Vince Pitelka on sun 21 jun 09
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
"I think it is time for ceramists to pick a new form to play off of.
The non functional teapot redux is now boring. =3DA0There, I said it..."
Snail Scott wrote:
"I've believed this for some time now, too!
Teapots are interesting mainly to other clay
people, who regard the teapot (for valid
reasons) as a canonical ceramic form and a
nice 'pentathlon' demonstration of the maker's
ability to integrate multiple requirements of
form and function."
Snail and Elizabeth both stated their points of view very well, and I =3D
have
heard this before. My own point of view, as a lover and collector of
teapots, is that we should go in exactly the opposite direction. There =3D
are
far too many bad teapots, both functional and sculptural, and relatively =
=3D
few
really fine ones, so this remains an area ripe for exploration. If we =3D
can
accept that premise, then the logical conclusion is that potters and
sculptors should make lots more teapots - sculptural teapots and =3D
functional
teapots and functional sculptural teapots and non-functional sculptural
teapots and sculpture that references the teapot form and every other
conceivable variation on this theme. =3D20
I hate to sound like a broken record. This isn't specifically what =3D
Snail or
Elizabeth said, but many times before when someone has said "It's all =3D
been
done before," my response has been that this is a very pessimistic point =
=3D
of
view, and that the human race has barely scratched the surface of =3D
creative
possibility. That's how I feel about the teapot form, especially
considering that so many contemporary functional and sculptural teapots =3D
are
poorly designed and executed. We need to see lots more potters and
sculptors making lots more teapots so that we can give this =3D
investigation
the depth it deserves and get past the shortcomings of so many shallow,
ill-conceived teapot forms. The teapot presents special challenges of
articulation and design, and that has not changed nor will it, and thus =3D
the
teapot remains one of the popular challenges for student and =3D
professional
potters. Learning to make a really good teapot is a significant
accomplishment for any potter. =3D20
I realize that Snail and Elizabeth were referring most specifically to
sculptural teapots, but as I see it there is no difference. A plethora =3D
of
poorly-executed sculptural teapots is no reason to imply that people =3D
should
move on to another form, because other forms offer different challenges =3D
and
possibilities. Instead, again, I maintain that it is a reason for =3D
artists
to continue to struggle with the teapot form in sculptural =3D
interpretations
until they get it right. =3D20
In my own experience, the response from the public to both functional =3D
and
sculptural teapots has been very positive. Whether or not the =3D
buyer/owner
uses the teapot to make tea is irrelevant, because there is a very long
history of beautiful teapots sitting on shelves and rarely or never =3D
getting
used. There's nothing wrong with that. Even though my teapots are =3D
fairly
sculptural in terms of articulation of form and surface, I design them =3D
to
work well, and it does please me when someone uses them on a regular =3D
basis.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Vince Pitelka on sun 21 jun 09
Eric Hanson wrote:
"Vince, respectfully: See, I don't agree with this statement either. And
neither did the degree program Marko is coming from. I have felt for a long
time that artists should have complete freedom to do what they like, to
express something that is akin to a part of their own soul. If that lends t=
o
sculpture it lends to sculpture. If is lends to function it lends to
function. But the grey area in between is often merely a hedge and a
gimmick, it often is a neither/nor area where they adopt critical language
and try to bluff their way through. Very few clay workers have been
historically recognized within the wider sculptural field. There is some
interesting sculpture you see at clay gatherings, galleries, but it does no=
t
gain wider acclaim in the sculpture world."
Eric -
We probably are not going to come to agreement on this, but that's fine. I
think I do understand your point of view, and I certainly agree regarding
opening up the greatest range of possibility for artistic invention and
design. But regarding your statement "...the grey area in between is often
merely a hedge and a gimmick, it often is a neither/nor area where they
adopt critical language and try to bluff their way through." I would say
that any artist who attempts this is really just a con-artist, and the
results are usually transparent. And any teacher who lets a student get
away with this should be ashamed of themselves. Adopting critical language
as a bluff and a sham is getting pretty old in contemporary art, and it
usually becomes a self-defeating hoax. If it is not recognized as that now=
,
it will be soon.
But going back to that point regarding opening up the greatest range of
possibility for artistic invention, "that grey area" you refer to is ripe
for such invention, and art simply doesn't work as an "either-or"
proposition. When someone says a certain area is inappropriate for artisti=
c
exploration, my interpretation is that there must be some very special
opportunities for artistic exploration. The fact that artist exploration i=
n
the area between sculptural work and functional work has been abused by so
many students and amateur/professional artists is no reason to believe that
this is an unworthy area of exploration. It is a reason to encourage peopl=
e
to dive in head first, but at the same time to expect a lot more in terms o=
f
results.
- Vince
Lis Allison on mon 22 jun 09
On Monday 22 June 2009 00:06, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> There are far too many bad teapots, both functional and sculptural, and
> relatively few really fine ones, .....
Can you articulate what makes a fine teapot, or even list some things that
make some of them bad teapots? Take a good one and tell us what is good
about it.... or a bad one and what is bad about it?
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
Elizabeth Priddy on mon 22 jun 09
I am not as much saying that it has all been done before as I am saying the=
=3D
re is a major glut of this kind of activity.
=3DA0
One implication of what you are saying is that if they picked another form,=
=3D
the same deriviitive work would emerge.=3DA0 This is true, but it would at=
l=3D
east have a chance at innovation where the odds of my seeing somethign very=
=3D
similar to the teapot that you labor over are pretty great.
=3DA0
I would contend that that would be good for the artists so focused on teapo=
=3D
ts to=3DA0 move on.=3DA0 It would benefit them in the marketplace becasue i=
t wo=3D
uld make their work stand out as different, and artists need every edge the=
=3D
y can get in the market right now.=3DA0 As a lover of pots, I don't even se=
e =3D
your booth when it is filled with "funky" edgy" eccelectic teapot forms any=
=3D
more.=3DA0 They are not doing themselves a favor by clinging to it.
=3DA0
Say you love teapots more than anything else inthe whole world...Every body=
=3D
needs to move away and give their true love some space sometimes.=3DA0 The=
r=3D
eunion will be awesome.
=3DA0
I see it as potters and sculptors ganging up and beating an almost dead hor=
=3D
se.
Too much more of this and there will be major backlash, people will take po=
=3D
tters even less seriously when they start having the jaundiced eye to our "=
=3D
showpiece" form that some of us already have started to develop.=3DA0 If ma=
ny=3D
of us are sick of it, think about customers who cannot see the fine distin=
=3D
ctions between the dreck and the quality work.
=3DA0
I am suggesting we back off the horse, give it a rest and let it recover, a=
=3D
nd work on something else for a while.
=3DA0
How about pitchers?=3DA0 Or bowls?=3DA0 Or platters?=3DA0 Or covered jars w=
ith cr=3D
azy feet?
=3DA0
A few years back you couldn't swing a dead cat without knocking over a scul=
=3D
ptural ewer.=3DA0
(I finally figured out that an ewer is just a pitcher with an odd spout and=
=3D
a higher price tag, or at least it still is in my head -I know, not fair,n=
=3D
ot fair)=3D20
=3DA0
=3DA0Just move on...there are so many other forms...you will get back aroun=
d =3D
to teapots, they are, as you said, not going anywhere.
=3DA0
=3DA0
=3DA0
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
Workshops and pottery online at: http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
Personal Blog: http://open.salon.com/user_blog.php?uid=3D3D943
Natural Instincts Conference Information:
http://downtothepottershouse.com/NaturalInstincts.html
Kiln pictures and such: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7973282@N03/
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Vince Pitelka wrote:
I hate to sound like a broken record.=3DA0 This isn't specifically what Sna=
il=3D
or
Elizabeth said, but many times before when someone has said "It's all been
done before," my response has been that this is a very pessimistic point of
view, and that the human race has barely scratched the surface of creative
possibility.=3DA0 That's how I feel about the teapot form, especially
considering that so many contemporary functional and sculptural teapots are
poorly designed and executed.=3DA0 We need to see lots more potters and
sculptors making lots more teapots so that we can give this investigation
the depth it deserves and get past the shortcomings of so many shallow,
ill-conceived teapot forms.=3DA0 The teapot presents special challenges of
articulation and design, and that has not changed nor will it, and thus the
teapot remains one of the popular challenges for student and professional
potters.=3DA0 Learning to make a really good teapot is a significant
accomplishment for any potter.=3DA0=3D20
I realize that Snail and Elizabeth were referring most specifically to
sculptural teapots, but as I see it there is no difference.=3DA0 A plethora=
o=3D
f
poorly-executed sculptural teapots is no reason to imply that people should
move on to another form, because other forms offer different challenges and
possibilities.=3DA0 Instead, again, I maintain that it is a reason for arti=
st=3D
s
to continue to struggle with the teapot form in sculptural interpretations
until they get it right.=3DA0=3D20
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Randall Moody on mon 22 jun 09
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Vince Pitelka wrote=
:
> ... regarding your statement "...the grey area in between is often
> merely a hedge and a gimmick, it often is a neither/nor area where they
> adopt critical language and try to bluff their way through." I would say
> that any artist who attempts this is really just a con-artist, and the
> results are usually transparent. And any teacher who lets a student get
> away with this should be ashamed of themselves. Adopting critical langua=
ge
> as a bluff and a sham is getting pretty old in contemporary art, and it
> usually becomes a self-defeating hoax. If it is not recognized as that
> now,
> it will be soon.
>
> But going back to that point regarding opening up the greatest range of
> possibility for artistic invention, "that grey area" you refer to is ripe
> for such invention, and art simply doesn't work as an "either-or"
> proposition. When someone says a certain area is inappropriate for
> artistic
> exploration, my interpretation is that there must be some very special
> opportunities for artistic exploration. The fact that artist exploration
> in
> the area between sculptural work and functional work has been abused by s=
o
> many students and amateur/professional artists is no reason to believe th=
at
> this is an unworthy area of exploration. It is a reason to encourage
> people
> to dive in head first, but at the same time to expect a lot more in terms
> of
> results.
> - Vince
>
Vince, I agree with you but I also think that there is an issue with
allowing someone to abstract the teapot when they can't make a good solid
teapot in the first place. I think the same is true with allowing freshmen
art majors paint abstract paintings. After all, if you can't paint a really
good still life, your "abstraction" just becomes a poor representation of
the image or object you are attempting to abstract.
I also don't think that it is up to anyone but the artist as to what form h=
e
or she wishes to explore. Personally, I am more offended (for want of a
better word) by a bad teapot that is supposed to be "craft" and "functional=
"
than a bad teapot that is supposed to be "Art" and "non-functional".
--
Randall in Atlanta
Lee Love on mon 22 jun 09
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Randall Moody wro=
te:
> or she wishes to explore. Personally, I am more offended (for want of a
> better word) by a bad teapot that is supposed to be "craft" and "function=
al"
> than a bad teapot that is supposed to be "Art" and "non-functional".
Yes, "dysfunctional" teapots are the worst. What is
important, is to be what you mean to be. "It is truth in
advertising." Shaker craftmen address this in their guidelines below.
Three Shaker Guidelines:
Industry:
"Do all your work as if you had a thousand years to live
and as if you were to die tomorrow."
Honesty:
"Be what we seem to be; and seem to be what we really are;
don't carry two faces."
Functionalism:
"That which in itself has the highest use possesses
the greatest beauty." --
Lee Love, Minneapolis
"The tea ceremony bowl is the ceramic equivalent of a sonnet: a
small-scale, seemingly constricted form that challenges the artist to
go beyond mere technical virtuosity and find an approach that both
satisfies and transcends the conventions." -- Rob Sliberman
full essay: http://togeika.multiply.com/journal/item/273/
Randall Moody on mon 22 jun 09
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Lee Love wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Randall Moody
> wrote:
>
> > or she wishes to explore. Personally, I am more offended (for want of a
> > better word) by a bad teapot that is supposed to be "craft" and
> "functional"
> > than a bad teapot that is supposed to be "Art" and "non-functional".
>
> Yes, "dysfunctional" teapots are the worst. What is
> important, is to be what you mean to be. "It is truth in
> advertising." Shaker craftmen address this in their guidelines below.
>
>
> Three Shaker Guidelines:
>
> Industry:
>
> "Do all your work as if you had a thousand years to live
> and as if you were to die tomorrow."
>
> Honesty:
>
> "Be what we seem to be; and seem to be what we really are;
> don't carry two faces."
>
> Functionalism:
>
> "That which in itself has the highest use possesses
> the greatest beauty." --
>
>
Holy smokes, Lee, we agree on something. That must be a sure sign of the
impending Apocalypse! :)
E. Priddy wrote:
> Just move on...there are so many other forms...you will get back around =
to
> teapots, they are, as you said, not going anywhere.
>
>
I don't think it is up to you or me or anyone else to dictate when a fellow
artist is to move on or what form they are to reference and how.
--
Randall in Atlanta
Lis Allison on mon 22 jun 09
On Monday 22 June 2009 09:34, Hank Morrow wrote:
> My pet peeve is the teapot whose spout exits well short of the level
> of the body so it holds a fraction of the tea it might if the spout
> exited at the gallery level.
Yeah. We call those 'self-pouring'. Sort of like my canoe
is 'self-bailing' right now....
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
gayle bair on mon 22 jun 09
VInce,
Thanks for your well stated reply.
I was trying to stay out of this thread as my initial (east coast)
response might have started a firefight.
Plus I don't need to defend my interest and passion for making teapots.
Why would I attack someone for making sculpture, tiles or tea bowls
any other clay form?
Of course it's been done before and most of them pretty poorly but
fortunately the good ones stand the test of time.
As far as I'm concerned attacking one form is an attack of all forms.
My teapot collector/lover customers might have a hearty debate with
the debunkers.
Gayle Bair - has made it a goal for pieces to not only be artistic but
functional (also been done before).
Bainbridge Island WA
Tucson AZ
gayle@claybair.com
www.claybair.com
On Jun 21, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> "I think it is time for ceramists to pick a new form to play off of.
> The non functional teapot redux is now boring. There, I said it..."
>
> Snail Scott wrote:
> "I've believed this for some time now, too!
> Teapots are interesting mainly to other clay
> people, who regard the teapot (for valid
> reasons) as a canonical ceramic form and a
> nice 'pentathlon' demonstration of the maker's
> ability to integrate multiple requirements of
> form and function."
>
> Snail and Elizabeth both stated their points of view very well, and
> I have
> heard this before. My own point of view, as a lover and collector of
> teapots, is that we should go in exactly the opposite direction.
> There are
> far too many bad teapots, both functional and sculptural, and
> relatively few
> really fine ones, so this remains an area ripe for exploration. If
> we can
> accept that premise, then the logical conclusion is that potters and
> sculptors should make lots more teapots - sculptural teapots and
> functional
> teapots and functional sculptural teapots and non-functional
> sculptural
> teapots and sculpture that references the teapot form and every other
> conceivable variation on this theme. snip>
Snail Scott on mon 22 jun 09
On Jun 21, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> ...This isn't specifically what Snail or
> Elizabeth said, but many times before when someone has said "It's all
> been
> done before," my response has been that this is a very pessimistic
> point of
> view, and that the human race has barely scratched the surface of
> creative
> possibility. That's how I feel about the teapot form, especially
> considering that so many contemporary functional and sculptural
> teapots are
> poorly designed and executed...
I also feel that well-trodden ground can still reward
exploration, and that newness is not in itself a
virtue.
I would enthusiastically encourage development
of functional teapot forms, though I still think that
teapots, even among tea drinkers, are more often
a statement than a practical appliance. Make it
beautiful, amazing, provocative, subtle, and make
it work, too.
My disquiet with the non-functional teapot is that it
seems to have become a self-perpetuating monster.
Too many makers have failed to ask themselves,
"why teapots?" For those that have, many seem
to have concluded that the answer is 'because
that's what you're s'posed to do..." Perhaps the
proper question ought to be '"Why stop there?"
The non-functional teapot is fine as a set piece for
visual experimentation, but a dead end in a broader
sense. The complex interrelationships that make
functional teapots a challenge and a delight fall by
the wayside, and often become merely an excuse,
conferring legitimacy by association..
Why does it have to reference a teapot in order to
justify its existence?
Many nonfunctional teapots are wonderful things;
marvelous objects. I don't condemn them as a
class, but I ask why the class has become a strange
hermetic club with its own standards and rules.
Too many makers seem content to wander in this
limited realm of formal exploration, but fail to take
it anywhere else. The dance lessons have been
going well, so why not take a date to the prom?
The ceramics world is a rather insular one, and
for folks that like that club-like aspect, the non-
functional teapot is like a secret handshake - it
shows that you've got the rules down, and know
how to push them, too, but that you know the limits.
If that's your preferred world, that's just fine. Really.
For those that see ceramics as just one part of a
larger world of art and culture, it starts to look like a
rather strange and artificial self-imposed limitation.
It's become preaching to the choir, demonstrating
proficiency in the internally-referential nuances of
ceramic history and practice. There's a whole wide
world out there full of wonderful inspirations that
connect to people who may not know clay but who
stand ready to welcome interesting, worthwhile
artwork in any medium. Why not say "Hi!"?
-Snail
Chris Campbell on mon 22 jun 09
> Can you articulate what makes a fine teapot,
> or even list some things
that make some of
> them bad teapots? Take a good one and tell
> us what is
good about.
From a "loose leaf" tea drinker ....
I have at last found the PERFECT teapot.
http://picasaweb.google.com/neriagechris/PerfectTeapot#
Perfect capacity of about 3 mugs ... depending
on whose mug I choose that day.
Spout at the top of the pot ...
not at the bottom.
Soaked tea leaves sink ... the high spout gives
you clear tea without having to use a strainer.
It also has an insert for loose tea that can be
removed after steeping.
Handle is generous and well balanced when
pot is full, hot and heavy.
Does not drip when pouring.
Also, if anything happens to it ... I know where
I can get another one.
Yes, you can argue that it is commercially made
but a good, experienced artist designed the prototype.
My favorite one mug teapot comes from the hands
of Tony and Sheila Clennell ...
design perfectly blended with function.
Chris Campbell - in North Carolina
Chris Campbell Pottery LLC
Designs in Colored Porcelain
9417 Koupela Drive
Raleigh NC 27615-2233
919-215-8644
Fax: 919-676-2062
www.ccpottery.com
http://neriagechris.blogspot.com/
Randall Moody on mon 22 jun 09
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Snail Scott wr=
ote:
>
> My disquiet with the non-functional teapot is that it
> seems to have become a self-perpetuating monster.
> Too many makers have failed to ask themselves,
> "why teapots?" For those that have, many seem
> to have concluded that the answer is 'because
> that's what you're s'posed to do..." Perhaps the
> proper question ought to be '"Why stop there?"
>
I think that many underestimate the thought process that goes into making o=
r
referencing teapots. Although my opinion is that if you are making a
"teapot" that is unusable from conception to application it is dishonest to
call it a teapot, you seem to be assuming that the makers have failed to as=
k
themselves "why teapots." You also assume that the ones that have asked
themselves the question have come to the answer "because that's what you're
s'posed to do..." while there is more than likely a much more valid and wel=
l
thought out reason for using the teapot as a reference. I don't deny that i=
n
some circumstances it may be the case that some have not thought the reason=
s
for referencing the teapot completely through, the statement that "too many
makers have failed..." is overly broad.
--
Randall in Atlanta
Eric Hansen on mon 22 jun 09
Vince: I think it was worth discussing. I think Lili said it best in that
there are pots which are metaphors of pots, and pots which are
pots-in-and-of-themselves. Two metaphorical potters that come to mind are
Rudy Autio and Kurt Weiser. Like I said, if you strip the decoration off,
what have you got? You still have a competent form. What you're suggesting
however is that executing competent form isn't compulsory. What I'm
suggesting is it that in making a pot, it it is. I can live with the
difference of opinion. Yes, and I "outed" someone who bypassed that
competency, as I was present to witness it, and was rude at the level that
they aren't present here to defend themselves, but that is the price you pa=
y
for publicly displaying your work; it invites public comment in public
forums. Well good for Marko, his career took off like a rocket, anyone who
says it can't be done needs to figure out how he did this. He finished his
BFA the following year as I did. Maybe it really is all about dazzling
surfaces?h a n s e n
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Vince Pitelka wrote=
:
> Eric Hanson wrote:
> "Vince, respectfully: See, I don't agree with this statement either. And
> neither did the degree program Marko is coming from. I have felt for a lo=
ng
> time that artists should have complete freedom to do what they like, to
> express something that is akin to a part of their own soul. If that lends
> to
> sculpture it lends to sculpture. If is lends to function it lends to
> function. But the grey area in between is often merely a hedge and a
> gimmick, it often is a neither/nor area where they adopt critical languag=
e
> and try to bluff their way through. Very few clay workers have been
> historically recognized within the wider sculptural field. There is some
> interesting sculpture you see at clay gatherings, galleries, but it does
> not
> gain wider acclaim in the sculpture world."
>
> Eric -
> We probably are not going to come to agreement on this, but that's fine. =
I
> think I do understand your point of view, and I certainly agree regarding
> opening up the greatest range of possibility for artistic invention and
> design. But regarding your statement "...the grey area in between is oft=
en
> merely a hedge and a gimmick, it often is a neither/nor area where they
> adopt critical language and try to bluff their way through." I would say
> that any artist who attempts this is really just a con-artist, and the
> results are usually transparent. And any teacher who lets a student get
> away with this should be ashamed of themselves. Adopting critical langua=
ge
> as a bluff and a sham is getting pretty old in contemporary art, and it
> usually becomes a self-defeating hoax. If it is not recognized as that
> now,
> it will be soon.
>
> But going back to that point regarding opening up the greatest range of
> possibility for artistic invention, "that grey area" you refer to is ripe
> for such invention, and art simply doesn't work as an "either-or"
> proposition. When someone says a certain area is inappropriate for
> artistic
> exploration, my interpretation is that there must be some very special
> opportunities for artistic exploration. The fact that artist exploration
> in
> the area between sculptural work and functional work has been abused by s=
o
> many students and amateur/professional artists is no reason to believe th=
at
> this is an unworthy area of exploration. It is a reason to encourage
> people
> to dive in head first, but at the same time to expect a lot more in terms
> of
> results.
> - Vince
>
Lee Love on mon 22 jun 09
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Eric
Hansen wrote:
> Vince: I think it was worth discussing. I think Lili said it best in that
> there are pots which are metaphors of pots, and pots which are
> pots-in-and-of-themselves.
Eric, I see all pots as metaphors. Metaphors for giving and
receiving, community, ritual, family and friendship. When ypu put
other meanings on top, you can either be conscious and sensitive to
the archetypal meaning of that form, or totally ignore it and simply
use the pot as a canvas for your own use.
--
Lee Love, Minneapolis
"The tea ceremony bowl is the ceramic equivalent of a sonnet: a
small-scale, seemingly constricted form that challenges the artist to
go beyond mere technical virtuosity and find an approach that both
satisfies and transcends the conventions." -- Rob Sliberman
full essay: http://togeika.multiply.com/journal/item/273/
May Luk on tue 23 jun 09
Hello Lis;=3D0A=3D0AGood teapot regardless of decoration, ornamentation and=
ind=3D
ividual taste:=3D0A1- mouth is big enough for easy cleaning.=3D0A2- lid wel=
l fi=3D
t and would not fall off when pour at 45 deg=3D0A3- liner glaze is not craz=
il=3D
y decorative so that I can see if it's clean or not=3D0A4- Handle is well a=
tt=3D
ached and *appears* so and allows a strong firm grip=3D0A5- Handle not proj=
ec=3D
ted more than necessary.=3D0A6- Spout is not too low to chock tea leaves=3D=
0A5-=3D
Knob is big enough to handle and does not heat up for handling.=3D0A=3D0AA=
n ex=3D
ample of a good teapot from John Jelfs, endorsed by me (aka nobody) I used =
=3D
it for four years, banged it around in the sink, absolutely no problem and =
=3D
it pours well, the glaze looks nice, the handle was *very* comfortable when=
=3D
the pot was full. The price was right. I am still crying inside as I have =
=3D
to leave it in England when I moved.=3D0A=3D0Ahttp://www.cotswoldpottery.co=
.uk/=3D
john/johnpots/john2/ochretea.htm=3D0A=3D0ABest Regards=3D0AMay=3D0ABrooklyn=
NY=3D0A=3D
=3D0AP.S. Form-wise, I'm very fond of teapots by Walter Keeler and Steve Ha=
rr=3D
ison(UK). I appreciate their careful consideration of the designs, decorati=
=3D
ons and functions. (I came to realise it by taking their workshops and lect=
=3D
ures and many tea breaks in between) They also make traditional glazes and =
=3D
decorations look contemporary.=3D0A=3D0A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D0A Take a good on=
e and =3D
tell us what is good=3D0Aabout it.... or a bad one and what is bad about it=
?=3D
=3D0A=3D0ALis=3D0A--=3D0AElisabeth Allison=3D0APine Ridge Studio=3D0A=3D0A=
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Vince Pitelka on sat 27 jun 09
My apologies for responding to this message five days after it was written.
As mentioned in another post, I have been out wandering in the desert for
five days experiencing mystic revelations about rocks and cacti and other
real things. But I did want to respond to several things that Randall said
in his very thoughtful message.
Randall wrote:
"Vince, I agree with you but I also think that there is an issue with
allowing someone to abstract the teapot when they can't make a good solid
teapot in the first place. I think the same is true with allowing freshmen
art majors paint abstract paintings. After all, if you can't paint a really
good still life, your "abstraction" just becomes a poor representation of
the image or object you are attempting to abstract."
I do agree that the student must do a great deal of work before they can
develop any sort of mature style of work, but I do not think it is necessar=
y
for an artist to learn to draw realistically at all in order to attain a
very sophisticated sense of design in abstract imagery. Children in
European-based cultures (especially the US) abstract spontaneously and
enthusiastically and usually only shift to realism under pressure from
peers, parents, and/or teachers. In other cultures where there is no such
pressure to draw realistically, students often develop a remarkably
sophisticated sense of design without ever having learned to do
pictorially-accurate rendering. The latter is just a learned skill, and ha=
s
nothing to do with creativity. Some people can do it easier than others,
but anyone can learn formal design principles, which can be then applied
equally to realistic and abstract artwork.
You wrote:
"I also don't think that it is up to anyone but the artist as to what form
he
or she wishes to explore. Personally, I am more offended (for want of a
better word) by a bad teapot that is supposed to be "craft" and "functional=
"
than a bad teapot that is supposed to be "Art" and "non-functional"."
I am in agreement with you there. With a little experience it is not hard
to look at a functional teapot and quickly decide whether it is a good one,
as far as both aesthetics and utility. It does becomes a bit of a challeng=
e
(a very good kind of challenge) to determine what is a "bad teapot" when yo=
u
are talking about non-functional sculptural interpretations, when the
important considerations are expression and experiential effect connected
with some individual's own personal concept. When I look at a
non-functional sculptural pot, I am trying to key in on the artist's
experience and message, and either it is there or it is not. It's not
something that can be faked with any degree of success, and the work that
attempts this is pretty transparent to the discerning eye. Yes, we can
discuss endlessly the problem of the non-discerning eye not knowing what's
really good and what isn't, and simply following their idea of what is in
fashion. That has always been present in the world of art/craft, and there
have always been artists who simply steered their work to follow popular
fashion in order to cater to the non-discerning tastes of a large segment o=
f
the buying public who do not know much about aesthetic design or the
considerations of practical utility, and are perfectly happy to follow
popular fashion. It does become a self-perpetuating situation.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
--
Randall in Atlanta
Vince Pitelka on sat 27 jun 09
Lis Allison wrote:
"Can you articulate what makes a fine teapot, or even list some things that
make some of them bad teapots? Take a good one and tell us what is good
about it.... or a bad one and what is bad about it?"
Lis -
I have been away from Clayart since you wrote this post, and I think that
others have answered the question pretty well regarding spouts that pour
well and is placed high enough, a lid large enough to admit a tea infuser o=
r
tea bags, etc. One of the reasons why the teapot has always been and will
continue to be a worthwhile vessel form for any student or professional
potter is the challenge of balancing the placement and effectiveness of
handle, lid, and spout. How do they interact? Although it is never an
absolute or quantifiable thing, does the teapot look like it "wants" to
serve its intended function? Does it look like it celebrates its intended
function, perhaps inviting use in the ritual of tea serving/drinking rather
than just the dry reality of preparing and serving a steeped beverage.
There are extremes like the wonderful teapots and pitchers of Josh DeWeese
that often look like they are rearing back in preparation for some exuberan=
t
pouring. At the opposite extreme, some teapots look kind of dead and
stationary. The best teapots usually have a liveliness to them that is a
byproduct of design and finish. So many teapots look stodgy and
conservative, as if they are saying "I can brew and pour tea okay, and
that's all I am expected to do." I hope that everyone making teapots is
thinking about a lot more than that.
One of the key considerations on any pot that has a handle is how the line
created by the handle interacts with the rest of the form. Where does the
line go at the end of the handle. What does it align with in the design,
and how does it direct our attention. When you look at any teapot, conside=
r
all the lines and profiles created by handle, spout, lid, foot, body, and
surface decoration, and think about how they interact. Do they reinforce
one another, or do they contradict each other?
The design and placement of the foot is key to successful teapot designs. =
A
teapot pretty much has to have some sort of raised foot in order to hold th=
e
heat. It can be a conventional trimmed foot, or it can be in the form of
added feet, as in the wide flat-bottom teapots of Jane Hamlyn or Mick
Casson. I like the look of those teapots, but I do not like a wide flat
bottom on a teapot, because it is subject to cracking from thermal shock
when hit by a stream of hot water. When a teapot is raised on a trimmed
foot or added raised feet, the bottom can easily be domed slightly downward=
s
or upwards, giving a surface far more able to accommodate thermal shock.
On Wednesday I was rinsing and wiping down pots at Paul Herman's place nort=
h
of Reno, in preparation for a large group of visitors yesterday. Most of
his pots are displayed on outdoor shelves around his pot shop and wood kiln=
,
and they do get a little dusty over time. I handled a lot of pots, and
although I have always enjoyed and admired Paul's pots, I gained new respec=
t
for his teapots. Handle, lid, spout, and profile working together in
harmony on almost every single teapot, even though the form varied
considerably. Paul is a potter who emphasizes form, often with a very ligh=
t
hand in surface decoration, so the form really gets to speak for itself.
Those teapots do. Just Google "Great Basin Pottery" and click the gallery
link to see some nice ones.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Lis Allison on sat 27 jun 09
On Saturday 27 June 2009 17:00, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Lis -
> I have been away from Clayart since you wrote this post, and I think
> that others have answered the question pretty well regarding spouts
> that pour well and is placed high enough, a lid large enough to admit a
> tea infuser or tea bags, etc. ...
Thanks, Vince, and others. I must admit, I asked the question partially to
be a s...t disturber. I don't like self-satisfied statements about 'good
design'.
Let's not forget that what is good design for one person may not be for
another. If that were not the case, there would be one teapot design, one
car design, one house design and so on. For my frail friend with
Parkinson's, a teapot that weighs 3 lbs is a very bad design, while for
me it is fine. For someone who wants to make tea four times a day, a
Brown Betty is good design, but for someone who is amused by a scultural
teapot-as-pun, it is very bad design. And vice-versa.
And where is the boundary between design and execution? If I design a
great teapot, but put the handle on badly, do we blame design?
It's not simple, and I think we should be open to a piece's intent.
BTW, I've been making teapots for over 20 years.... not finished learning
about them by any means, but not just starting either. Your post is a
great practical answer to my question - one or two other people's also
were - but I really just wanted to bump a few people upside the ego.
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
| |
|
