Noel on tue 8 apr 08
Not beat a dead horse, but, I am a yahoo-er. Almost too young for
listservs, though not quite (fuzzy early memories). Easier to read, for
other groups a lot easier to post.
I have read clay art on and off for almost 10 years.
But I am moved by the bashing of Garth Clark by those who have never read
him, responding to out of context quotes, and by those who espouse the do-
it-your-self ideology of one simple mug at a time versus playing with
the "big boys" in NEW YORK CITY (read like pace picante commercial)with
art being fine and all.
In my view: Garth Clark has a history of supporting Women in clay,
supporting the vessel. If you read (which would actually involve buying
and reading) the collection of essays which he put together based upon the
very large ceramic millenium conference in 1999, you would see that he is
quite embracing of many viewpoints of current and past/historical issues
in clay and ceramics. The essays he chose for the book were from a wide
variety of artists/historians/ interested parties. The collection of
essays are full of thoughts about why we work in clay, why clay work is
art, the history of working in clay past the industrial revolution, views
that are academic, kinesthetic, artist initiated.
I guess I am just encouraging people to not throw the baby out with the
bath water. And more importantly, not judge a person's contribution based
on a few quotes. I do believe there is a strong strain of anti-
intellectualism in clay and there are reasons for this. Machismo. "hen
house" references. Knowledge is power, and working in clay is different
that working in other media for a wide variety of reasons. Garth Clark
has been a force in trying to complicate and explore these differences,
and reasons, while all the time maintaining a great love for works in
clay.
the lone voice.................................
Noel
Lee on wed 9 apr 08
I wish John Britt work talk about the article's in Tony's footnotes
that he wrote. I tried to engage John privately but he told me (as
best as I can remember): "I have moved on from that."
I know John would stick to substance so I would enjoy
discussing it with him.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing." --Edmund Burke
Randall Moody on wed 9 apr 08
Noel, With all due respect, this is the same issue with Clark as it
was with Leach. Criticizing Clark's or Leach's writing or stances on
a given subject is NOT "bashing" them. It is critiquing the critic.
You make the same mistake that Lee makes in stating that people who
are criticizing, Clark in your case and Leach in Lee's, have never
read him or don't understand what was written. You also imply that the
only ones who are criticizing his writings are DIY, jealous of the
"big boys" hicks. I have read and re-read Ceramic Millennium and still
have issues with some of the things written there. Writing for or
against clay doesn't make one immune to criticism.
You attributing your perceived "anti-intellectualism" to machismo or
"hen house references appears to be no more that sexism.
--
Randall in Atlanta (not bashing anyone)
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Noel wrote:
>
> But I am moved by the bashing of Garth Clark by those who have never read
> him, responding to out of context quotes, and by those who espouse the do-
> it-your-self ideology of one simple mug at a time versus playing with
> the "big boys" in NEW YORK CITY (read like pace picante commercial)with
> art being fine and all.
>
> If you read (which would actually involve buying
> and reading) the collection of essays which he put together based upon the
> very large ceramic millenium conference in 1999, you would see that he is
> quite embracing of many viewpoints of current and past/historical issues
> in clay and ceramics. T
> I do believe there is a strong strain of anti-
> intellectualism in clay and there are reasons for this. Machismo. "hen
> house" references.
Lee on wed 9 apr 08
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Noel wrote:
> Not beat a dead horse, but, I am a yahoo-er.
He Noel,
I know it is political ;^), but Gmail has really made my
email lists much easier to read. I get maybe 500 emails a day,
including the lists I run and the ones I follow.
I only bash Garth Vader when he bashes the late Bernard
Leach. SOmeone needs to speak up for the dead.
He says folks in the Leach related schools live in
Fortress Ceramica, which turns what Leach did on its head. Mingei is
more about Robin Hood than ceramic high art royalty. I see Star
Wars as being a better analogy and Lord Garth represents the Empire of
Art and folks protecting the heart of work inspired by perenial
knowledge, as the Jedi.
When Lord Garth or John Britt (whose other work I highly
respect) says things that have no basis on what mingei actually is.
I have to speak up.
I see you make no reference to specifics. It ain't a
personality or beauty contest. I will discuss any ISSUE happily.
But please come loaded for Bear.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing." --Edmund Burke
Lee on wed 9 apr 08
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
> Noel, With all due respect, this is the same issue with Clark as it
> was with Leach. Criticizing Clark's or Leach's writing or stances on
> a given subject is NOT "bashing" them.
It IS bashing when there is only name calling. I have not seen Leach
syncopathy expressed here. You too need to talk about issues and not
simply call names. I would be happy to take on any factually based
discussion.
I enjoyed Tony C's paper because he talked only about issues. Ones
that we all have to deal with as professional potters.
Yoda says, "Issues of, we must speak. No try. Just do!"
I salute you with my Light Saber. ;^)
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing." --Edmund Burke
Tony Ferguson on wed 9 apr 08
Noel,
I don't know Garth personally but I invited Garth to join this forum, inviting him to respond in his own words. Too bad he didn't, I think it would have been productive and educational for all.
Tony
Noel wrote: Not beat a dead horse, but, I am a yahoo-er. Almost too young for
listservs, though not quite (fuzzy early memories). Easier to read, for
other groups a lot easier to post.
I have read clay art on and off for almost 10 years.
But I am moved by the bashing of Garth Clark by those who have never read
him, responding to out of context quotes, and by those who espouse the do-
it-your-self ideology of one simple mug at a time versus playing with
the "big boys" in NEW YORK CITY (read like pace picante commercial)with
art being fine and all.
In my view: Garth Clark has a history of supporting Women in clay,
supporting the vessel. If you read (which would actually involve buying
and reading) the collection of essays which he put together based upon the
very large ceramic millenium conference in 1999, you would see that he is
quite embracing of many viewpoints of current and past/historical issues
in clay and ceramics. The essays he chose for the book were from a wide
variety of artists/historians/ interested parties. The collection of
essays are full of thoughts about why we work in clay, why clay work is
art, the history of working in clay past the industrial revolution, views
that are academic, kinesthetic, artist initiated.
I guess I am just encouraging people to not throw the baby out with the
bath water. And more importantly, not judge a person's contribution based
on a few quotes. I do believe there is a strong strain of anti-
intellectualism in clay and there are reasons for this. Machismo. "hen
house" references. Knowledge is power, and working in clay is different
that working in other media for a wide variety of reasons. Garth Clark
has been a force in trying to complicate and explore these differences,
and reasons, while all the time maintaining a great love for works in
clay.
the lone voice.................................
Noel
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Taylor Hendrix on wed 9 apr 08
One doesn't need to buy Clark to read him either. I remember someone
on the list suggesting a Garth Clark book and I inter library borrowed
it. I didn't get very far before I was interested in something else.
(Ah, the life of the INTP) Don't feel bad for me. I've started
Pynchon's _Gravity's Rainbow_ I don't know how many times but I just
can't seem to slog through to the end. Well, it's not like it's "The
Wasteland", eh?
I happen to have a hen house and they can be quite a productive but
raucous place (like the list). Be sure to pen up all the intellectuals
before you rake it out.
Good pots to you all,
Taylor, in Rockport TX where the can lights are FINALLY wired
correctly and in place. Whew
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Noel wrote:
...
> I guess I am just encouraging people to not throw the baby out with the
> bath water. And more importantly, not judge a person's contribution based
> on a few quotes. I do believe there is a strong strain of anti-
> intellectualism in clay and there are reasons for this. Machismo. "hen
> house" references. Knowledge is power, and working in clay is different
> that working in other media for a wide variety of reasons. Garth Clark
> has been a force in trying to complicate and explore these differences,
> and reasons, while all the time maintaining a great love for works in
> clay.
>
> the lone voice.................................
...
Steve Slatin on wed 9 apr 08
Randall --
I'd dispute -- mildly -- some of your conclusions here.
I read Noel's note as more thoughtful and level-headed
than you did. I also think some are knocking Clark
without reading him (in this I very much agree with
Noel). I think many of us -- possibly most of us --
are at least mildly familiar with 'A Potters Book' and
possible 'A Potter in Japan.' I think that in my own
aesthetic development, an afternoon I spent with
another book of his that had a few dozen images of
pots he found especially worthwhile -- I can't remember
the title of this book -- was quite influential.
I do not find that kind of familiarity with Clark's work
on this list. Am I possibly misreading people's
familiarity with Clark? Possibly, but I don't think so.
I think people are reading the extracted partial
sentence or two and dismissing him out of hand
for that.
I would also argue that there is a profound streak
of artificial anti-intellectualism in the dismissal many
people have made of critics generally. I saw artificial
anti-intellectualism, because many people want to
retain the 'authority' of their favorite critics. So
exceptions are made that are, fundametally, silly.
One poster hates all critics except Leach, because,
as a potter himself, he's 'entitled' to critique the work
of other potters, Hmmm. OK. Another may make
an exception for some long-dead "tea master" because
they like the pots he used, though he almost certainly
never lifted a finger in a pottery workshop. A third
might make an excpetion for Yanagi Soetsu,
because he founded (or co-founded, or whatever)
mingei. Mingei! Oh, that must make him reliable!
But in fact he was just a critic and collector.
In fact all of these opinions have a simple, common
touchstone -- if the "expert" agrees with the writer,
s/he's "good -- an authority -- certainly to be trusted."
If the "expert" disagrees, than s/he's to be ignored
as a fool, a coward, a producer of drivel.
A good critic serves a huge purpose in helping to
expand your understanding of art, and possibly
your appreciation of it. I was absolutely clobbered
by Berenson's "Florentine Painters of the Renaissance."
I don't agree with every word in it, but it opened up
new ideas. There was another book he wrote
in which he slammed the Mannerists, I didn't
agree but I learned from it. And many of his
attributions are questionable, but I don't care --
even in reproduction, you can see that the work
he attributed to the 'big names' was top flight work.
People who operate solely from pre-existing
biases may dismiss Clark as "just a gallery owner"
but he's much more than that, and plays a vital
role as a critic. We can dismiss him by saying
"Those who can do -- those who can't critique"
but in fact the source quotation appears to be
"Those who can do -- those who can't, teach."
And on ClayArt we honor our teachers.
Dismissing a critic for disagreeing with your
personal aesthetic is to misunderstand both
the function of a critic and the nature of a
personal aesthetic. Sadly, in this venue,
this is not uncommon.
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin
Randall Moody wrote:
Noel, With all due respect, this is the same issue with Clark as it
was with Leach. Criticizing Clark's or Leach's writing or stances on
a given subject is NOT "bashing" them. It is critiquing the critic.
You make the same mistake that Lee makes in stating that people who
are criticizing, Clark in your case and Leach in Lee's, have never
read him or don't understand what was written. You also imply that the
only ones who are criticizing his writings are DIY, jealous of the
"big boys" hicks. I have read and re-read Ceramic Millennium and still
have issues with some of the things written there. Writing for or
against clay doesn't make one immune to criticism.
You attributing your perceived "anti-intellectualism" to machismo or
"hen house references appears to be no more that sexism.
--
Randall in Atlanta (not bashing anyone)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
May Luk on wed 9 apr 08
Hello Noel and friends;
Not everyone on the list writes. Some views on Clayart are not good representation of any ideas or trends in the non-Clayart world. That's my view anyway.
I don't remember reading Clark, but I walked to his gallery last night. [http://www.greenwichhousepottery.org/index.asp?reloc=/events/index.asp]
A small Hamada tea bowl was reasonably priced at $5,000, and a even smaller earthenware handled mug by Rudy Autio was $20,000. They both were sold already. So, where we left off with the thread 'mug vs teabowl'?
Best Regards
May
Kings County
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'One doesn't need to buy Clark to read him either.'
[...]
Taylor, in Rockport TX
Randall Moody on wed 9 apr 08
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Lee wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Randall Moody wrote:
> > Noel, With all due respect, this is the same issue with Clark as it
> > was with Leach. Criticizing Clark's or Leach's writing or stances on
> > a given subject is NOT "bashing" them.
>
> It IS bashing when there is only name calling. I have not seen Leach
> syncopathy expressed here.
Apparently you don't read your own writings. :) Using the term
'Leachians' is not "name calling" but rather just using a term to
denote a specific group of people. Once again. criticizing Clark's or
Leach's writing or stances on a given subject is NOT "bashing" them
as "bashing" implies a personal attack on the speaker. Dieing does not
remove one's writing from criticism.
So far, you are the only one who has admitted to "bashing" one of
these authors and you have taken part in the "name calling"
specifically directed at Garth Clark. (Lord Garth) Where as I don't
recall anyone else directly attacking Leach.
Bring up specifics as to what Garth has said and provide specifics as
to where and how he is wrong. You can't use the "he just doesn't
understand" crutch and we can discuss.
--
Randall in Atlanta
Steve Slatin on wed 9 apr 08
Well, Tay-Tay, just read "The Crying of Lot 49."
Shorter, more accessible, and you can finish it
in a single plane-flight. Also, funny.
(I've read Gravity's Rainbow* but I've also read
the Lime Twig and Absalom, Absalom, so
obviously I'm not easily deterred.)
The real question to me, though, is if you've
tried and found it not worth the effort, why not
switch to something else? They're too many
good books to waste time on the bad. Over
my traveling years, I read and kept about 40
boxes of books. When I finally settled in
Sequim, I opened the boxes, shelved the
books, and re-read favorites. The delights
of a defective memory! I'd forgotten more
than half of them, and it was like reading
them for the first time again.
Best wishes -- Steve S
*Which is also my mnenomic for a perfectly
pulled cup handle
Taylor Hendrix wrote:
One doesn't need to buy Clark to read him either. I remember someone
on the list suggesting a Garth Clark book and I inter library borrowed
it. I didn't get very far before I was interested in something else.
(Ah, the life of the INTP) Don't feel bad for me. I've started
Pynchon's _Gravity's Rainbow_ I don't know how many times but I just
can't seem to slog through to the end. Well, it's not like it's "The
Wasteland", eh?
I happen to have a hen house and they can be quite a productive but
raucous place (like the list). Be sure to pen up all the intellectuals
before you rake it out.
Good pots to you all,
Taylor, in Rockport TX where the can lights are FINALLY wired
correctly and in place. Whew
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
jonathan byler on wed 9 apr 08
It took me reading the first chapter of "foucault's pendulum" by
umberto eco about 10 times over a year before I could make it to the
rest of the book. Might have been because it was so dense, might
have been because I was. Hard to tell late at night when most of my
reading gets done. it ended up being one of my favorites of all
time. just because it is hard to get into, doesn't mean that a book
is not good. Try skipping the first chapter and seeing how the rest
of it reads... you can always go back and read it later.
happy reading,
jon
On Apr 9, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Steve Slatin wrote:
> Well, Tay-Tay, just read "The Crying of Lot 49."
> Shorter, more accessible, and you can finish it
> in a single plane-flight. Also, funny.
>
> (I've read Gravity's Rainbow* but I've also read
> the Lime Twig and Absalom, Absalom, so
> obviously I'm not easily deterred.)
>
> The real question to me, though, is if you've
> tried and found it not worth the effort, why not
> switch to something else? They're too many
> good books to waste time on the bad. Over
> my traveling years, I read and kept about 40
> boxes of books. When I finally settled in
> Sequim, I opened the boxes, shelved the
> books, and re-read favorites. The delights
> of a defective memory! I'd forgotten more
> than half of them, and it was like reading
> them for the first time again.
>
> Best wishes -- Steve S
>
>
>
> *Which is also my mnenomic for a perfectly
> pulled cup handle
>
> Taylor Hendrix wrote:
> One doesn't need to buy Clark to read him either. I remember someone
> on the list suggesting a Garth Clark book and I inter library borrowed
> it. I didn't get very far before I was interested in something else.
> (Ah, the life of the INTP) Don't feel bad for me. I've started
> Pynchon's _Gravity's Rainbow_ I don't know how many times but I just
> can't seem to slog through to the end. Well, it's not like it's "The
> Wasteland", eh?
>
> I happen to have a hen house and they can be quite a productive but
> raucous place (like the list). Be sure to pen up all the intellectuals
> before you rake it out.
>
> Good pots to you all,
>
> Taylor, in Rockport TX where the can lights are FINALLY wired
> correctly and in place. Whew
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://
> www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
Taylor Hendrix on wed 9 apr 08
For the same reason I'm not giving
up on throwing a 2 foot, 15 lb pound
platter with a tiny, girl foot; why I
refused to call in an electrician for
those damn can lights even though
I was at the top of my ladder
cursing like Capaneus, to whit --
When something gets harder, I get
madder, and when I get madder I
get doggeder, and when I get doggeder
woof, woof,
step aside and let me blast!
Tay Tay, in Rock Rock
On 4/9/08, Steve Slatin wrote:
> Well, Tay-Tay, just read "The Crying of Lot 49."
> Shorter, more accessible, and you can finish it
> in a single plane-flight. Also, funny.
>
> (I've read Gravity's Rainbow* but I've also read
> the Lime Twig and Absalom, Absalom, so
> obviously I'm not easily deterred.)
>
> The real question to me, though, is if you've
> tried and found it not worth the effort, why not
> switch to something else? They're too many
> good books to waste time on the bad.
...
Steve Slatin on wed 9 apr 08
Taylor --
Wow, a Seven Against Thebes reference!
I am *impressed*!
But in regard to life's behavior, remember
that paragon of American virtue, WC Fields,
who said "If at first, you don't succeed, try,
try, again. If that doesn't work, quit. No
point making a damn fool of yourself."
-- Steve S
Taylor Hendrix wrote:
For the same reason I'm not giving
up on throwing a 2 foot, 15 lb pound
platter with a tiny, girl foot; why I
refused to call in an electrician for
those damn can lights even though
I was at the top of my ladder
cursing like Capaneus, to whit --
When something gets harder, I get
madder, and when I get madder I
get doggeder, and when I get doggeder
woof, woof,
step aside and let me blast!
Tay Tay, in Rock Rock
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Noel Heller on wed 9 apr 08
I fully intended to be more active in this coversation, but got hit by the
wall of stomach flu over night and today. Still not eating, but have
begun reading.
Anyway, my post as, as Steve Slatin suggested, was more geared to the
posters who said, basically, "wow, Garth must be horrible" based on a few
strong personalities and a few quotes. And, the paradigm I suggested
between artists and potters (thus art market prices) and the craftsman who
wishes for everyone to have the experience of daily handmade ware at
prices they can afford isn't my paradigm.
I read "The Unknown Craftsman" as an undergraduate and it really moved me
and changed the way I thought about working in clay, what is art, and how
artists define themselves in traditions other than my own experience. I
also, earlier than that, read "The Crying of Lot 49." It also affected my
thinking, as someone who listens to experiences and pays attention to what
appear to be synchronicities and dissonances, the "entropy" of experience,
perception, etc. .
Like these other books, The "Ceramic Millenium" collection fleshed out and
supported observations I had, while giving me new ways to think about
working in clay. Some of my favorite quotes (there are too many to list
really) from Ceramic Millenium:
George Woodman: "The poetry of ceramics rests in the power of a single
piece to summon the values of objects not present, thereby metaphorically
participating in some larger dimension of ideal values extending beyond
that which is now before us."
Gerry Williams: "Art and artist derive from the latin word meaning
skill. Craft derives from the Teutonic word also meaning skill. But
when the Norman invasion of Saxon England took place, social attitudes
became linguistic distinctions."
and
"the most salient factor as regards the development of pottery in America
in the last 40 years has been the role of the University after World War
II...academia presently dominates pottery in America. It is pervasive in
craft training, aesthetics, role models, and the dispensation of power and
prestige"
Garth Clark: "The Zen view of tradition is even more emphatic: without a
golden cord of connection with the collective past, all actions are random
and meaningless"
Doris Shadbolt: "Containing...is an expressive idea as well as a
function...the vessel is, in fact, a metaphor for life."
In the book is also an essay where Clark's obvious dislike of Leach is
evident. While the essay did not fundamentally change my own
thoughts/feelings about what I know about Leach, he does have some merit
worthy points. I did find the intensity of his dislike curious, but also
kind of brave. As far as I know his counter to Leach was unheard of at
the time, in clay circles, and I think that it takes a certain amount of
bravery.
Again, my basic point is don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I
believe Garth Clark has made many logisticial, theoretical and functional
contributions to ceramics.
Noel
Lee on thu 10 apr 08
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Noel Heller wrote:
>
> Lee, I fundamentally disagree that selling your work through a gallery is
> a soul-selling evil enterprise.
Actually, I didn't say that. I sell art.
I said gallery owners like Garth begrudge the independence of
most functional potters. His service, (to put it in mixed company
terms) to independent potters is as utters are on a bull. ;^)
My only problem with him is his fundimental misunderstanding of
Mingei. It is bad enough, but then you have folks who don't do due
diligence on their own and only parrot what he has written. I have
read the propaganda many, many times.
I would be happy, as a practicing potter in the tradition,
answer any specific questions. Got the gumption to ask?
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing." --Edmund Burke
Snail Scott on thu 10 apr 08
On Apr 10, 2008, at 12:00 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:51:16 -0500
> From: Lee
> ...[Clark] says folks in the Leach related schools live in
> Fortress Ceramica, which turns what Leach did on its head...
This is one of the ironies that makes the Leach legacy
so frustrating at times. Mingei and Leach's philosophy
was all about the common object of use, but it has become
a philosophy of exclusion in the way it is often practiced.
Everything is judged on its adherence to the canonical
practice as handed down from the Fortress of Ceramic
Righteousness. High-fired brown stoneware made by the
humble craft potter, yadda, yadda, but there is a distinct
flavor of judgment among the heirs to this tradition - a
'purer-than-thou' attitude that excludes as inferior all
practices not basically similar. It underlies much of the
past (and continuing) moralistic distain toward bright
glazes, ornament for its own sake, and the myriad
traditions and newer practices that don't resemble the
Mingei look. (Never mind the substance; that's often
secondary for some such folks.)
Note, I'm not laying this on Leach, but on those who pass
on his legacy as though it were a religion: heretics need
not apply. And this is the irony: for all its humble concepts
it's generally practiced in a highly exclusionary way,
while the nominal 'elitist' opposition (with Garth Clark as
its apparent figurehead) has been championing a truly
diverse practice of ceramics. Without excluding the work
inspired by the Leach legacy, it opens itself to many more
ways of thinking and working in clay. The Clark attitude
is not in fact the 'opposition' at all; it's merely seen as such
by the gatekeepers to purity, guarding the Leach fortress
against all comers and more dogmatic (I suspect) than
Leach ever was.
Leach was only one guy, welcome to think as he liked
and to promote whatever philosophy of clay that he
chose, and many people liked and followed his example.
The movement that has sprung up in his wake is what
disappoints me for its cliquish dogmatism. Not everyone
inspired by Leach is guilty of this; not by a long shot. But
there are enough who are. And they are the ones, in fact,
who "turn what Leach did on its head".
Which is really 'elitist' here? The Brown Pot Fortress club
(members only), or the picnic going on outside where
everybody gets an opinion, arguments are allowed, and
styles proliferate like mushrooms after rain?
-Snail
Randall Moody on thu 10 apr 08
Most excellent post, Snail! This sums up my issue better than I did!
--
Randall in Atlanta
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Snail Scott wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2008, at 12:00 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
>
> Leach was only one guy, welcome to think as he liked
> and to promote whatever philosophy of clay that he
> chose, and many people liked and followed his example.
> The movement that has sprung up in his wake is what
> disappoints me for its cliquish dogmatism. Not everyone
> inspired by Leach is guilty of this; not by a long shot. But
> there are enough who are. And they are the ones, in fact,
> who "turn what Leach did on its head".
>
> Which is really 'elitist' here? The Brown Pot Fortress club
> (members only), or the picnic going on outside where
> everybody gets an opinion, arguments are allowed, and
> styles proliferate like mushrooms after rain?
>
> -Snail
Lee on thu 10 apr 08
Thank you Snail for addressing details! We can have an intelligent discussion!
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Snail Scott wrote:
> This is one of the ironies that makes the Leach legacy
> so frustrating at times. Mingei and Leach's philosophy
> was all about the common object of use, but it has become
> a philosophy of exclusion in the way it is often practiced.
There are two problems with this criticism, that I think is
the basis of the confusion:
1. Folks continually confuse the folk pots and traditions that are
the inspiration and the studio artist, or the Unknown Craftsman and
the modern studio artist inspired by folk work. If you look at any
of the founders, you know that they made work that was never really
made before. Hamada brought utilitarian tableware to Mashiko, which
never made it before. It only made crockery. Hamada's first teacher
was Itaya Hazan who did a lot of research on Chinese ceramics, rather
than folk pots. Leach made earthenware forms in stoneware and also
brought Sung forms into his workshop. Tomimoto and Kawaii were great
innovators, never making mock peasant pots. They lived in Kyoto and
made pots inspired by that wonderful urban center. The protegee of
Tomimoto and Hamada, most beloved by potters in Japan, Shoji Kamoda
was a great innovator.
This is easy to understand if you actuallly READ
what these folks wrote. Hamada said the modern studio potter must
completely digest a tradition and manifest something new, through
their finger tips. Or as Cardew apprentice said, In a living
tradition, the potter must make the work of the tradition relevant
to the people of his time.
2.) Mingei is not narrow but is inclusive. Modernist
turn their back on the wealth of work from our history, using novelty
as the primary basis of their expression. While Mingei asks us to
see how our work relates to all the work that came before us and also
asks us to make work that will be valid in the future, when we might
become unknown, except for the enduring work we leave behind.
a.) Mingei, like the European arts and crafts movement in
Europe, was in response to industrial methods and the homogenization
of local culture. Plastic and throw away replacing locally make,
diverse objects in daily life. Think of it as paralleling the
environmental movement that is trying to preserve genetic diversity.
The primary goal of Mingei related to local, indigenous work, is to
protect and preserve it. It is not good for the world to follow the
lead of global consumer society. Clark's colonial perspective wants
the all the creative people of the world to be share croppers
providing galleries with raw materials for the art consumer. What
they fear most are studio artists who do not need their services,
because they are independent and so re-sellers mean nothing to what
they do with their creative lives.
Our independence is what gets under their skins. We are the rebels
against the dark empire. Our pots are our guerrilla fighters,
secretly infiltrating in their midst.
> 'purer-than-thou' attitude that excludes as inferior all
> practices not basically similar. It underlies much of the
> past (and continuing) moralistic distain toward bright
> glazes, ornament for its own sake, and the myriad
I am not sure what work you are looking at. I for one,
use many bright glazes. So did my teacher, including pink, red,
green and yellow. Tomimoto used gold on red. What Louis Katz
labels as "Mingeisota" is usually exampled by brighter, lighter
looking work exampled by folks like Ruggles and Rankin and Jeff
Oestrich's soda fired work. MacKenzie's shinos can be very bright
and colorful. I bought a tea bowl at NCC yesterday that is a nice
white and red. Jean and I bought a red vase by Jan McKechie-Johnston
at Raymond Gallery. Here lowfire terrecotta with enamels are very
joyful and bright. I was brought to soda firing because of these
folks. Them and Mark Pharis, whose bright yellow glazes make Feista
ware put their Raybans on.
It is a big contrast, especially when you compare who are
not so influenced by Mingei but are working in anagama or train kilns.
So, basically, you are painting Mingei with every negative thing
you see in functional work.
> Which is really 'elitist' here? The Brown Pot Fortress club
> (members only), or the picnic going on outside where
> everybody gets an opinion, arguments are allowed, and
> styles proliferate like mushrooms after rain?
This is why criticism only works when we talk about specifics,
so points can be addressed face on. It is the only way any
discussion can be spoken about intelligently. Otherwise, it is just
anti-intellectual and emotional.
At the Mingeikan, during a panel discussion between Shimaoka,
Sori Yanagi and Warren MacKenzie, I heard Warren say that art had an
important place in Mingei. That his best students (actually
Shimaoka's best student too) no longer made craft, but were inspired
by Mingei and considered what they made to be Art. When Sori
disagreed, he asked people to look at the scroll paintings, screens
and other Art on the walls of the Mingeikan auditorium and asked,
"Isn't what is on these walls Art?"
Clark blames craft for holding ClayArt back. That is
laughable. The Holy Bastions of Art does not like craft and they
are the folks who have their foot on ceramic artists necks. This
dichotomy does not exist in Japan.
The battle between art and craft is fake, just like the
phantom battle between traditional knowledge and modern technology.
It is only promoted to protect the status quo and monied interests.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing." --Edmund Burke
Steve Slatin on thu 10 apr 08
Snail --
An insightful critique -- and an excellent expression
of why no matter how hard we try, people inside
and outside the fortress seem to always talk
past, and not to, each other.
Perhaps the space inside the fortress is so
large that its inhabitants mistake it for the
whole world? I know political and religious
fundamentalists sometimes do this.
You were so thoughtful that I even went back
to review our disagreement on drawing to look
for my flaws -- but I just
came out concluding that some NCECA
in the future I should demo my lack of skill
for you. We'd have to pick an isolated location
for it, though -- the tender sensibilities of the
community might be offended by what I do
to paper with a drawing implement. (Any
K-12's would surely shriek and flee in horror.
Men would gnash their teeth -- some women
might faint! Gail Galusky would surely
lose all respect for me!)
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin
Snail Scott wrote:
On Apr 10, 2008, at 12:00 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:51:16 -0500
> From: Lee
> ...[Clark] says folks in the Leach related schools live in
> Fortress Ceramica, which turns what Leach did on its head...
This is one of the ironies that makes the Leach legacy
so frustrating at times. Mingei and Leach's philosophy
was all about the common object of use, but it has become
a philosophy of exclusion in the way it is often practiced.
Everything is judged on its adherence to the canonical
practice as handed down from the Fortress of Ceramic
Righteousness. High-fired brown stoneware made by the
humble craft potter, yadda, yadda, but there is a distinct
flavor of judgment among the heirs to this tradition - a
'purer-than-thou' attitude that excludes as inferior all
practices not basically similar. It underlies much of the
past (and continuing) moralistic distain toward bright
glazes, ornament for its own sake, and the myriad
traditions and newer practices that don't resemble the
Mingei look. (Never mind the substance; that's often
secondary for some such folks.)
Note, I'm not laying this on Leach, but on those who pass
on his legacy as though it were a religion: heretics need
not apply. And this is the irony: for all its humble concepts
it's generally practiced in a highly exclusionary way,
while the nominal 'elitist' opposition (with Garth Clark as
its apparent figurehead) has been championing a truly
diverse practice of ceramics. Without excluding the work
inspired by the Leach legacy, it opens itself to many more
ways of thinking and working in clay. The Clark attitude
is not in fact the 'opposition' at all; it's merely seen as such
by the gatekeepers to purity, guarding the Leach fortress
against all comers and more dogmatic (I suspect) than
Leach ever was.
Leach was only one guy, welcome to think as he liked
and to promote whatever philosophy of clay that he
chose, and many people liked and followed his example.
The movement that has sprung up in his wake is what
disappoints me for its cliquish dogmatism. Not everyone
inspired by Leach is guilty of this; not by a long shot. But
there are enough who are. And they are the ones, in fact,
who "turn what Leach did on its head".
Which is really 'elitist' here? The Brown Pot Fortress club
(members only), or the picnic going on outside where
everybody gets an opinion, arguments are allowed, and
styles proliferate like mushrooms after rain?
-Snail
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Noel Heller on thu 10 apr 08
I want to clarify the paradigm of Elitism vs anti-intellectualism: While
I think it is apt, I don't think it is my paradigm. and, actually on the
elitism I was referring to was of the "Artist ceramicists," not the "brown
pot club", but I do get that reference, and agree to an extent. The anti-
intellectualism I referred to was the almost jingoistic gang-bang of Garth
Clark by those people who had obviously never read him.
Lee, I fundamentally disagree that selling your work through a gallery is
a soul-selling evil enterprise. We live in a market economy. I don't
like selling my own work. I have never felt taken advantage of, and I
have never felt like I couldn't, in any situation, define how I wanted my
work sold. Now, I have only sold through 2 galleries. We live in a
capitalist, post-colonial society, can't put that all on Garth Clark.
Also, Lee, I googled the John Britt article you referred to, and also
found an interesting response/letter to the editor:
A LETTER OF INQUIRY TO MR. JOHN BRITT
Takeshi Yasuda
Critical Ceramics does not usually publish letters to editor as articles.
More often than not, they belong in our "Hear/Say" forums area. In this
case, I felt that Mr. Yasuda's letter was thoughtful and provoking enough
to warrant special attention. I hope to see lively discussion prompted by
this letter in "Hear/Say" and, perhaps, a response from Mr. John. Britt.
Forrest Snyder, Editor
Dear Mr. John Britt,
My name is Takeshi Yasuda. I am a British potter born in Japan where I
trained at Mashiko for two years and stayed another eight years as a
working potter until moving to the United Kingdom thirty years ago. I have
taught in British colleges for over 25 years but never took a full time
teaching position. At the moment, I am teaching at Alfred University for a
semester.
An old friend of mine, Nikki, sent me an email asking me what I thought of
your essay titled "The 'Unknown Craftsman' Is Dead" on the Critical
Ceramics website. I must admit I was ignorant of existence of this
website, and, for that matter, ignorant of the American ceramics scene
altogether. I am neither an academic nor specialist in Mingei, yet I have
been interested in this subject for a long time. Specifically, the passion
you expressed in this essay astonished me.
You touched so many topics in such a short article, I hardly know where to
begin. If you could enlighten me on two accounts then I would be quite
satisfied.
First, is your observation of Leach/Yanagi and Mingei influence in US
higher education today. In my educational experience in UK, my observation
is quite contrary to yours. For the last twenty years or so at the college
level in the UK, Mingei has been a mere foot note of the art history they
learn and most unlikely to have stayed in their consciousness for long.
Most of UK ceramics BA students may know the name Bernard Leach, but I
doubt they know who he is, let alone who Yanagi is or what Mingei means.
As I write this on Saturday evening at 9:00 pm, I've decided to do a straw
poll in the Alfred studio. I found nine sophomores (2nd year), ten juniors
(3rd year) and seven seniors (4th year), altogether twenty five of them
still working. I asked the following questions to each of them. "Who is
Bernard Leach? What is Hamada? What is Yanagi? What is Mingei?" Eleven out
of twenty five replied that they didn't recognize any of names or words
although two of them said Hamada was the name of glaze. Admittedly, the
majority of these eleven students were sophomores. Still, fourteen of them
identified Leach and Hamada correctly and most of them said "They toured
America in 1940's or 1950's and introduced oriental aesthetics to American
potters." I was very impressed. Six out of those fourteen identified
Yanagi as a Japanese philosopher and associated him with Leach and Hamada.
Four out of those six identified Mingei as a Japanese word for folk art or
folk art movement. Only one knew what was meant by "movement." This
student identified "Mingei movement" as a valid and alternative life style
for a contemporary potters against being a fine art artist and mentioned
few word like anonymity, repetitive production, honesty to material and
acquirable price.
This definition "potters alternative life style movement" is new to me. I
do not recall this from any of my readings. I asked this student where his
information came from. He said his father is a potter - a student of
Warren McKenzie - and his father explained and gave him "A Potters Book"
to read. So, this might be "Mingeisota." Even I knew that much.
I know this survey is not scientific. However, its outcome is much closer
to my observation in the UK and quit contrary to the observations you
wrote in the first paragraph of your essay. If you can state on what base
your observation stands I will be most assured.
My second question is harder for me because I have to work from my memory
and my readings on this subject are scattered about in time. Also, all my
reference materials are at home in UK. My second question is this: I do
not recall any of these artists claiming themselves to be a Mingei potter.
Leach, Hamada, Kawai, Tomimoto. None of them. I do not recall Yanagi
calling these artists Mingei potters, either. On the contrary, I vaguely
remember reading a couple of articles by Yanagi specifically arguing why
these potters are artists not Mingei potters. Since your argument revolves
around their claim being Mingei potters leading a contradictory lifestyle,
it will be great help if you could quote this key sentences I might have
missed from my readings where indeed they claim themselves as Mingei
potters. Please quote from primary source materials like writings from
Leach, Hamada, Yanagi, or Kawai rather than from opinions of writers like
Dr. Garth Clark, Dr. Oliver Watson, Professor Edmund de Waal, or Mr. Paul
Rice. Although I have highest regards on these writer's integrity, their
opinion could not be counted as primary source material in this case.
Even after 30 years in the United Kingdom, I have a limited command of
English, as you may have noticed. Still, I hope you understand the point
of my inquiry.
Yours,
Takeshi Yasuda
A note to my friend Nikki: I have a faint feel of unease that I might be
making a complete fool of myself. After thirty years in England I am
fairly well accustomed to the English sense of humor. But American? If
this is a kind of American potters joke then, Nikki, you got me.
Steve Slatin on thu 10 apr 08
I have quoted just one passage from your
message, Noel. In it Clark may be a
little rough, but he addresses something
that may be influencing this discourse
significantly -- that a philo-religious
attitude regarding intellectual descent
and connection to the past may be
affecting the opinions some people
have of pottery, critics and so on.
Many craft potters have bought into the
mystical-connection side of our craft.
(One claims to practice Zen, and proudly
explains every so often that he was taught
by someone who was taught by someone who
was taught by someone etc. etc.
all the way back to Buddha.)
Those who favor Leach often claim a hierarchial
connection to him -- i.e., Leach worked with X,
X had Y as an apprentice, Y trained Z, I learned
from Z.
Of course, none of this has any connection at
all with whether these people can make a decent
pot, or have any aesthetic judgment, or
avoid the three evil paths and the five corruptions, or
have learned the four aspects and understand
the four noble truths and mastered the six
practices, 10 precepts, and so on.*
To assign credit/merit by connection to an authority
leads to amusing (and foolish) conclusions.
For example -- who is the greatest living jazz pianist
in the world? No matter what your opinions, you
probably didn't pick Chris Anderson. (He's almost
unknown.)
And who, you say, is Chris Anderson? Well, here's
the thing ... the first significant jazz pianist, essentially
the inventor of jazz piano, was Fletcher Henderson. He
had an orchestra, and for many years, he played piano
in that orchestra.
When he became too busy arranging and
conducting to play, he selected an 'heir' to
play piano in his band -- Herman Blount.
Now Herman Blount was also known as
Sonny Lee, which he later changed
to Le'Sony'r Ra, and, later, Sun Ra.
Under that name, he founded a series of
bands -- the Sun Ra Intergalactic Space
Arkestra, Solar Sign Arkestra, Intergalactic
Infinity Arkestra, and many others -- and he
played piano in all of them until 1991.
In 1991, he identified an 'heir' to his role in
his own band, Chris Anderson, and in doing so
made Chris Anderson the spiritual heir of Fletcher
Henderson, and the 'pope' of jazz piano, if
you believe in that sort of thing. (Personally,
I don't.)
Because Clark's not part of the tradition,
and doesn't pay obeisance to it, people from
the tradition *can't* find his opinions
meaningful. To do so, they'd have to release
attachment to their investment in the
tradition. (This would make for *great*
Buddhism, the second noble truth being
that the origin of suffering is attachment,
but it might leave them spiritually unrooted
in their work.)
So whether Clark is right or not about
what he writes may be less important
to his detractors than the fact that he's
(possibly inadvertently) offending their
quasi-religious sensibilities.
Regards -- Steve Slatin
*Images of the Buddha teaching
traditionally show him enumerating
something. I have a small sculpture
of him teaching, with a Mannerist
influence on the depiction
of his fingers.
Noel Heller wrote:
Garth Clark: "The Zen view of tradition is even more emphatic: without a
golden cord of connection with the collective past, all actions are random
and meaningless"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Lee on fri 11 apr 08
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Snail Scott wrote:
>
> Likely, 'Art' doesn't even know that 'Craft' is kicking it in
> the shins. The status quo will always seek to protect
> itself, but I don't think this is a power struggle.
>
Snail, I will respond as blog post later, to follow
Mel's requests.
All I can say here is that most of craft is oblivious to
the high art work. It is the sculptural ceramic and "pots for the
mantle"people who are stuck between a rock and a hardplace Us
potters are simply happy to make pots. Happy to work.
See a Kanjio Kawaii poem about this. Actually, please accept
it as my response:
SONG OF WORK
http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the
lowest common denominator of human achievement." -- Jimmy Carter
Snail Scott on fri 11 apr 08
> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:08:34 -0500
> From: Lee
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Snail Scott
> wrote:
>> ...Mingei and Leach's philosophy
>> was all about the common object of use, but it has become
>> a philosophy of exclusion in the way it is often practiced.
>
> There are two problems with this criticism, that I think is
> the basis of the confusion:
>
> 1. Folks continually confuse the folk pots and traditions that are
> the inspiration and the studio artist, or the Unknown Craftsman and
> the modern studio artist inspired by folk work...
Yes, I agree with you. To keep my post short(er), I radically
simplified my description of Mingei, relying heavily on your
frequent past posts on the subject to enrich the background.
Mingei is indeed not folk art, but rather is inspired by it. I did
not mean to contribute to any misunderstanding, but merely
to use a perceived irony as a springboard to the core of my
contention.
> 2.) Mingei is not narrow but is inclusive...
This is the very irony I was referring to - the narrowing of the
original intent into a small range of blindly copied forms and
processes, far from the generous spirit that inspired the
movement in the first place. Mingei has been undermined
by the didactic dogmatists who have hijacked its name:
people who are comforted by the presence of rules which
dictate what is acceptable practice, and therefore what can
be excluded.
Reminds me a little of that Australian movie about ballroom
dance competitions - "Those aren't legal steps!" "...but I
thought we were supposed to be dancing, here! "
(My redaction.)
> ...Modernist
> turn their back on the wealth of work from our history, using novelty
> as the primary basis of their expression. While Mingei asks us to
> see how our work relates to all the work that came before us and also
> asks us to make work that will be valid in the future...
High Modernism was as bad as the brown-pot fascists I am
decrying. Western art suffered greatly from the exclusionary
attitudes that took over the original spirit of Modernism. How
we got from the Salon des Refusees to Clement Greenberg
is a story of ever-narrowing practices, in which even folks
like W. deKooning could be lambasted for the residual use
of things like representation (how un-Modern!) in their work.
I feel grateful to live in a post-Modern period, when the
re-integration of historic practice no longer needs to be
cloaked in the veil of ironic intent (though it still helps),
and every imaginable artistic practice new and old gets
to share the sandbox (or at least scuffle for the right). The
deathgrip of New York on artistic style is slipping, and
none too soon.
In fact, I get a little thrill every time someone gets into an
argument over what the heck 'post-Modernism' is, anyway.
It used to at least be safe to say that it's everything since
the end of Modernism, but now even classic Modernism
is slipping back in through the fire exit, carried by people
who actually like it, instead of by those forced to do it.
If we can't even agree on what we're all supposed to be
doing, that sounds like a Good Thing to me!
> ...The primary goal of Mingei related to local, indigenous work, is to
> protect and preserve it. It is not good for the world to follow the
> lead of global consumer society. Clark's colonial perspective wants
> the all the creative people of the world to be share croppers
> providing galleries with raw materials for the art consumer...
I'm not sure that's really Clark's intent. I believe that he's
a guy trying to make a bunch of money, and he's decided
to do it by being a gallerist specializing in contemporary
and innovative clay art. To what extent he regards himself
(or is) a philanthropist is not something I can answer. I
don't really care, though. His effort to promote interesting
clay art is of general benefit, and if he makes a buck, too,
well, I don't grudge it. His personal success is one of the
things that makes his voice so audible, and I benefit from
that without ever having given him a nickel.
A gallery relationship should be an arrangement of mutual
benefit. If it's not, the disadvantaged party should opt out.
Clark's gallery artists are scarely third-world piecework
laborers. Galleries like Clark's increase the salability of
their product by increasing the reputation of the artists they
represent, and most have the sense not to dictate what their
artists make. It works better to seek out artists making the
work they want already, and who also want gallery
representation.
I would like at this point, however, to remove Garth Clark's
presence from the discussion. Treating him as a spokesman
for my contentions or as the putative voice of 'avant-garde'
ceramics makes everything said on the topic, either pro or
con, into an ad-hominem argument. His business practices,
personal habits, and even writings aren't really the point;
neither are Bernard Leach's. We're really talking about ideas
that they are associated with, some of which may or may not
have originated with them. The ideas themselves are now
public domain, however, and independent of their (flawed
or virtuous) human origins. Let's keep focused on the ideas.
> What
> they fear most are studio artists who do not need their services,
> because they are independent and so re-sellers mean nothing to what
> they do with their creative lives...
> Our independence is what gets under their skins. We are the rebels
> against the dark empire. Our pots are our guerrilla fighters,
> secretly infiltrating in their midst...
I'm afraid I can't really agree with this assertion. I don't think
galleries 'fear" the independent studio artist; I think they
ignore them. Such artists who opt out of gallery sales do not
threaten any gallerist's livelihood. They walk an entirely
separate path, and the gallery system is not weakened by
their non-participation. It seems plain that many artists desire
gallery representation and find it mutually beneficial. Those
who do not are not hindered by the continued existence of
galleries.
>
>> 'purer-than-thou' attitude that excludes as inferior all
>> practices not basically similar. It underlies much of the
>> past (and continuing) moralistic distain toward bright
>> glazes, ornament for its own sake, and the myriad...
>
> I am not sure what work you are looking at. I for one,
> use many bright glazes. So did my teacher, including pink, red,
> green and yellow...
Then you're not the ones I'm talking about. My issue is not with
folks who make bright, funky, odd and original vessels. It's not
even with those who make plain lumpy brown functional pots.
(I like lumpy brown pots! I even like yours, Lee!) It's with the
ones who make their work, whether brown or bright, because
they'd rather be right than good - stupid, inappropriate, pointless
stuff that blindly serves neither its tradition nor its application,
but exists solely because "that's the way you're supposed to do
it". And it's especially with the ones who promote the idea that's
there's only one right way to do this stuff, because somebody
of semi-sainted memory said so. Or is said to have said so, by
somebody...
To paraphrase some vintage Saturday Night Live skits:
"If it's not ___(fill in the blank)___, it's Crrrrrrap!
> So, basically, you are painting Mingei with every negative thing
> you see in functional work...
Nope; I'm regretting all the work made in the name of Mingei
that has neither purpose nor soul, but merely adheres to the
received ideas of a remote and irrelevant practice, and has
lost the underlying truths that made that philosophy resonate
in the first place. One of those was the right to seek a new
truth, whether in the old or the new.
Anyone who indulges in that sort of narrowness and passes
it on as the one true practice earns my contempt. It just so
happens that a lot of them seem to cluster around the Mingei
banner. It's unfortunate that tradition and reactionary mindsets
so often find common ground; it hides the genuine relevance
that those traditions gained when they were living practices,
and mothballs them in the name of 'preservation'.
> Clark blames craft for holding ClayArt back...
Ahhgh...back to Clark....
Without reading for a specific citation, I recall that what Clark
dislikes is for craft to be seen as an end in itself, _if_ the
intent is to produce art. I have seen many fine craftspeople
take up the practice of something that they intend to be 'art'
in a gallery sense, but who fail to see that they are applying
the standards of a different pursuit. I believe that is what
Clark is condemning - a blindness to the aspects of fine art
which are not a part of craft. In my own words, you don't get
points for a touchdown in basketball.
I don't think Clark is anti-craft, and no one that he represents
make badly crafted work. He does, however, point out
that ceramics training and criticism are often focused
solely on craft, and poorly prepare someone to be an
artist on equal terms with the rest of the fine-art world.
While I was studying ceramics, I noticed that tendency
myself, whenever some student was trying to make art.
Critiques tended to focus on technical issues: clay body
composition, glaze formulation, firing processes, and
methods of making. Almost no attention was given to the
intended meaning of the piece, even if that was central
to the student's intent. No one said (for example) "Does
this piece really convey the anguish of war, like he said
he wanted? Maybe it needs fewer daisies." Instead they'd
say "That glaze looks a little overfired. Maybe it needs
less feldspar". I started hauling my stuff down to the
sculpture department to get a little more feedback, and
that was tough at first. They talked about art issues I'd
never heard of - how form and concept must work together,
and how materials are seldom just neutral form givers,
but can carry content of their own. They asked the question
that almost never gets asked in ceramics: "Why is it made
of clay?"
> The Holy Bastions of Art does not like craft and they
> are the folks who have their foot on ceramic artists necks...
Well, I suggest instead that the 'Holy Bastions of Art' simply
don't think that craft is art. I don't either. Craft is a different
thing. A thing with a lot of overlapping attributes, to be sure,
but still, a different thing. Liking it or not doesn't enter into it.
Have you seen that Canadian TV show 'Bathroom Divas'
(now running in the US)? It's sort of like 'American Idol' for
opera, without the derision. Some of the entrants sing
really well, but the judges may say "It's just not an operatic
voice." One time, a country singer was a contestant, and he
actually won, but only after he studied opera and learned
its standards and expectations. He didn't whine "Well,
country music's just as valid, so why can't I sing arias with
the symphony and sound like Garth Brooks?" He knew the
answer: because it's a different thing.
Art galleries and museums want stuff that they recognize
as art. Yes, they can be narrow-minded sometimes, but
they don't hate craft. They just don't recognize it as art.
A lot of art contains craft. A lot of art even contains clay,
nowadays. When it's seen in art galleries and museums,
though, it's clay that is playing by the rules of art, not
demanding that the rules change for it. If you want
credit for a touchdown, join (or start) a football game.
Or a craft museum.
> The battle between art and craft is fake, just like the
> phantom battle between traditional knowledge and modern technology.
> It is only promoted to protect the status quo and monied interests...
Likely, 'Art' doesn't even know that 'Craft' is kicking it in
the shins. The status quo will always seek to protect
itself, but I don't think this is a power struggle.
Just as tradition and technology can be at peace while
still acknowledging their differences, craft and art can
also coexist without being synonymous, and even play
in each other's sandboxes now and then without pulling
hair. It' s only a battle if you want to fight about it.
-Snail
Snail Scott on fri 11 apr 08
> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:21:12 -0700
> From: Steve Slatin
> Snail --
> You were so thoughtful that I even went back
> to review our disagreement on drawing to look
> for my flaws -- but I just
> came out concluding that some NCECA
> in the future I should demo my lack of skill
> for you...
Hah! You're on! -Snail
Lee on sun 13 apr 08
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Taylor Hendrix wrote:
> Try the "Village Blacksmith", especially that second stanza.
We have little blacksmith shops scattered in small towns in
Minnesota. They are often brick. I have thought one would make a
great pottery.
It is fitting for me too: my neighborhood is the Longfellow
Neigborhood.
"His hair is crisp, and black, and long,
His face is like the tan;
His brow is wet with honest sweat,
He earns whate'er he can,
And looks the whole world in the face,
For he owes not any man."
Full poem here:
http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/longfellow/thevillage.shtml
One thing I have noticed about folks attitude about clay.
Those of us from blue collar backgrounds see it from that perspective.
Those of us that are first generation college educated, have some
tension between the two. I have never had problems envisioning
"The Unknown Craftsman." Just talk to my uncles who did not finish
H.S. and retired from Ford. Same guys...
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that
can be counted counts."
(Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)
Taylor Hendrix on sun 13 apr 08
Try the "Village Blacksmith", especially that second stanza.
Taylor, in Rockport TX
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Lee wrote:
...
> See a Kanjio Kawaii poem about this. Actually, please accept
> it as my response:
>
> SONG OF WORK
>
> http://claycraft.blogspot.com/
...
Lee on thu 17 apr 08
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Ron Roy wrote:
> Sounds like - if these guys were working today they would be making pots
> for the microwave.
Not sure which guys you speak of Ron. If you mean mingei
inspired arrtists, (like myself), most work can go into the microwave,
but some specialty work cannot.
As I have said before, there is nothing inferior
about silk or wool just because you can't wash it in the automatic
washer. They need educated care. As do tea bowls.
The whole point of using fine handmade things instead of
factory/industrial made things, is the mindfulness required to use
them. If it weren't for aesthetics, we might as well use plastic.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that
can be counted counts." --(Sign hanging in Einstein's office at
Princeton)
Ron Roy on thu 17 apr 08
Sounds like - if these guys were working today they would be making pots
for the microwave.
RR
Lee said -
>1. Folks continually confuse the folk pots and traditions that are
>the inspiration and the studio artist, or the Unknown Craftsman and
>the modern studio artist inspired by folk work. If you look at any
>of the founders, you know that they made work that was never really
>made before. Hamada brought utilitarian tableware to Mashiko, which
>never made it before. It only made crockery. Hamada's first teacher
>was Itaya Hazan who did a lot of research on Chinese ceramics, rather
>than folk pots. Leach made earthenware forms in stoneware and also
>brought Sung forms into his workshop. Tomimoto and Kawaii were great
>innovators, never making mock peasant pots. They lived in Kyoto and
>made pots inspired by that wonderful urban center. The protegee of
>Tomimoto and Hamada, most beloved by potters in Japan, Shoji Kamoda
>was a great innovator.
> This is easy to understand if you actuallly READ
>what these folks wrote. Hamada said the modern studio potter must
>completely digest a tradition and manifest something new, through
>their finger tips. Or as Cardew apprentice said, In a living
>tradition, the potter must make the work of the tradition relevant
>to the people of his time.
>
> 2.) Mingei is not narrow but is inclusive. Modernist
>turn their back on the wealth of work from our history, using novelty
>as the primary basis of their expression. While Mingei asks us to
>see how our work relates to all the work that came before us and also
>asks us to make work that will be valid in the future, when we might
>become unknown, except for the enduring work we leave behind.
>
> a.) Mingei, like the European arts and crafts movement in
>Europe, was in response to industrial methods and the homogenization
>of local culture. Plastic and throw away replacing locally make,
>diverse objects in daily life. Think of it as paralleling the
>environmental movement that is trying to preserve genetic diversity.
>The primary goal of Mingei related to local, indigenous work, is to
>protect and preserve it. It is not good for the world to follow the
>lead of global consumer society. Clark's colonial perspective wants
>the all the creative people of the world to be share croppers
>providing galleries with raw materials for the art consumer. What
>they fear most are studio artists who do not need their services,
>because they are independent and so re-sellers mean nothing to what
>they do with their creative lives.
Ron Roy
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Ron Roy on mon 21 apr 08
The guys I am speaking of - you said "Tomimoto and Kawaii were great
innovators, never making mock peasant pots. They lived in Kyoto and
made pots inspired by that wonderful urban center. The protegee of
Tomimoto and Hamada, most beloved by potters in Japan, Shoji Kamoda
was a great innovator."
Nothing inferior about any pots as long as they perform as people expect
them to. In North America - and most of the world now - that means in a
microwave oven.
This has nothing to do with handmade and everything to do with
craftsmanship and responsibility - to your customers and your fellow
potters.
If they don't work properly in a microwave then say so - it's not that hard
to test pots in a microwave.
I see it more often these days - ceramics with a big tag saying microwave
safe. When people buy pots they want to be able to use them in a microwave
- it's a wonderful way of cooking - preserves nutrition and uses less
power.
The whole point of using hand made pots is because you have to learn how to
use them - since when?
RR
>On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Ron Roy wrote:
>> Sounds like - if these guys were working today they would be making pots
>> for the microwave.
>
> Not sure which guys you speak of Ron. If you mean mingei
>inspired arrtists, (like myself), most work can go into the microwave,
>but some specialty work cannot.
>
> As I have said before, there is nothing inferior
>about silk or wool just because you can't wash it in the automatic
>washer. They need educated care. As do tea bowls.
>
> The whole point of using fine handmade things instead of
>factory/industrial made things, is the mindfulness required to use
>them. If it weren't for aesthetics, we might as well use plastic.
>
>--
> Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
Ron Roy
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
| |
|
