Terrance on tue 15 dec 09
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:13:37 -0600, Vince Pitelka =3D2=
0=3D
wrote:
Vince Wrote;
>Hi John -
>John -
>I can't tell whether this is tongue in cheek, but I think it must be. I=
=3D
t is
>hard to believe that you are serious, because there is no rational basis=
=3D
for
>this concept. Your definition above does not coincide with any accepted
>definition of handmade, past or present. So, clearly the above is a jok=
=3D
e.
>That's a relief. Thanks for the chuckle.
>- Vince
Hi Vince;
I don't think John was joking. He broke the code.
Terrance
John Rodgers on tue 15 dec 09
My perception of the issue of "Handmade" has changed somewhat during
the course of the debate on the subject and now I have a much more
severe view of what is handmade and what is not. After weighing all the
arguments, I truly believe I'm right.
We all want to be truthful in our work - otherwise this lengthy
"handmade" discussion would never have taken place. Now here is what I
see as the bottom line on this subject.
_To be truly "handmade" - an object - pot or whatever - MUST be created
ONLY with the hands, and nothing more_.
The instant any contrivance is applied to assist the hands - be it a
stick, rib, potters wheel, jigger, needle, scissors, hump mold, whatever
- the definition is lost, and the object becomes one _crafted_ by hand
or "_handcrafted_".
Having read through every one of the posts on the matter, I think this
more severe definition is true, and is the one I shall adhere to. I will
never again consider a pot made on a wheel as anything but
_handcrafted_. Thrown - yes, but _handcrafted_ - not _handmade_. That
is OK. . There is nothing wrong with that. It's just that for me the
the debate has become very clear, and I have no more argument on the
subject. In my work, as a potter and as a clay artist - I use all kinds
of tools, both motorized(wheel) and not, as well as molds - to get where
I am going - to get my product made. It is, therefore,
"_handcrafted_" and definitely not - "_handmade_".
--
John Rodgers
Clayartist and Moldmaker
88'GL VW Bus Driver
Chelsea, AL
Http://www.moldhaus.com
James Freeman on tue 15 dec 09
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:07 AM, John Rodgers wrote:
>
> _To be truly "handmade" - an object - pot or whatever - MUST be created
> ONLY with the hands, and nothing more_.
>
>
John...
I'm guessing that you intended your post as an assault on the stricter
definitions of the word "handmade" by employing a bit of reductio ad
absurdum, hoping that the words-have-meaning faction would say "no, no, no,
that's TOO far". A few thoughts:
First, your definition is absolutely internally consistent and fits the
facts, and as such, I have no problem with it. If an object is fashioned
with only the hands and nothing more, it is certainly "handmade". In logic=
,
this would be called an "analytic a priori" proposition, a statement in
which the predicate is contained within the subject. Another example of an
analytic a priori proposition is "all rectangles have four sides". Since
the definition of rectangle includes the necessity of four-sidedness, all w=
e
are really saying is that all four-sided objects have four sides. While
such "analytic" propositions are always true, they unfortunately don't tell
us much.
While no one can reasonably argue with your theorem, your corollary, that
anything made with a tool of any sort is not "handmade" is a bit more
problematic. I can certainly accept your corollary as true in a strict
sense, but it leads to a result that has almost no value. Under your
corollary, about the only things I can think of off the top of my head that
fit your definition is a clay pinch pot or a hand-woven basket. Even
something as simple and low tech as a hand-dipped candle fails as a handmad=
e
object under your corollary, as the string employed as a wick also function=
s
as a tool which contributes materially to defining the shape of the candle
so dipped. If a corollary (or other proposition) defines a condition that
is almost never met, then it is not terribly useful. Since your corollary
is unproven, and since this is not a logic forum, let's just accept it for
the sake of this discussion, and call it John's Postulate: Anything made
with a tool is not "handmade".
The opposite case might be called the Anything Goes school: As long as my
hand touched it in some way that I claim to be meaningful, it is
"handmade". This is the "horse" that has been so resoundingly beaten, and =
I
shan't add to the flagellation. There are numerous posts in this series of
threads that demolish the Anything Goes proposition, and I merely refer
interested parties to such posts.
I offered in a series of posts a definition derived from the theoretical
work of David Pye, which was also internally consistent and fit the facts.
It offered a sort of middle ground. Again, rather than wasting bandwidth
restating the framework, I simply refer interested parties to those posts.
In a nutshell, Pye breaks tasks into two categories, "workmanship of risk",
in which the hand performing the task or wielding the tool assumes and
controls the material risks inherent in the forming process, and the
"workmanship of certainty", wherein the tool assumes and controls all
material risks, and the hand activating the tool is merely an operator
rather than the director. A rib cannot in and of itself control the shape
of the clay pot; it is only a rib guided by a skilled hand which can do so.
The hand assumes the risk, and the rib is merely a tool. A slip casting
mold, on the other hand, absolutely and certainly controls the shape of the
object produced. In this case, the hand pouring in the slip is merely a
tool in the service of the mold, and performs no material role in the
shaping of the object. Under the Pye rubric, if the form of the object is
the result of the workmanship of risk, it is handmade; if the form is the
result of the workmanship of certainty, it is not.
To summarize:
John's Postulate, "if a tool touched it, it is not handmade", is internally
consistent and fits the facts ("true", in a colloquial sense), but it does
not provide meaningful or useful results. If pretty much nothing is
"handmade", then "handmade" ceases to be a useful descriptive word. While
"true", this definition is of little use.
Anything Goes, "it's handmade if I say it is because I touched it", is not
internally consistent (it can lead to both a proposition and it's negation
being true, such as the case of a pot being simultaneously "handmade" and
"not handmade", which is an absurdity) and it does not fit the facts. Unde=
r
this definition, almost everything is handmade, so the word again loses all
descriptive value and becomes useless. This definition is "false", and it
also fails to provide a useful result.
Pye's Rubric, "if a hand assumed and controlled all material risk in the
shaping of the final object, then it is handmade", is internally consistent
and fits the facts. Additionally, it provides a useful result. It neatly
separates those objects whose final form was materially controlled by the
human hand from those objects whose final form was materially controlled by
an outside force, as by a mold, machine, or tool.
So where are we? I believe the root of the problem here stems from the use
of the word "handmade" in two very different ways. In a strict,
definitional sense, it pretty much cannot be reasonably argued that a slip
cast or similar object is handmade. I believe this has been demonstrated a=
d
nauseam. In a colloquial sense (very loose, "everyday" sort of way),
however, common folk might very well invoke the term "handmade" as a type o=
f
shorthand, accurate or not to varying degrees, but in general referring to
an object that "I made myself". In the case of an object that I slip cast
myself, in my own mold pulled from my own prototype, painted or decorated
myself, I could call it "handmade" in that loose colloquial sense, and
transmit the meaning to you fairly accurately. We would both "be on the
same page", both understanding that "I made it". In a case where I merely
decorated a purchased greenware object, calling it "handmade", even in a
colloquial sense, would be a falsehood in that it would transmit to you the
idea that "I made it", when in fact I merely painted it.
The problem, of course, with using a word colloquially, is that of shades o=
f
meaning. Since the colloquial definition of a word is quite amorphous, it
is also quite useless. It not only invites inaccuracy and misunderstanding=
,
it fairly makes such misunderstanding inevitable. Thus, while the public
may certainly speak colloquially, those in a given trade should not employ,
or worse yet exploit, such loose, meaningless usage. I believe that what w=
e
are actually objecting to is the exploitation of the colloquial use of the
term "handmade", in the case, for instance, of the Walmart mass-produced
items so labeled. If we, however, exploit that same colloquial usage in th=
e
case of our own work, then we are now only arguing matters of degree, and
cannot take the high ground. If our only defense to our use of the word
"handmade" is that "my work is more handmade than Walmart's", then we have
lost the battle already.
And none of this addresses the real problem, which has little to do with th=
e
word "handmade". The real issue is that of retail art galleries and shops
promoting factory-made work (Motawi tiles, Bill Campbell pottery, and many
others) as studio artist-made work just because the factory is small and/or
only incompletely automated. Even when they don't explicitly claim such,
the implication, sometimes through the careful parsing of language and
sometimes merely by ommission, is there. A studio artist can never compete
on price with a factory, even if the factory operator initially trained as,
and used to (or even still occasionally does) work as, a studio artist.
Just some additional food for thought.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
Seele Robert on tue 15 dec 09
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:07 AM, John Rodgers wrote:
After weighing all the arguments, I truly believe I'm right.
To be truly "handmade" - an object - pot or whatever - MUST be created
ONLY with the hands, and nothing more_.
How to make a handmade pot.
To be 100% handmade one must :
1. Dig the clay / clays from the ground using the hands only.
2. dry in the sun if needed.
3. If water needs to added, get water from a stream or mud puddle by
hand.
No buckets made by machine.
4. Need, wedge clay by HAND.
5. Pinch into a pot or what ever you are making.
6. Collect sticks from the woods. No chainsaws.
7. Burn the wood, and use the wood ash as a glaze.
8. Dig a hole in the ground by HAND.
9. Place sticks into the hole.
10. Place hand formed pot into hole.
11. Rub two sticks together to start a fire.
12. Start the sticks in the hole on fire.
13. Wait.
14. Now you have a 100% handmade pot.
14. Display with pride.
bob seele
Nothing can so alienate a voter from the political system as backing a
winning candidate. Mark B. Cohen
Vince Pitelka on tue 15 dec 09
John Rodgers wrote:
"Having read through every one of the posts on the matter, I think this
more severe definition is true, and is the one I shall adhere to. I will
never again consider a pot made on a wheel as anything but
_handcrafted_. Thrown - yes, but _handcrafted_ - not _handmade_. That
is OK. . There is nothing wrong with that. It's just that for me the
the debate has become very clear, and I have no more argument on the
subject. In my work, as a potter and as a clay artist - I use all kinds
of tools, both motorized(wheel) and not, as well as molds - to get where
I am going - to get my product made. It is, therefore,
"_handcrafted_" and definitely not - "_handmade_".
Hi John -
John -
I can't tell whether this is tongue in cheek, but I think it must be. It i=
s
hard to believe that you are serious, because there is no rational basis fo=
r
this concept. Your definition above does not coincide with any accepted
definition of handmade, past or present. So, clearly the above is a joke.
That's a relief. Thanks for the chuckle.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Philip Poburka on wed 16 dec 09
When the term 'Hand Made' was first making it's appearance, it's meaning,
implicitly, was to distinguish individual attention-decision-involvement to
an object's process/production,
from the contrasting Assembly-Line and automated or semi-automated, highly
impersonally mechanized process/production.
It was never a precise term/phrase, nor, in context, did it need to be.
The earliest application I recall of it, was to Cigars, reserved for the
better qualities of ingredients, usually, where these continued being made
in the old ways...subsquent to the
new ways of mechanization/automation for the process of making them.
Of course, 'Hand Made' Cigars, were made using Wooden Forms, Knives,
Brushes, and other non-literally 'Hand' things.
Objects made by using Tools guided by the Hand, were considered to be "Hand
Made", and, this seems reasonable to me.
Trying to establish a precise rigorous meaning, for a term never intended t=
o
denote
other than an implicitly contextually framed suggestion, is going to invite
problems if we demand the term be taken too literally.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance"
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:13:37 -0600, Vince Pitelka
wrote:
Vince Wrote;
>Hi John -
>John -
>I can't tell whether this is tongue in cheek, but I think it must be. It
>is
>hard to believe that you are serious, because there is no rational basis
>for
>this concept. Your definition above does not coincide with any accepted
>definition of handmade, past or present. So, clearly the above is a joke.
>That's a relief. Thanks for the chuckle.
>- Vince
Hi Vince;
I don't think John was joking. He broke the code.
Terrance
John Rodgers on thu 17 dec 09
James, Vince, Seele, Terrance, et al,
Distilled down, the only view that remains for me, is as I stated.
To be truly "handmade" - an object - pot or whatever - MUST be created
ONLY with the hands, and nothing more_.
The instant any contrivance is applied to assist the hands - be it a
stick, rib, potters wheel, jigger, needle, scissors, hump mold, whatever
- the definition is lost, and the object becomes one _crafted_ by hand
or "_handcrafted_".
While this definition may not be the most useful, it is what it is. At
this point - which was difficult to arrive at because of my passion for
molded work - I fully accept this newly arrived at definition. I can
live with it. We as humans have and will always used tools to produce
what we will, from the very basic to the very sophisticate goods - but
with the exception of only a few items, all are hand crafted, not hand
made. And that is perfectly OK. But understanding the origins is
important, lest something be misrepresented for what it is.
Now to quote a famous cartoon personage of the past - from Al Capp's Lil
Abner -
Sez Mammy Yokum, "Ah has spoken!!"
John Rodgers
Clayartist and Moldmaker
88'GL VW Bus Driver
Chelsea, AL
Http://www.moldhaus.com
John Rodgers wrote:
> My perception of the issue of "Handmade" has changed somewhat during
> the course of the debate on the subject and now I have a much more
> severe view of what is handmade and what is not. After weighing all the
> arguments, I truly believe I'm right.
>
> We all want to be truthful in our work - otherwise this lengthy
> "handmade" discussion would never have taken place. Now here is what I
> see as the bottom line on this subject.
>
> _To be truly "handmade" - an object - pot or whatever - MUST be created
> ONLY with the hands, and nothing more_.
>
> The instant any contrivance is applied to assist the hands - be it a
> stick, rib, potters wheel, jigger, needle, scissors, hump mold, whatever
> - the definition is lost, and the object becomes one _crafted_ by hand
> or "_handcrafted_".
>
> Having read through every one of the posts on the matter, I think this
> more severe definition is true, and is the one I shall adhere to. I will
> never again consider a pot made on a wheel as anything but
> _handcrafted_. Thrown - yes, but _handcrafted_ - not _handmade_. That
> is OK. . There is nothing wrong with that. It's just that for me the
> the debate has become very clear, and I have no more argument on the
> subject. In my work, as a potter and as a clay artist - I use all kinds
> of tools, both motorized(wheel) and not, as well as molds - to get where
> I am going - to get my product made. It is, therefore,
> "_handcrafted_" and definitely not - "_handmade_".
>
> --
> John Rodgers
> Clayartist and Moldmaker
> 88'GL VW Bus Driver
> Chelsea, AL
> Http://www.moldhaus.com
>
>
Vince Pitelka on thu 17 dec 09
John Rodgers wrote:
"Distilled down, the only view that remains for me, is as I stated. To be
truly "handmade" - an object - pot or whatever - MUST be created ONLY with
the hands, and nothing more_."
I know that Mel is sick and tired of the handmade debate, but I couldn't le=
t
this slip by. This is surreal, I mean, all of this is f--king surreal.
John, what kind of hallucinogenic substances are you taking? The first tim=
e
you posted this, I sincerely thought you were joking, improvising a farce
around the "handmade" discussion. That would have been fine, but at this
point you have posted at least three messages making the above claim. Are
you trying to talk yourself into believing this absurdity?
What happened to reason and rationality in this discussion? In your own
mind, you have apparently succeeded in distilling down the definition of
"handmade" to where it is completely pointless and meaningless in reference
to any sort of traditional and contemporary "handmade" work. There is no
validity to your definition, none, no way to support it, no way to back it
up. It is an arbitrary and unnecessary distraction from whatever good migh=
t
have come out of this conversation. You are, of course, entitled to your
opinion, but it would be nice if we could, in fact, stay SOMEWHERE in the
realm of reality and possibility.
To say that a handmade piece "must be created only with the hands, and
nothing more," has not a damn thing to do with the real world of traditiona=
l
or contemporary handmade work.
You are a capable and knowledgeable person, John, and you contribute much
good information to Clayart, so I am pretty much baffled by where you are
going with this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not pissed, just appalled and a little frustrated.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
John Rodgers on fri 18 dec 09
There comes a point where one must recognize that the irresistible force
has met the unmovable object, and further pursuit of the issue serves
naught but to consume energy best spent on more worthy projects.
.
Peace!
John
John Rodgers
Clayartist and Moldmaker
88'GL VW Bus Driver
Chelsea, AL
Http://www.moldhaus.com
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> John Rodgers wrote:
> "I totally agree the term "handmade" has become completely pointless a=
nd
> meaningless.
>
> No, no, you don't get to misquote and misinterpret my words like that. T=
he
> word "handmade" has very important, specific, and obvious meaning, as I h=
ave
> clearly explained. YOUR definition of it has become completely pointless
> and meaningless. The view of a purist? Hardly.
>
> You wrote:
> "I can't honestly look at any so called handmade anything anymore without
> considering how many different tools were required for the artisan to get=
to
> the point of a finished work."
>
> And there you clearly have your answer and your path to understanding. A
> wide variety of tools carefully manipulated with the hand can be involved=
in
> the creation of "handmade" work.
>
> You wrote:
> While you seem to feel illogical my conclusion about just what "handmade"
> constitutes, I on the other hand feel more secure in my view of it than
> ever."
>
> I am not sure what you have to gain by trying to convince us that you hav=
e
> drawn a conclusion that is not based on reason or fact. There is no
> substance or basis in your definition of "handmade." You have offered no
> justification for it.
>
> You wrote:
> "Mind you, this is a complete 180 degree change from my position in the
> past, and it took a lot of soul searching to come this conclusion. I'm no=
t
> so educated in the arts and crafts and the philosophical foundations
> thereof, as to offer more than my own personal view based on my own
> experiences in work and in working with clay and the various methods of
> working with clay."
>
> Yes, and it is your 180-degree change to an irrational and unsupportable
> position that has me worried about you and your state of mind.
>
> John, do you recognize that your definition of "handmade" excludes all
> materials that are not malleable with the hands/fingers? In other words,
> according to your definition, it is impossible to make anything "handmade=
"
> from wood, metal, stone, or glass aside from the very simplest breaking,
> bending, or smashing motions.
>
> I know that you are having fun with this farce, but perhaps it is time to
> admit that it is just a farce. I really am very interested in some sort =
of
> common understanding of the word "handmade," but you and a number of othe=
r
> people seem more interested in obfuscation and deceit.
>
> Whether or not your own work is slip-cast or wheel-thrown is irrelevant i=
n
> this discussion. If you make slip-cast work, and you honestly represent =
it
> as slip-cast and not handmade when you exhibit it and offer it for sale,
> then I support you 100%. I think it is great. I have nothing against
> slip-casting or ram-pressing. I just want people to be honest about what
> they do, and I want to preserve the integrity and significance of the ter=
m
> "handmade." No one should feel limited or threatened by a specific and
> realistic definition of the term. There is no need to subvert the
> definition of "handmade" to support the agenda of individual artists. If =
an
> artist is honest about what they do, then they will be confident in their
> work, either handmade or not, and will proudly represent it as such.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
>
>
Terrance on fri 18 dec 09
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:05:20 -0600, Vince Pitelka >=
=3D
Vince=3D20=3D20
You wrote;
>I know that you are having fun with this farce, but perhaps it is time t=
=3D
o
>admit that it is just a farce. I really am very interested in some sort=
=3D
of
>common understanding of the word "handmade," but you and a number of=3D20
other people seem more interested in obfuscation and deceit.
Vince;
I do not consider John's point of view as a farce. If we accept your sta=
=3D
nce, a=3D20
day may come when ceramicists will not be allowed to show their works in =
=3D
a=3D20
craft show because it was made using a form or mold and the rules=3D20
stipulate, =3D93Craft must be handmade.=3D94 We have to ensure that the te=
rm=3D
used=3D20
to describe our work methods protects all members of clayart. This is why=
=3D
we=3D20
need to coin a proper term, such as =3D93handcrafted,=3D94 to describe work=
c=3D
reated=3D20
by a craftsperson in a studio environment. We have to use this term when=
=3D
=3D20
ever describing our methods to the public and to the powers to be.
You wrote;
>Whether or not your own work is slip-cast or wheel-thrown is irrelevant =
=3D
in
>this discussion. If you make slip-cast work, and you honestly represent=
=3D
it
>as slip-cast and not handmade when you exhibit it and offer it for sale,=
=3D
>then I support you 100%. I think it is great. I have nothing against
>slip-casting or ram-pressing. I just want people to be honest about wha=
=3D
t
>they do, and I want to preserve the integrity and significance of the te=
=3D
rm
>"handmade." No one should feel limited or threatened by a specific and
>realistic definition of the term. There is no need to subvert the
>definition of "handmade" to support the agenda of individual artists. If=
=3D
an
>artist is honest about what they do, then they will be confident in thei=
=3D
r
>work, either handmade or not, and will proudly represent it as such.
Vince;
I agree; I will call my cast work "handmade mold assisted=3D94 If you call =
=3D
your=3D20
wheel thrown work as "handmade machine (wheel) assisted." After all, we=3D2=
0=3D
want to be honest about how we create our work. We could, however,=3D20
shorten the description to "handcrafted," to cover all the methods used t=
=3D
o=3D20
create our craft.
Best regards
Terrance
John Rodgers on fri 18 dec 09
Vince,
I totally agree the term "handmade" has become completely pointless
and meaningless. I can't honestly look at any so called handmade
anything anymore without considering how many different tools were
required for the artisan to get to the point of a finished work.
While you seem to feel illogical my conclusion about just what
"handmade" constitutes, I on the other hand feel more secure in my view
of it than ever. Mind you, this is a complete 180 degree change from my
position in the past, and it took a lot of soul searching to come this
conclusion. I'm not so educated in the arts and crafts and the
philosophical foundations thereof, as to offer more than my own personal
view based on my own experiences in work and in working with clay and
the various methods of working with clay.
I am reminded of having entered an art show in Alaska early in my clay
career in which there was a significant amount of pottery and other clay
work, but no work at all made from molds - but for my own. . The juror,
a widely know Alaskan artist, University Art Professor, and someone
intimately familiar with clay, selected a number of pieces to be
discussed at an artist reception the evening before the gallery opening.
. Among the pieces were a number of pottery pieces and - though it
didn't place - my molded work - which was totally created by me -
sculpture, molds, finished porcelain work. In his review of why he
picked this piece and that - he explained that he had picked my work -
though it didn't place - for review, even among the pottery, for one
very specific reason. He cautioned all the potters there "Do not look
down your nose at molded work. Your wheel is just a tool which helps you
craft your work - and a mold is a tool that aids in accomplishing the
same end!" I think many potters were chagrined to hear this, and I was
such a neophyte that at the time the significance of what he said went
right over my head. But even so - I held to the erroneous belief that
because I did so much work and so many steps, my work was "handmade"
After a lot of years of work, a lot of years of experience, and many
enlightening e-mails through Clayart - I have now come to a different
view. Do I really care if someone differs with me on this? Not at all.
This is my view, based on my conclusions. Henceforth, I will always
and forever analyze very carefully the claim by anyone that any
particular piece of art or craft is "handmade".
Best regards,
John
PS - Vince - Airwick and No-doze doesn't do it for me anymore, so I
quit.
John Rodgers
Clayartist and Moldmaker
88'GL VW Bus Driver
Chelsea, AL
Http://www.moldhaus.com
Vince Pitelka wrote:
> John Rodgers wrote:
> "Distilled down, the only view that remains for me, is as I stated. To be
> truly "handmade" - an object - pot or whatever - MUST be created ONLY wi=
th
> the hands, and nothing more_."
>
> I know that Mel is sick and tired of the handmade debate, but I couldn't =
let
> this slip by. This is surreal, I mean, all of this is f--king surreal.
> John, what kind of hallucinogenic substances are you taking? The first t=
ime
> you posted this, I sincerely thought you were joking, improvising a farce
> around the "handmade" discussion. That would have been fine, but at this
> point you have posted at least three messages making the above claim. Ar=
e
> you trying to talk yourself into believing this absurdity?
>
> What happened to reason and rationality in this discussion? In your own
> mind, you have apparently succeeded in distilling down the definition of
> "handmade" to where it is completely pointless and meaningless in referen=
ce
> to any sort of traditional and contemporary "handmade" work. There is no
> validity to your definition, none, no way to support it, no way to back i=
t
> up. It is an arbitrary and unnecessary distraction from whatever good mi=
ght
> have come out of this conversation. You are, of course, entitled to your
> opinion, but it would be nice if we could, in fact, stay SOMEWHERE in the
> realm of reality and possibility.
>
> To say that a handmade piece "must be created only with the hands, and
> nothing more," has not a damn thing to do with the real world of traditio=
nal
> or contemporary handmade work.
>
> You are a capable and knowledgeable person, John, and you contribute much
> good information to Clayart, so I am pretty much baffled by where you are
> going with this.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not pissed, just appalled and a little frustrated=
.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft
> Tennessee Tech University
> vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
>
>
>
Vince Pitelka on fri 18 dec 09
John Rodgers wrote:
"I totally agree the term "handmade" has become completely pointless and
meaningless.
No, no, you don't get to misquote and misinterpret my words like that. The
word "handmade" has very important, specific, and obvious meaning, as I hav=
e
clearly explained. YOUR definition of it has become completely pointless
and meaningless. The view of a purist? Hardly.
You wrote:
"I can't honestly look at any so called handmade anything anymore without
considering how many different tools were required for the artisan to get t=
o
the point of a finished work."
And there you clearly have your answer and your path to understanding. A
wide variety of tools carefully manipulated with the hand can be involved i=
n
the creation of "handmade" work.
You wrote:
While you seem to feel illogical my conclusion about just what "handmade"
constitutes, I on the other hand feel more secure in my view of it than
ever."
I am not sure what you have to gain by trying to convince us that you have
drawn a conclusion that is not based on reason or fact. There is no
substance or basis in your definition of "handmade." You have offered no
justification for it.
You wrote:
"Mind you, this is a complete 180 degree change from my position in the
past, and it took a lot of soul searching to come this conclusion. I'm not
so educated in the arts and crafts and the philosophical foundations
thereof, as to offer more than my own personal view based on my own
experiences in work and in working with clay and the various methods of
working with clay."
Yes, and it is your 180-degree change to an irrational and unsupportable
position that has me worried about you and your state of mind.
John, do you recognize that your definition of "handmade" excludes all
materials that are not malleable with the hands/fingers? In other words,
according to your definition, it is impossible to make anything "handmade"
from wood, metal, stone, or glass aside from the very simplest breaking,
bending, or smashing motions.
I know that you are having fun with this farce, but perhaps it is time to
admit that it is just a farce. I really am very interested in some sort of
common understanding of the word "handmade," but you and a number of other
people seem more interested in obfuscation and deceit.
Whether or not your own work is slip-cast or wheel-thrown is irrelevant in
this discussion. If you make slip-cast work, and you honestly represent it
as slip-cast and not handmade when you exhibit it and offer it for sale,
then I support you 100%. I think it is great. I have nothing against
slip-casting or ram-pressing. I just want people to be honest about what
they do, and I want to preserve the integrity and significance of the term
"handmade." No one should feel limited or threatened by a specific and
realistic definition of the term. There is no need to subvert the
definition of "handmade" to support the agenda of individual artists. If an
artist is honest about what they do, then they will be confident in their
work, either handmade or not, and will proudly represent it as such.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Elizabeth Priddy on sat 19 dec 09
wood and other media can be hand made with their own standards of tool use =
=3D
as they apply to their media.=3D0A=3D0AWith regard to clay, doing it withou=
t bl=3D
unt motions and smashing as a valid option. We CAN make things with clay w=
=3D
ithout tools other than out nails, hands, and sometimes teeth. =3D0A=3D0AI=
t is=3D
not farce, clay is more available than rigid media and so should be held t=
=3D
o a tighter standard with regard to whether it is handmade.=3D0A=3D0AI know=
for=3D
a fact that hand worked tools are considered different from electrified mi=
=3D
llworking equipment by purists within the woodworking fields. And they hav=
=3D
e valid pints as well. (But I am not going there, as I am not qualified to =
=3D
argue about woodworking)=3D0A=3D0AI would certainly consider the work of a =
wood=3D
worker using rasps by hand to be doing something different than one with an=
=3D
electric router.=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A- ePriddy=3D0A=3D0AElizabeth Prid=
dy=3D0ABeaufort,=3D
NC - USA=3D0A=3D0Ahttp://www.elizabethpriddy.com=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A> John=
, do you rec=3D
ognize that your definition of "handmade"=3D0A> excludes all=3D0A> material=
s th=3D
at are not malleable with the=3D0A> hands/fingers?=3DA0 In other words,=3D0=
A> acc=3D
ording to your definition, it is impossible to make=3D0A> anything "handmad=
e"=3D
=3D0A> from wood, metal, stone, or glass aside from the very=3D0A> simplest=
bre=3D
aking,=3D0A> bending, or smashing motions.=3D0A> =3D0A> I know that you are=
havin=3D
g fun with this farce, but perhaps=3D0A> it is time to=3D0A> admit that it =
is j=3D
ust a farce.=3DA0=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Carolyn Boeri on sat 19 dec 09
Hi Elizabeth etal ,
I was tired of all this go around, but curious enough to read many posts,
and sigh, etc. I think we sometimes get our egos too involved in this,
making remarks like go watch tv or play a video game is a bit condescending=
,
Vince. If we want to have a learning situation here we need to remain
supportive of each other, truly, that is the best way to show our motives
are not selfish. Think of clayart as a classroom and having an invested
interest in learning. Now, that said, I would like to suggest that the
wheel, rotor, rasper, or any other tool still needs a hand to move it. Thos=
e
tools are not designing the work, leading the way, pushing the hand. We are
the makers. Handcrafted as a description of my work is fine with me. We can
define ourselves in our artist statement. I doubt we will be able to come t=
o
a consensus. Being able to live with uncertainty, groundlessness, and the
big one, impermanence is like knowing there is no big deal. No real need to
try to persuade others of a concept when all perception is an illusion, lif=
e
a dream. People come to conclusions and change them, all the time, like
clouds we are not solid. We evolve, new facts come forward through our
openness to see them, and it is all good. Don't worry, if you have faith in
what you are doing, just keep on that path, it is okay to be who you are,
even if no one else agrees. Look at the outsider artists, with no training,
now that is true perception, they are not even considering sales, methods,
they are outside the box. Yes, outside the box. NOt a bad place to be when
it comes to art-making. AND ELIZABETH I LOVE YOUR BRUSH PAINTING, VERY
BEAUTIFUL!!!
everyone, enjoy yourself today,
Carolyn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Priddy"
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: Handmade - the View of a Purist
wood and other media can be hand made with their own standards of tool use
as they apply to their media.
With regard to clay, doing it without blunt motions and smashing as a valid
option. We CAN make things with clay without tools other than out nails,
hands, and sometimes teeth.
It is not farce, clay is more available than rigid media and so should be
held to a tighter standard with regard to whether it is handmade.
I know for a fact that hand worked tools are considered different from
electrified millworking equipment by purists within the woodworking fields.
And they have valid pints as well. (But I am not going there, as I am not
qualified to argue about woodworking)
I would certainly consider the work of a woodworker using rasps by hand to
be doing something different than one with an electric router.
- ePriddy
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
> John, do you recognize that your definition of "handmade"
> excludes all
> materials that are not malleable with the
> hands/fingers? In other words,
> according to your definition, it is impossible to make
> anything "handmade"
> from wood, metal, stone, or glass aside from the very
> simplest breaking,
> bending, or smashing motions.
>
> I know that you are having fun with this farce, but perhaps
> it is time to
> admit that it is just a farce.
Des & Jan Howard on sun 20 dec 09
Elizabeth
All too frequently these purists are glorified
hobbyists & not down & dirty carpenters/wood butchers.
My old man was the consummate craftsman, carpentry,
house building, cabinet work,
French polishing, even his front lawn was mistaken for
a bowling green, his concrete formwork was spoken of in
awe & his job inspections were spoken
of with shudders. He showed me how to use a broad axe,
adze, spokeshave, plane & chisel & their care &
sharpening. He didn't see anything but a rammed earth
floor until his teens. His collection of old
woodworking tools was extensive, I teased him one day,
when visiting, about electric power tools,
he grinned, took me out to the workshop, & there was a
new electric plane & a power saw,
he said, " Son, we did it THAT way 'cause we HAD to,
I do it THAT way now, 'cause I WANT to".
He used hand tools for his hobby, his working life in
wood was a different story.
Des
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> I know for a fact that hand worked tools are considered
> different from electrified millworking equipment by
> purists within the woodworking fields.
> And they have valid pints as well.
> (But I am not going there, as I am not qualified
> to argue about woodworking)
> I would certainly consider the work of a woodworker
> using rasps by hand to be doing something different
> than one with an electric router.
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
Lue NSW
Australia
2850
02 6373 6419
www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
-32.656072 149.840624
| |
|
