ideas, our spoken word preserved through time in a mixture of universally recognized symbols. This preservation of the spoken word allows us as a human race to build on our knowledge base and understanding of each other. It brings us closer together. What I am most interested in is the power behind the written word and how it plays on our emotions, there is something more permanent about the written word that carries an authority over a spoken one. When reading something we often retain it more easily than when it is spoken, our mind holds onto it much better. I suppose this is why the title of the reading is funny, becuase I find the written word to be the opposite of liquid. It has a permanancy to it. The written word stays in the same place where as spoken words drift in and out of conversations and are hard to control, much like liquid. Even though written text is only supposed to serve the purpose of recording what is said, the permanancy of the written word can change the meaning of the spoken one in ways no one anticipates. Seldom does one know the impact of their own written word.

text and layers

When we first read about the assignment in the studio, I thought of the library and all the text inside it. Then on my way to the library I walked down 13th avenue and noticed all the signs and didn't think much of them. Then I saw Taylor's sports bar and grill. The sign stood out, not only because it was bright red and big, but the name and the style of writing. I thought of all the context that taylor's could be used. With the 's.. its probably someone's name. then i thought of the general context, i mean where it was used. It was on the front of a building, but could be on paper written in pencil or spray painted on a wall. the meaning behind taylor's also gives it body and meaning. To me it makes me think of halloween, beer, dancing, fake id, loud people. To the owner of the bar, Taylor could be their name or someone know. Taylor could be alive or dead. I think all text has this backround built into through experience with that text. When we first learn to read and write or talk, others force their interpretation of the word onto you. then over time, that word or text begins to get layered with meaning. The layering infinite. this layering can also be broken down to just the text, letters, symbols.

Wow Sorry for the neglect guys

So yeah, I have pretty much been getting the psychological crap kicked out of me this week. I did read liquid words somewhere in my self loathing stupor though and I almost comprehended it. kind of but not really. I think that when words leave our minds and become written down they tend to have a very solid quality about them. They become archives and go into volumes and libraries and places as well as different types of existence where they will remain untouched and unchanged in the physical realm. On the other hand, Words in our minds are in constant motion. They are always moving and changing with our thoughts and our memories. They are not solid. Then they come out onto paper or this blog and become more concrete, but then they go into the conscious mind of the people that read them and therefor return to the liquid state. It is as if records are kind of like a freezer of thoughts and the our minds put energy back into them and they are then free to move again. As far as this applying to what we are trying to do with our interpretive text project, I am not entirely sure about how I am going to go about it. It'll come though with enough time to execute hopefully. I just know that I am really going to try to learn more about how to actually work with clay and whatever I come up with will help me move in that direction.

ok, so i am late by an hour and 30 minutes. but that is what happens sometimes with me. and that is what got me thinking. i want to involve time in my interpretive text. the reading REALLY helped me. the fact that i can just regurgitate my feelings and thought, in the form of my project. i was originally going to do a cigarette, because of the words that were yelled at me. i was an innocent person, just smoking a cig. anyways, so now i want to involve a clock in my project. i wont say anymore... but it will be more meaningful than the other. the reading clarified some aspects, but then it got a little strange. the eye was intense. it was like vomit, in a way, he says that they are vomited words, but he doesn't actually mean that we are supposed to see vomit. it looks like beans it a thick clear liquid, almost like laundry detergent. but i am getting off track, i like it because he involved that element of liquid that is so interchangeable and inconstant. i have had a lightbulb situation and am excited about my project. i will definately be working hard when i get back this weekend. but in comparison to the last reading this one was better (yea, shorter too!) but it also had more personal connection with me. i think it is because words are such important things in my life. i have thought about how lucky i truly am. many people dont have teh ability to read or write or speak words. i take advantage of this wonderful part of me. i pride my self in my speech and thoughts. and if that was taken from me i would be a wreck. so yea, i am inspired by this reading...

Liqwid Wurds

I like the title of this chapter, “liquid words.” It creates a very pretty and elegant mental picture. I imagine a Salvador Dali image of words leaking on a page as if they were ink being poured into a river. The concepts surrounding it, however, are much more difficult and not as easy for me to grasp. The idea of text as a concept outside of the common context is difficult for me to grasp. Once we began talking about it in class I became even more confused and frustrated. When we talked about text outside of it’s literal meaning and the concept of interpreting text in other mediums I really got lost. How can I describe text with clay or with another material for that matter like wood or steel?
Everything began to come together when I started thinking of how books bring letters and thoughts to life. We were talking about language and the idea of words getting their meaning in our brains outside of any letter or sound. In other words, it is not the letter but the meaning and sound associated with the letter that forms a meaning for us. When many seemingly abstract letters and words are formulated in a specific manner anything can be communicated. The thought of books coming to life and telling stories is beautiful, powerful and important for my understanding of this concept. It is not the letter that we are interpreting in an artistic piece but rather the whole idea of language that is being interpreted outside of its literal meaning.
I quickly went from frustration to excitement when the thoughts of how I was going to deal with this project jumped into my mind. We will see where things lead me but I’m excited to bring words to life and experience this in a new way. As for some of the other ideas brought to mind in the chapter, I’m working on it :)

Time for Tonight's Rorschach Test

Time for Tonight’s Rorschach Test –

Some people attempt to find the hidden meaning in what someone else sees in an ink blot. They call them Psychologists or Doctors. Some people read the bumps on people’s heads, or the lines on their hands. I’m not sure what they call them. But, I have come to the conclusion that is what I have just encountered. “Liquid Words” is not a reading; it is a psychological test where you just think the spots on the paper are words. It seems the more I read it, the farther away it gets.

If I said that I understood this article I would be kidding you. The article proves it is possible to string together symbols that I recognize, but can’t understand. Would there have been a difference in understanding if the article was in another language? No. But, in a foreign language I would have at least wondered what I was missing. Not so with this. It does let me know that some people’s brains are wired in a way that mine is not. Vive la Difference! It is comforting to know that some people are living in another intellectual Zip Code.

The thought of Liquid Word’s is more interesting without the article. I do think the concepts that we talked about in class today helped more than anything. I found myself wondering what it would have been like when languages were first being developed. The effect it has on our life. What it would be like to be in a situation where it was gone. What if aliens arrived, how would we go about trying to communicate with them? Words are important, because if they were not we would have no need for email, cell phones, Blackberry’s, or any of the other devices that allow for constant communication.

If mankind’s desire to survive was the first stage of development on this earth, is better communication the second? It seems that development of ways to share communication and knowledge more quickly is an insatiable human desire. If it were not, then people would not spend their money on items that are directly related to communication. Is this a euphoric bubble that will one day burst? Will we tire of Google, email, cell phones, 24 x 7 news, and retreat into a shell like those who retreated from the industrial revolution? Will the Amish find themselves on roads one day where there are no cars?

Are Liquid Word’s nothing more than food for the soul of mankind?

liquid words

I found that this reading we much more easily comprehended then base materialism.  At first I was comparing words and fluid, parts that work together to form a whole vs parts that are a whole and can be divided but are still similar. The building up and breaking down of these two. Then I thought about how the letters build up to form words and words make sentences to form a larger meaning. How these words may mean something different in a different context and also the meaning may be lost in translation to someone who speaks another language in their native tongue. The part of the discussion I felt most interesting was about this and foreign language. How we can communicate without language as well as how we translate the language we hear into out own. Also how when you hear or read you picture the story in your head, but if you translate it you are focused more on the actual text and its form then the content of the story because you are translating it, the form vs the story. It was an interesting discussion and reading. 

Liquid words

I love the title of this chapter; "liquid words", it brings up all sorts of connotations and visualizations. For instance, I have, in the past, when bogged down with words not flowing or forgetting what I was saying mid sentence, grabbed my tongue, pulled some spit off it, and then offer it to whom I was speaking. The result is usually laughter. In such an instance how important were the words?
To me the examples being given, for instance Jackson Pollock, seem to defy the laws/ rules by which we might interpret something, when this happens it seems to me the brain must find a new channel or pathway by which to describe what its seeing. Disturbance or disruption which systematically forces the brain to assimilate and try to place the bits into familiar channels at first, then hopefully, a new way of interpreting will begin to emerge.
In the chapter, "liquid words", we are again confronted with the idea that a dichotomy exists in all things, for instance, [Ruscha's] Liquid Words, as the little pieces of food that settle in the puddles indicate, are vomited words-reminding us that, like so many other parts of the human body, the mouth has a double function (in Documents Michel Leiris noted that this organ of eloquence, "the visible sign of intelligence," also serves to spit; the same "base materialism" animates Ruscha's work).
The point of the erosive nature of language is also significant as well as the "inevitable and irreversible nature of this process." Nothing is stagnant, nothing really remains the same, nothing. Even though we have a feeling of firmness on the planet we are moving at an enormous pace - that which brings gravity - it is this that leads me to another dichotomy: the movement of our planet is what allows us to find stillness, but is that really possible? Or is there an illusion at play? "There cannot be liquid words (we only speak of a flow of language and of liquid consonants metaphorically), " but the sameness or concreteness of language does not exist either. for even in a copy of text, one reader will not be in the same place at the same point in time. Then why is it so difficult to invent something new?! I believe these processes we're going through are attempting to move us in that direction.

Liquid Thoughts

This is, again, a difficult and hard consept to grasp easily. To make it easier on myself, I will think about it as "the meaning of words", or "the meaning of communication", or "the meaning of words, in phonetic, semantic,and syntactic, (and so on) sense..." [Phonetic, the sound of it. Semantic, the meaning/logic of it. Syntactic, how it is arranged, and what meaning that gives]. Why is it difficult? Because, I think, we take it so for granted, and we can't imagine how it would be to be without it, for starters. We learn to communicate from the day we're born, and what we learn is depentent on where in the world we are, in what time. There are so many levels to this, that it is hard to decide where to start. In regards to the text, it seems that the author is mostly concerned about the written word(?) and how that has been, or can be, translated to painting. I think his statement about the "opposition ... of writing and painting" being "phenomenologically perpindicular to one another" is silly, but, enough about that. I think it is interesting to observe that when Ruscha chooses to paint "Lisp" on the canvas, it is communicating "stronger" to a certain group of people, but to for example me, it didn't mean anything until I looked the word up in a dictionary. So, even though I like 'word art', I also think it is something that can sometimes 'blur' the message more than enhance, but that is of course because some of us come from other cultures (well, we all come from other cultures, come to think of it :)

Liquid Words

I found the ideas and concepts within "Liquid Words" a little easier to comprehend than those in "Base Materialism." It seems that Yve-Alain Bois begins by saying that liquid and words, separately are two opposing ideas. Language, in regards to the foundation of actual letters of the alphabet, is "a hierarchial combination of bits." Liquid on the other hand is indivisible and remains in the same form, true to itself. So, naturally speaking, liquid words is not possible. But then he it seems like he later goes on to say that it is very difficult, but possible to attain liquid words in works like Ruscha's and Pollock's works, which were shown in the book. Is he saying that words really have no meaning, because when you break them down they are just mere symbols that any individual can interpret how they want? I thought it was quite an interesting point about the "unbridgeable gap between the sound of words and the silence of writing." It seems like such an obvious observation, which I have never really thought about. That is an idea worthy of further pondering, and I still haven't quite grasped it's correlation with concepts of horizontality and entropy. Entropic irreversibility....help? It's a lot to think about, and I'm diggin myself into a hole of confusion.

Light

This Was the final product of the sacred project.

i started late with the readings. but even though i have read the reading assignments i am lost. the way that the authors think and portray their thoughts are flabbergasting to me... i don't know how to separate the themes. i do understand what the purpose is though. i think that it is to adjust us to different ways of thought and usage of our clay. i think that the authors wanted to throw their readers into a complicated world, that we may or may not be used to... i think that the reading was to stretch our views and "understanding". the slaughter house pictures usually wouldnt have been "art" to me. i have never taken an art class, i have taken 2 years of ceramics. i threw clay on the wheel. i never had a painting class or drawing- maybe in like the 6th or 7th grade, but when i saw the photos of the slaughter house i thought "yea, that is art..." but i had a hard time understanding the authors purpose for the excrement displays.... i think that i am going to have to open myself to new ways of thinking and doing

Thoughts on Base Materialism

Thoughts on Base Materialism:
The first reading took a bit to acclimate to the writing style of the authors, the stream of consciousness, forming ideas as a visual experience; or perhaps that's the way I read.
Even in the first reading I felt the spark of something known, questioned, explored - yes, these ponderings are very familiar to me, yet in the rush of daily activity, the societal fitting, I catch a glimpse of my constant questioning.
I love the disturbance this has created in my mind. This disturbance was demonstrated in the differences between my first piece of clay and the second, "the mess". The disturbance, although good, was still just another offshoot from my linear trajectory with which I have been operating from since conscious development. Ah, agitation, how does one get off a well grooved track?
The word '...materialism must "exclude all idealism" (which is a far more complicated job than it might seem) "heterogeneity" designates from the outset what is excluded by idealism (by the ego, capitalism, organized religion, and so on.) But above all, the term "heterology" has no philosophical antecedents with which it might be
confused,... .' Everything splits into two, even materialism.'
Exclude all idealism? Not to name, not to speak, not to think, not to move, for to do so would be to remain stuck on the track that is incessant in it's own movement forward to death of this body. Is death a destination? Only for the living unconscious.
Who's driving anyway? I must remain, on some level, riding the track line, but to free the self of all idealism, would that mean death or perhaps detachment - split in two, for everything to me is inherently a dichotomy.
'The formless matter that base materialism claims for itself resembles nothing, especially not what it should be, refusing to let itself be assimilated to any concept whatever, to any abstraction whatever. For base materialism, nature produces only unique monsters: there are no deviants in nature because there is nothing but deviation. Ideas are prisons; the idea of "human nature" is the largest of the prisons:in "each man, an animal" is "locked up...like a convict." '
The wild, indigenous self, imprisoned from the lack of questioning, from the acceptance of the norm, the status quo, which in itself has no existence. The norm is an example of an average, not a reality. Then what is reality? Is something real because I believe it to be so? And even with all our questioning, it seems that the quest for answers lead to more questions. There is no end nor a beginning, and what is the middle? Have I accepted the idea that this body starts at birth and ends at death and I make up the middle? Although I would like to think not, I have a body, therefore I have a mind, and I think so I am. What if the thoughts stop? Do I cease to exist? No, instead, I become more like a "human being" as opposed to a "human doing" and may possibly relate to the nature of becoming human. Picking at the lock which imprisons the wild indigenous nature of the whole self without ego.

Comparing shit, blood, and pubic area discharge to fine art only proves that these philosophers were simply trying to make poeple thing outside oF their current frame. That since much of the reading focused upon ideas introduced in the early part of the 20th century i immediately feel the material is dated and overworked. Everything has some form or another wether its waste or gold it bears importance and in one persons mind or another it would be considered sacred.

Its difficult for me to comprehend the idea of formless art forms, my brain is wired to view art and find meaning to the work that is evident. I could be wrong 100% of the time but i'm trying and that satisfies my desire. I think there is a fine line between art, philosophy and philosophy of art. When a Philosopher turns to art to describe a particular matter within his stream of ideas yet lacks the craft to produce quality works i find it somewhat annoying that it becomes titled as art. couldn't there be another means to describe it? Often times i would rather stare at my shit than theirs.

Blog 1: Base Materialism

I found the reading a little over my head, it was a bit confusing at first. Bastille in his discussion on base materialism seemed to jump around from idea to idea; I didn’t see much in the reading about how all of the ideas tied together. I would have liked to read Bastilles ideas directly, instead of through another writer to get more of a feel for his voice about the topic. However the discussion in class proved to clear up some passages I found challenging to comprehend on my own.

My thoughts on formlessness are that if everything has a form how can it ever be formless? Symbolically perhaps, but it will never truly be formless. You can show the form and document the process, the making, manipulating, and breaking down of the matter into a less formed mass. “it should resemble nothing, especially not what it should be” it should be “wholly other” or the opposite of what it should be. In this respect something becomes nothing. Is the other really the ideal form of matter?

How can matter be ruled apart or wholly other in form? Objects are only as important, as different, or as wholly other as society says they are. We name matter; we define it and give it form, whether concrete or symbolic. A certain value is placed in the How can anything truly be formless if it is still bound to our society. Can the matter truly ever break out of the shackles society places on it if the viewer is confined to it? No matter can ever truly be the ideal form of formless if a viewer is so confined by the limits are laws of the society they must live in.

Sacred to me or to everyone else?

Thus far I have felt rather overwhelmed by this class. Not by the work load or the abilities required to master the course, but the whole idea of challenging myself in an artistic sense. I have not taken an art class since 6th grade which was 11 years ago and even then I only dabbled in the artistic field. I like to write and I love music but the whole visual arts have always been intimidating to me. I am excited to be working with clay and discovering art, but for me it is just that, discovering art, not discovering art in a new way. Because my background in visual arts is virtually nonexistent I can not challenge my traditional art views as much as develop new art views.
That being said have been trying to challenge my traditional views of art and general ways of thinking. In our discussion on the sacred I was able to get into a deeper meaning for me. I kept thinking about what was sacred to me versus someone else or the greater society. The Idea that art can be anything to anyone, even something as socially unacceptable as excrement gives rise to a new style of thinking. I kept thinking of what I felt to be the most traditional sacred symbol, god. In our society a cross, the name Jesus, Christmas and the Bible are all sacred. Travel to many other corners of the world and Allah is the word with most sacred meaning. Is someone right or wrong? In my eyes no, it is simply the meaning that is most socially acceptable. I am not challenging religion or their beliefs, only saying that in different societies different things will be held as sacred. In this I began a list of things that are sacred to me instead of things which are sacred because society told me they are sacred. I find family, love, and companionship to be sacred. There are many variations of these concepts but if I am to develop an art piece that embodies the sacred I believe that it must hold these base ideas.
Now my challenge is to find a way to challenge myself to go into the abstract and untraditional art to find my interpretation of the sacred. I don't know what this looks like yet, but my work is most certainly going to be in finding a way to express these feelings in a way that challenges me and my traditional views of art(however limited my views may be.)

-Sean Phillips

The Sacred?

The Sacred – or-I thought this bus was going to Bend. Lets be honest – I came to this class thinking I’d learn the basics of how to do ceramics. So, for all of you who are art majors and have extensive experience in the field of ceramics, this may seem understandable. Our discussion Tuesday helped me understand how this article was created. I do have the feeling that I’m looking at something I’m holding at arms length and wondering …just wondering. Some statements in the article are a bit…lets just say—humorous for want of a better term. Consider this from the middle of page 54: “It is not possible to explore here Bataille’s completely idiosyncratic reading of Freud. However, it is significant to note that Bataille’s reading is rigorously antithetical to Breton’s, in large part because Bataille, unlike Breton, had actually undergone psychoanalysis (from 1925-29), which played an important role in freeing him from writers block.” Psychoanalysis – Clay?? Now the mind runs wild – is that the key to understanding this article – 4 years of psychoanalysis? Wonder if electroshock therapy would speed it up? It is disconcerting to know that (page 62): “Einstein was least inclined to follow Bataille to the end.” Given the choice who do you line up with: Mr. E=MC2 or a guy who spent 4 years on the couch? Is it possible that all these little buildings on the other side of Franklin are actually filed with couches and psychoanalysts saying: “See you next week, only 3 years left.”
I feel the ‘Sacred’ as a term. It’s hard to separate the term from a lifetime of feelings that are hardwired into a person. There are the formal things that are part of society: a place of worship, a court, and marriage. Then there are the internal sacreds, the things I place value on. At the core of this are the big ones: time, health, family. This appears to fly in the face of Bataille’s ideas, possibly because I haven’t spent 4 years on the couch. Bataille is quoted as say on page 52: “the that ‘sacred’ lends itself to confusion (because of its specialization in the present context. By sacred he means what is wholly other.” I really get the feeling he is riding a different train on a different track to a station with a different group of visitors.
I find that to try and create something that reflects the ‘sacred’ in my life, and not be specific would make it impossible. No wind blows in favor of a ship with no destination.
Enough for now.

PUTRESCENCE: 1646, from L. putrescentem (nom. putrescens), prp. of putrescere "grow rotten," inchoative of putrere "be rotten" (see putrid).

Post. My mind is unstable. I want to understand and appreciate what the author/s of "Formless" are attempting to say, but it is not in my power to do so. My lack of patience and my limited vocabulary would be the normal culprits of this kind of mind crime, but I feel like I am understanding what the book is trying to say or not say and I just don't like it very much. I feel like it's a mix between belief in a lack of absolutes and another philosophy having to do with experiencing life for ourselves and then also just trying to get people to wake up and think. That's fine. But. Everyone is doing it. (actually they are probably not, but they think they are) either way, this way of thinking is so popular especially in a university setting. Think for yourself! Don't let the ritual or the sacred or the taboo or the rules or the tradition dictate the way that you think about and experience life! You'll learn more and be a better person! I don't buy it. I can't even, according to this book, take the opposite stance of that and say that if everyone thinks for themselves then that will become the norm and the only way to break that will be to follow the old ways again. It's crap. All we can do is exist. It's fun to think about this stuff. It's fun to think about thinking. It's fun to think about learning how to be a new person and to understand things in new ways. maybe we do, but maybe we don't really change. I am still me. I am the same stupid crying kid that came out of my mom 21 years ago. "but look at how much you've learned and grown" is that because I am new? Is it new thinking; new ways of thinking being wanting knowing? Am I not yesterday Lance anymore? Is there a yesterday Lance? No. Do I change? No. Tomorrow does not exist. Yesterday does not exist. You exist. I exist. I'm not new. I'm not Old. I am. ME. The same goes for the way that I think. So screw wasting energy on trying.

A Quest For Truth

At first glance I was rather confused with the excrement obsession and the glorification of it. The reading talked about the homogeneity of popular art but the alternative - the idea that everything is the same level as shit also relies on homogeneity. Bataille really seemed to me to be a walking contradiction and I believe he felt himself to be as well. I do believe that is searching for "the sacred" contradiction is inevitable as one person cannot possibly define what is sacred to another. There can be no decided right or wrong for the whole, only for a group of similar minds. In the quest for the universal truth defined as "sacred" there is an impossible circle of contradictions and counterpoints. The truth is in a sense "formless". In this way I believe the quest for truth has become more sacred than the truth itself out of necessity. This idea led me to the theory that whatever someone holds sacred is what perpetuates their own survival.

Confessions about confusion

... and thoughts about base materialism.

I found the reading interesting, thought-provoking and inspiring, but also difficult, provoking and arguable.

Interesting: I haven't been thinking too much about the different 'values' of materials as it is described in the text. Of course, I look at gold as a 'higher' material than dirt, or at least, that was how I thought of it before. On the other hand, I find dirt, (especially worm piss) to be much more useful than gold, since I'm a big fan of composting. For me personally, I don't think I changed my views of material's individual values per se, but more in the direction of what could be looked upon as 'useful' materials in the process of making art. I think the examples used to illustrate the different uses of materials in the book, though, might not be quite what Bataille meant (?), since they all more or less play on the symbolic values they have, being the material they are, like Burri's use of burnt plastic (or maybe not ...) Anyway, it is good to be aware of the potential uses of different materials, though it can be hard to use whatever material you like, without putting some symbolic meaning in to it (intentional or unintentional) in terms of how the viewer sees your artwork. (More on that later ...)

Thought-provoking: Well, being reminded that "Even shit is pretty" has to be thought-provoking, and maybe also just provoking (if I understand these terms in the right way) ... I mean, what is 'pretty' anyway? Who defines what is 'pretty' or not? Does it have to be pretty? ... and so on, I guess.

Arguable: I'm not sure if I quite see where Bataille is going with his arguments when he refers to Freud and his own psychological history when he talks about base materialism. It is like he is trying to explain something concrete with something abstract, and that doesn't quite do it for me. (I mean, I can see that there is a hierarchy going on, and that it can be a good thing to get rid of that. On the other hand, II feel like the whole idea of the hierarchy is more or less constructed by Bataille, and thus has a greater theoretical interest than practical) So, base materialism is about declassifying, "lowering, and liberating from all ontological prisons", but to what? Just materials? No real value, symbolic value, or pretended value? If that was the thought, I would both say that that is impossible (they will always have some sort of value, especially in a symbolic way), but also an attempt to neutralize something that has a necessary and useful value in itself. It would be like saying that all colors should be the same, however you choose to use your color palette, they all mean the same. (Maybe not quite, but something like that ...)

So, I've only read this twice, and even though I feel like I get what they are talking about, the things they are talking about are often very deep and theoretical, so there are no easy answers to their questions (and I understand that we are not supposed to look for direct answers, but actually rather more questions to ask ...) Also, the fact that they are referring to other philosophers, like Freud, Marx, Hegel, Sade, and Breton, makes it kind of hard, since I don't have much specific knowledge of these people from before ... I do believe, though, that most of us today are 'enlightened' people that can reason on behalf of what we all ready know, with our own experiences in life, and that those experiences are much more valuable than anything else.

--

Knut :)

I would like to say that the first two posts were enjoyable reads with interesting and though provoking ideas on both the idea of what is sacred and feedback from the reading. It was like I was reading poetry. Anyway, I myself was very confused by the questions and points in "Base Materialism." The approach to the article I found to be mostly negative and somewhat depressing, and I hate those kind of reads. So, my first reaction was: I am irritated, what is all this talk about excrement and what does it have to do with ceramics, and why am I reading this deep, intense article about a new way of thinking, experiencing, and approaching art when I don't even know the basics about ceramics? After we addressed the article in class on Tuesday and felt a lot less confused. Discussion is great, because everyone has something diffferent to bring to the table and people build off eachother's ideas.
We did not really address materialism and fetishism in discussion. It was something that seemed to stick out in my mind when I went back over the reading. Bois seemed to emphasize that present day culture has grown to place too much of an importance of materialistic "things," things that are tangible, even art. Almost like we are too needy or dependent on these things, where our perception and the way we process information is clouded and skewed by pre-set notions that we can't possibly have a new experience. At least in today's culture it would be very difficult. Like we hold onto these things so tightly, even a painting for example. We put a lot of time and effort into a painting, working to get a desired effect of look, even weeks. We are often instructed to wipe it down and start over again. And it's extremely difficult to let go. Every time it's a struggle. That is just one example, but I feel like he is talking about not holding onto these "things" that influence our thoughts, and do not allow for an entirely "free" new way of experiencing. I don't know if that made any sense, as it's difficult for me to put my thought processes into words.

Thought process/ break down

During the last class I took in what everybody was saying. I began to develop ideas for ‘the sacred’ trying to go about it through a Base Materialism way. The discussion involved a lot of input. Water, houses, gates, feelings… I started to day-dream a little bit of running in a 5 K race at Hayward field. My legs were bounding in a high cadence. Then the last three laps came and I pictured myself pulling ahead. I tried to image the feeling and drive that it takes to get through the pain. The Sacred hoped back into my head.
The sacred is different from one person to another, but if through the same experiences ‘the sacred’ can be shared. When all is gone and you need something to pull you back to life or spark your fire, the catalyst, where do you go or what do you use. Then I thought of hierarchy and how meaning plays apart. If you try to base your sacred off of a memory then it can be manipulated through time. When I think of my sacred, I try to break down the hierarchy of meaning and thought process. I guess I am being hypocritical. I think of my running and when I am in a race. Those last few hundred meters come and something other than your mind or body will get you across the tape, if you pushed yourself to personal limit, physical and mental. Then there is something deep down that explodes though your body, maybe it doesn’t make you run faster or accomplish anything great, but it still is there. When you have lowered your perspectives, broken down yourself, I think that is where the sacred lies. Its that spark that gets you going. Nobody can take it away. When everything else is gone, it remains.
Necessary, powerful, spark, within one… a burnt locked chest, a spark inside…

Claymation

So, this was only an excercise to get me started to play with clay and learn more about the material ... I think another type of clay probably would have worked better for this kind of purpouse, though ... :)

Knut