Brad Sondahl on wed 24 sep 97
Phyllis Greenhouse's account of overly imitative apprentices raises more
valid issues. Although imitation is a form of flattery, it can be
frustrating to the originator, especially if the potters end up in
competition. Presumably Phyllis's artwork has evolved, so that may not
be so much of an issue. However, the apprentice of today may be your
competitor next week... Sometimes this can be avoided by legally
insisting in writing that the apprentice not go into competition with
you within such and such a geographical area.
In North Idaho a wealthy resort coowner forced his partner out of a
lucrative resort, and got him to agree in the process not to establish
any competing business in the area. The angered forced out partner did
get in a clause that he could conduct any business at his home. So he
opened a new motel on his home property, where he's still in business
Getting back to the imitation business, I still do some decorations I
learned as an apprentice many years ago, for repetitive wares. Some
designs are classic. But I don't think it bugs my master, as he is half
a continent and a whole genre away. (You can compare our works by
visiting my website, then clicking on Chris Holmquist towards the bottom
of the pottery page...) I do think that if you are going to teach, you
have to expect the student to learn, and while it's nice to encourage
them to branch out, people will do what they will...
PO Box 96, Nezperce ID 83543
"When it comes to dabbling, I'm just a dilettante..."