From: Craig J. Hunt 
To: viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 11:04 AM
Subject: Viewing Stone mail list admin, vacation

>Hi Gang;
>
>Just a quick note to let you know that I'll be on vacation till Feb. 15 so
>if there are any problems with the Viewing Stone mail list, they'll have to
>wait till then.
>
>If you want to unsubscribe, there is a web page that tells you how at;
>
>http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/1666/vslist.htm
>
>Talk to you later!
>
>Craig J. Hunt in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
>home; craig_hunt@geocities.com work; craig@triumf.ca
>http://www.triumf.ca/people/craig/craig.htm

===============================================
From: Lynn Boyd 
To: Viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 5:53 PM
Subject: RE: METEORITE STONES

>
> Just some thoughts about these very costly stones. And
> possibly my admission of a narrow mental horizon here.
>
> Lynn 
>
>----------------------------------------
>
> RE: Meterorites in Auction
>
>
>
> There exists an aesthetic problem for me in the
> hail from the heavens that Chris called the meteorite rocks
> for sale in an auction. Though this was a tongue in cheek
> statement and he was simply forwarding a piece of news
> outside his own estimation.
>
> The problem begins when asked to purchase or think of
> these in the same class or with the same reverence
> as I hold for Chinese Scholar Stones.
>
> If there had been no mention of the Scholar Stones made
> as a comparable visual force my reaction may have been
> totally different. Then they would have arroused a
> thought of them as an interesting substantive representation
> of our night skies and my mind would have encompassed
> the source of their existence, their formation and
> their drop from their orbit as a curious phenomenon.
> But when they are joined in thought to the Scholar Stones
> I balk.
>
> The Scholar Stones bring with them a matrix of cultural
> background that has its human imprint. The imprint of
> the projected ideas and reverences of a like human being
> to myself and that brings me an understanding that has
> a long and continuous thread of our interwoven existence.
> Given a stand to exhibit this icon of my predecessor's
> beliefs and even his artistic metaphors makes it the more
> convincing to me of his existence and life. Historic links.
>
> Were the meteorites to be mounted on a stand what confusion
> would be arroused? What metaphor suplants the existing one
> we have for Scholars' Stones. And if the meteorite arrives
> in my home do I classify it then as a Viewing Stone and
> forge onward without the suiseki conventions to guide me?
>
> I warm to the Scholar's Stone, to a human surrounding of
> culture and link to the past. I think only of the cold
> reaches of the sky when a meteorite lays before me.
> I have warmed more to a piece of lava on the mountain
> paths. Well, probably an interesting metaphor in there
> somewhere. 
> 
> I suppose aesthetically our cultural acquaintance with an
> image is governing my response so strongly that I do not
> overcome my greater familiarity with the Scholars' Stones
> and do not accept the meteorite as approaching them. It
> is an abstract power that governs selection so often.
> The image of the meteorite is still one of a spatial
> phenomenon, cold, generating problems, and with no history
> of human interaction favoring my response to it.
>
> --------------------------

===============================================
From: Chris Cochrane 
To: Viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Cc: Darryl Pitt 
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: METEORITE STONES

>Lynn perceptively writes,
>>Just some thoughts about these very
>>costly stones... <... SNIP...>
>>
>>The problem begins when asked to
>>purchase or think of these in the same
>>class or with the same reverence as I hold
>>for Chinese Scholar Stones. <...SNIP..>
>>
>>I warm to the Scholar's Stone, to a human
>>surrounding of culture and link to the past.
>>I think only of the cold reaches of the sky
>>when a meteorite lays before me.
>
>I kept wondering why I wasn't warming to these stones which seem reasonably
>interesting in form, and I think Lynn hits the nail on its head.
>
>Why do I warm to stones of the Chinese scholar rock aesthetic collected
>outside of that culture and to stones collected in modern China? Certainly
>these are not the stones of Chinese literati. Many art & stone collectors
>would see little merit in these stones.
>
>"Wow," I thought, at first seeing the meteorites-- the forms are so similar
>though the material different from that of a scholar's rock. Aesthetically,
>however, the meteorite seems a dud if judged as a scholar's rock.
>
>One of the meteorites really "rocked" me though-- one compared to that of a
>sculptor's work of whom I know nothing (LOT 2716: ABSOLUTE BARBARA
>HEPWORTH - SLEEK TABLETOP METEORITE). It recalls for me the art deco
>sculpture of Lipchitz-- who created sculptures composed of torsos and heads
>made from either the building-up or carving-out of geometric forms that just
>begin to relate to something organic when he stops construction. There was
>a form to which I relate.
>
>How distant can we tread from the authentic, unaltered, period-collected
>stone with "correct" origin and maintain aesthetic vitality? The
>international auction houses and oriental arts/antique dealers certainly
>tread lightly in admitting that the age and collection area of a scholar's
>rock is unknown. The old stand, even if not the "first wife" stand, is held
>in reverence as validating the stone.
>
>Modern collectors who dismiss the importance of the source and age of a
>stone are rare in the art community regarding _suiseki_ or the Chinese
>scholar's rock. In choosing Chinese scholar rocks, C.C. Wang was among the
>notable exceptions of admired art collectors in this regard.
>
>Among newly-found _suiseki_ collectors both in Japan and in the West,
>however, the reverence for both previous ownership and for unaltered contour
>appears to be shrinking. I recently found vendors in Tokyo, for example, to
>be unsure of where suiseki they sell were found. One vendor in Kyoto sold
>primarily stones cut to fit flatly in _daiza_. Seldom is distinctive
>information about the collection site or previous owners transmitted. A
>stone I recently purchased from a respected European collector similarly was
>offered with almost no history.
>
>Once again, it is a narrow community of fine art collectors-- and a number
>of _suiseki_ purists such as our friend Marco Favero and Norry Kirschten
>(sp?)-- who insist on _suiseki_ following a prescribed path for aging.
>Even among purists, not all rank stones by their historic as much as by
>their artistic merit... though "fame" (the appreciation of a stone by a
>noted collector) is THE tradition for valuing _suiseki_.
>
> Does knowledge of viewing stone aesthetics broaden or narrow the viewers
>perspective of what is inclusive? Does relegating a stone in Chinese or
>Japanese style, but collected in the West, to a Western viewing stone
>aesthetic add or detract from its validity or vitality? Validating a
>stone's beauty only through the cultural aesthetic of where it is found or
>through an art movement contemporaneous to its discovery would seem to limit
>it.
>
>Perhaps I will warm to meteorites as naturally-found stones. I see no good
>reason to not warm to them.
>A celestial rock has its own beauty separate from the scholar's rock.
>Perhaps it also draws from the expectations gleaned in studying the
>scholar's rock. Lynn clearly notes the difference. The meteorite's beauty,
>while isolated from cultural history, is reflects natural pre-history
>finally revealed... ;-)... It is surprisingly recognizable for its
>similarity to the contours modern art sculpture and scholar's rocks.
>
>Chris... C. Cochrane, sashai@erols.com, Richmond Virginia, USA

==================================================
From: Andy Miksys 
To: viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 6:05 PM
Subject: Meteorite Stones

>Oh-oh here we go again bumping into that 'providence' thing as an aesthetic
>quality.
>
>I think the meteorites are fantastic, although admittedly many, especially
>the slices, are aesthetically non-starters and should probably be best
>considered as mineralogical curiosities. Pretty well all are a dash
>Lilliputian - again a major aesthetic hurdle, for my tastes anyway.
>
>Nevertheless - their celestial origin adds an exciting, almost supernatural
>quality to each piece, which is simply not possible with their terrestrial
>cousins. Our awe of the night sky, our wonderment with the seeming infinity
>of the universe, the secrets of the origins of life and our very existence
>itself are all crystallized in these nuggets from space. Tossed to us from
>the heavens - it's as if these sculpted little treasures have been given a
>patina by the hand of God rather than the hand of man! (...whew.)
>
>Oh this is exciting stuff all right - but should we place it on our
>mantle-piece as a viewing stone? Or as Lynn asks "and if the meteorite
>arrives in my home do I classify it then as a Viewing Stone and forge
>onward without the suiseki conventions to guide me?"
>
>Why not call it a viewing stone? And why should we drop any conventions
>which have guided us to our present understanding?
>
>Lynn has written (paraphrasing) that when Scholar Stones are made as a
>comparable visual force to the meteorites - that she balks - owing to the
>fact that " (t)he Scholar Stones bring with them a matrix of cultural
>background that has its human imprint." Lynn further states "I warm to the
>Scholar's Stone, to a human surrounding of culture and link to the past. I
>think only of the cold reaches of the sky when a meteorite lays before me."
>
>There's the rub. It's that old providence thing again - that unquantifiable
>characteristic which for some - enhances (or detracts) from the aesthetic
>beauty of the object. An attribute of the stone which resides in the brain
>of the viewer rather than stone itself - and which in itself evokes an
>emotional response. It is based in belief - a kind of neural loop.
>
>The meteorite as viewing stone on the other hand, has a physical
>characteristic which will evoke for some (like me) an emotional response.
>This 'celestiality' therefore is simply another characteristic by which we
>determine the aesthetic quality of the stone. Celestiality fits right along
>with the other physical characteristics such as shape, texture, resemblance
>to objects, etc. It is by definition either on or off. And because it may
>impart a profound emotional response on the viewer, it must be ranked quite
>high in terms of importance in a stone unlike say, it's magnetic quality or
>it's specific gravity.
>
>For Lynn it seems, the celestiality=on necessitates humanity=0 for the
>stone. I simply cannot understand this because for me the humanity of the
>stone - it's providence - is not a characteristic which determines a
>stone's beauty. It's overall aesthetic quality - maybe, it's value
>(monetary of otherwise) - definitely, but not it's raw beauty.
>
>A thought experiment.
>
>Mona Lisa by DaVinci vs. a perfect forgery. Which is the prettier picture?
>It's a tie. Which has greater overall (historical, cultural, monetary,
>etc.) value and greater emotional response? DaVinci. - Easy.
>
>Two viewing stones - identical. One with a long providence - one without
>(forget the greasy shine) - which is prettier? - a tie. Which is of greater
>overall value? - the providence positive one. Again easy. Which generates a
>greater emotional response - the providence one - why? because we are led
>to believe that it has some cultural import - and that belief affects us.
>(We could be deceived.)
>
>Two viewing stones - identical on the surface - one with microscopic
>crystalline patterns proving it's celestial origin - the other terrestrial.
>Which is prettier? - a tie. Which generates a greater emotional response
>and which is of greater overall value? For me and I'm sure many others -
>it's space-boy - and not for any monetary considerations.
>
>Two viewing stones - identical on the surface - one celestial as before and
>one terrestrial with a long providence. Which is prettier? - a tie. Which
>generates a greater emotional response? Ahh... here is where Lynn and I
>will differ - because in Lynn's view the celestial stone has a physical
>attribute causing it to be devoid of a human element (which she regards as
>an essential characteristic in making the overall aesthetic determination),
>and in my view the celestial stone has an intrinsic physical characteristic
>which I value aesthetically. Further, in my view - the stone's inherent
>celestiality far outweighs almost any 'assigned' providence which a stone
>could have. All things being equal I'd have to be looking at an Emperor's
>pet rock before I would be affected emotionally.
>
>Which is of greater overall value? - (for me) a tough call. One that would
>no doubt degenerate into an ugly business of money.
>
>Chris asks "How distant can we tread from the authentic, unaltered,
>period-collected
>stone with "correct" origin and maintain aesthetic vitality?"
>
>I think as far as we wish to. And I believe that it is absolutely vital to
>maintain a dynamic approach to the art. Failure to move forward and expand
>the boundaries will, I believe, reduce appreciation of viewing stones to
>the level of collecting stamps.
>
>In Chris's posting he is pushing the envelope by contrasting the meteorite
>form with abstract sculpture - hey it's a direction!
>
>It's no surprise that, as Chris puts it "the reverence for both previous
>ownership and for unaltered contour appears to be shrinking". That
>reverence - for providence - is backward looking not forward. It's
>exclusive rather than inclusive. It's the stuff of museums rather than of
>art galleries. And it's all based on something that you have to 'believe'
>to appreciate rather than something tangible which you can confront with a
>clear open mind.
>
>
>Thanks for your patience,
>
>
>Andy Miksys

====================================================
From: Andy Miksys 
To: viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 9:55 PM
Subject: Ooops!

>Tony is quite right. The term is provenance. My error. Sorry.
>
>Thanks;
>
>Andy Miksys

===============================================
From: Joe Davies 
To: viewing_stones 
Date: Monday, February 22, 1999 3:48 AM
Subject: Christmas in February?

>Friends and Fellow Stone-nuts,
>
>Please excuse this intrusion and outright request for your attention! The
>reason? ... well, I have discovered a certain item that I MUST HAVE, I'm
>sure many of you know how I feel when this happens. Trouble is, its a heck
>of a lot of money and to realise the necessary funds to acquire it means I
>need to try and bridge the difference between what I have and what I need,
>and need to achieve this quickly. So......... the reason for this email, I
>am in the position of offering any stone from my website or personal
>collection (bar those that were gifts from friends) - I AM OPEN TO ALL
>OFFERS, please keep them to a sense of reality :-)
>
>So if you know my stones already and have a favourite or find something that
>takes your fancy do let me know and what you would offer. To ease the
>payment method I can process credit cards. ( Visa and Mastercard )
>
>I should add, I am not looking to dispose of my collection of suiseki and
>viewing stones, I am just as interested and committed to the subject as
>ever, but sometimes there comes along an opportunity and one has to try and
>grasp it, which may necessitate a few old friends from my collection
>finding new, loving homes.
>
>Please excuse the pleading, grovelling tone of this email, which I know is
>probably out of character!! (I'll be back to my normal, grumpy self again
>soon). The stones are at my website: http://www.suiseki.com
>
>Thanks
>Joe Davies

====================================================
From: Craig J. Hunt 
To: viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Cc: marymilam@selah.wednet.edu 
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 9:22 AM
Subject: Spirit Stone Exhibibition & Catalog for Sale

>Hi Viewing Stone people;
>
>Mary asked me to send this to the viewing stone list.
>
>Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Milam, Mary 
>To: 'Craig J. Hunt' 
>Date: Monday, February 22, 1999 7:42 PM
>Subject: RE: NW Corner
>
>
>> I just found this information on the web
>>
>>
>>Spirit Stones of China
>>SPRING 1999
>>By Stephen Little
>>
>>Stones have been revered in China since at least the third millennium B.C.,
>>when they were presented as tributes to Emperor Yu, a mythical sage-ruler.
>>The Art Institute of Chicago will display twenty of these sacred Chinese
>>stones from the Ian and Susan Wilson Collection. This catalogue, bound in a
>>slipcase and featuring beautiful duotone illustrations, explores the close
>>connection between stones, Daoist philosophy, cosmology, garden design,
>>interior decoration, painting, and woodblock prints.
>>
>>The Art Institute of Chicago, Spring 1999
>>7-1/2 x 10-1/4 in.; 96 pages; 60 duotone illustrations (est.)
>>Softcover in slipcase $16.95 ISBN 0-86559-173-3
>>For information on the hardcover edition, please call (312) 443-3540
>>
>>
>>also, does anyone know how to get reprints or copies of old suiseki
>>articles????
>>
>>mary

====================================================
From: Chris Cochrane 
To: Craig J. Hunt ; viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Cc: marymilam@selah.wednet.edu 
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Spirit Stone Exhibibition & Catalog for Sale

>Craig forwards Mary's message re' _Spirit Stones of China_ exhibit and book:
>>... ... This catalogue, bound in a
>>slipcase and featuring beautiful duotone
>> illustrations, explores...
>>Softcover in slipcase $16.95 ISBN 0-86559-173-3
>>For information on the hardcover edition, please
>>call (312) 443-3540
>
>This info is incorrectly posted on The Art Institute of Chicago's web site.
>The book is expected to come out April 1, there is no hardcover version, and
>the price is $29.95... at least that is what the Institute's publications
>folks report... ;-)

==========================================================
From: gallery 
To: viewing_stones@triumf.ca ; World Artist Select Art Ring ; webbs@uswest.net ; steve doonan ; Steve Doonan ; Sebastian Marquez ; S. Deangelis ; Reyne Haines ; Ray Villarosa ; pond folk ; noqquilt@noqers.org ; Marion Barnett ; Lyris ; LorriLB@AOL.COM ; Leslie Brown ; JPovlock@aol.com ; John Moriarty ; Fred Grott ; eGroups.com Manager ; eGroups.com Manager ; David S. April ; Craig J. Hunt ; bobbo ; basia@smoe.org ; artreps-unsubscribe-gallery=www.jamesbaird.com@egroups.com ; artists-and-writers@onelist.com ; art-glass@tias.com ; Am2ze@aol.com ; Adriela 
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 3:51 PM
Subject: jamesbaird.com gallery

>On behalf of Jamesbaird.com online Art Gallery, I have been
>asked to make u aware of our exciting new search engine.
>
>Existing search engines let you find an artist IF you know their name.
>jamesbaird.com lets you find art by medium, size, price, description and
>more.
>
>Also we provide you with the service of uploading your art, and allowing
>you to manage it all with no hastle. It's easy to upload your images,
>and update your CV, as well as to sell your art online.
>
>No Limits
>No commissions! Only $9.95 per month (or less!)
>We will help you with escrow and credit card sales!
>
>Check us out.
>www.jamesbaird.com
>
>gallery@jamesbaird.com

===================================================
From: Bunjingi@aol.com 
To: sashai@erols.com ; craig@triumf.ca ; viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Cc: marymilam@selah.wednet.edu 
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: Spirit Stone Exhibibition & Catalog for Sale

>
>In a message dated 2/24/99 1:26:44 PM, sashai@erols.com writes:
>
><
>The book is expected to come out April 1, there is no hardcover version, and
>
>the price is $29.95... at least that is what the Institute's publications
>
>folks report... ;-)>>
>
>I had sent a check for $40.85 (16.95 x 2 + shipping) a month ago for 2 copies
>(knowing it would not be out until March) and when Chris told me about the
>price discrepencies I called the Art Institute yesterday and checked on it.
>They said that they recieved my check and the price is correct. Apparently
>THEY are confused and are giving out inconsistent information (there is no
>hardcover version as they say on their web site, for instance). So, the
>price of $16.95, as far as my conversaton yesterday, is correct. 
>Looking forward to the book.
>John Romano
>bunjingi@aol.com

=========================================================
From: Chris Cochrane 
To: viewing_stones@triumf.ca 
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Spirit Stone Exhibition catalog

>For anyone in the Chicago area who is interested, the author of the Spirit
>Stone exhibition catalog will be giving a book gallery lecture at 1507 S.
>Michigan Ave. at 2:00 pm, Saturday, March 6. Stephen Little is the Pritzker
>Curator of Asian Art, at Art Institute of Chicago and will be speaking on
>"Daoism at the Ming Court: Evidence from Painting."
>
>I hope orders for his _Spirit Stone_ book will be honored at the price Mary
>and John have quoted. John and I had this discussion weeks ago... when I
>asked Craig Hunt to report the exhibition but not hotlink the book site
>unless posting a warning on the accuracy of information there-- see
>http://www.artic.edu/aic/books/subspirit.html .
>
>Two book sources have verified a higher price to me, and one was the
>publications department of the Institute whose representative stated that
>the web site price was misquoted and would not be honored.
>
>Mary and John thoughtfully share what they have found.
>
>Chris

====================================================

    Source: geocities.com/tokyo/garden/1666

               ( geocities.com/tokyo/garden)                   ( geocities.com/tokyo)