Lili Krakowski on sat 10 jul 10
The discussion has been far ranging. Forgive me (or not) for recapitulatin=
g
and commenting on some comments. Old-timers on ClayArt know, La Condition
Potiere is very central to my thinking...and has been for 60 years.
1. Art In The Schools. Mentioned several times. What's that about? Our
schools have have huge drop-out rates, huge drug problems,rate low on
international achievements tests...and some worry about the "disappearance"
of Art in the Schools?
Yes, it is great if kid an art teacher knows a Monet from a Manet, and can
teach children the language of art...It used to be "shop" classes were
required and children learned that they could use their hands to "do" usefu=
l
stuff. No one called it "art".
However,. While we wintered in Charleston SC I "hung out" at the Studio
the Gibbes Museum then ran...Great good place. I would go over to the
Museum proper for one thing or another, and see huge yellow school buses
arrive carrying school children. One day while I was looking at an
exhibit, and admiring a sculpture of great beauty, energy, and charm a
crocodile of children went by. The teachers were hurrying them along wit=
h
cries like: "Hurry up there. We don't have all day. Come along, Betsy..."
The sculpture I was staring at was called "Moses" and was a portrait of
Harriet Tubman. It was of a silky golden wood..I think satin wood...And
showed Tubman as a proud young woman. She was wearing her well-known
bandana, but it was at a somewhat jaunty angle, much like the coronets of
flowers young girls are portrayed in in 19th century portraits.
As most, if not all , of the children getting the benefit of "Art in the
Schools" were African American. I was as thunderstruck as enraged....
2.As to the OB/GYN man who writes mysteries. You make my point while
questioning it. That MD could publish his books on his own. But he
doesn't. And the publisher who does publish his work invests his own money
in the book, and does not undersell other publishers. Too many people who
do not need to sell their pots ,happily undersell the pros., the galleries=
.
3.I too Remember Rhinebeck. Back then most potters were--oh, no, she said
it!--potters. When one said one was a potter people asked "SAC? Alfred?
Ohio State? Cranbrook?" "Potters took pride in their calling. They might
not necessarily mix their own clay bodies,and glazes, but they knew how. N=
o
potter was arithmetically challenged!
4.The Wal-Mart Comparison Does Not Apply! In fact I am drafting a letter t=
o
several stores that used to sell made in USA quality products and now at
same "pretentious" prices sell imported goods. When I go to WalMart (where =
I
am not ashamed to be seen!) or LaDiDa Bowtick (where I AM embarrassed) the
goods are identical...all from China or thereabouts. The problem is NOT
with WalMart but with the LaDiDa Bowtick that once backed its high prices
with Made in USA goods!
5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, upping of quality, a
demand BY US of higher standards. I am hoping
for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters with
real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, PBS,
decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good word by
those who do teach the recreational courses.
6. "We" allow our craft to be debased by hundreds of whanabees, of
inexperienced and arrogant people who saturate the market with bad pots.
And as said earlier: those people are like those who breed a registered
bitch once a year to pay vet bills, sell the puppies for a song,and kneecap
serious professional breeders.
7. Someone wrote: " Most people look at your mug and don't realize the tim=
e
and effort that went into it." Sorry. Can't resist.Laughing too hard. When
people look at my mug they generally think "Oh my, oh my! Perhaps some
anti-wrinkle cream and botox would help!" No time, no effort, no results!!
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
Doug Trott on sat 10 jul 10
Interesting thoughts, John. Does it make more sense to judge the work or
the maker?
I remember when I was at the Northern Clay Center, I would see some
wonderful work from people who probably bought pre-mixed clay, used NCC's
glazes, and handed the stuff off to the studio tech to be fired. As potter=
s
they perhaps would not be ranked very highly because of their gaps in
knowledge, but if one has only the work to evaluate, without knowing the
process behind it, who would know? Who would say it's worth less that the
similar item made by an experienced and well-known potter?
Part of what earns a few makers the big money is simply the celebrity
factor. Not that their work isn't good, but it seems that some achieve a
level of celebrity that makes people want to purchase their work, with
little regard to the specific item or its pricetag. One purchases an
investment, bragging rights, or perhaps just a connection to a celebrity.
And this is all an extension to the relationships we know we must foster
with our customers, many of whom want to feel a connection, and know the
maker of the mug they use. We try to become "local" celebrities.
We also emphasize the "hand-made" aspect of our work, which is what is most
important to some purchasers. So important, in fact, that some have little
interest in evaluating the quality of a piece - in fact, something a little
amateurish could seem "extra" hand-made!
But we could do this. Organic certification started the same way. But I
suggest we certify the makers, and not the work, and have these
certifications in multiple areas - making clay, making glazes, perhaps
various firing methods, and then (hardest of all) achieving certain
standards in various kinds of work. The potter can then advertise that
they've achieved "certification" in whatever areas. But the market can
still decide what the work is worth. And the maker could change his or her
work, without worrying about losing certification.
I suspect we can only certify with respect to "craft" and process, and not
to "art." Organic standards might tell you how to grow your carrots, but
they stop short of saying how they must taste.
Just some thoughts.
Doug
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:52 PM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
>
> We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an
> oxymoron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; therefor=
e
> we probably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, whatever our
> feeling about standards, the fact is we have none! Furthermore bringing u=
p
> the subject of standards is the surest way to get torn limb from limb by
> this group of wannabe artists who resent even a hint of having to be judg=
ed
> on the quality of their work by their peers or, heaven forbid, some
> "organization". That has happened several times over the many years I hav=
e
> been a member of Clayart. Only Lili has the courage to initiate a discuss=
ion
> of this type.
>
> Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and many
> others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low quali=
ty
> work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in those
> occupations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and requirement=
s
> to meet before they are allowed to sell their services. We have none. Unt=
il
> we do, this problem will exist and we have no right to complain about it.
>
> The craft guilds used to handle this problem. You didn't achieve journeym=
an
> or master status--nor did you sell your services-- without your peers
> agreeing you and your work were up to standard. I think when we decided w=
e
> wanted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we started down a lo=
ng
> slippery slope. We must find a way to assure that craftsmanship is the
> foundation and without it our "art" is worthless....
>
Larry Kruzan on sat 10 jul 10
No Rebuttal on my part John - I'd welcome that sort of organization and the
weeding that would go along with it.=3D20
Many people mistakenly think that a MFA or MA is about mastering art and
don=3D92t realize that today these programs provide more of a teaching degr=
ee.
Before every MFA/MA on Clayart get mad at me, please consider that I am
referring to the limited number of programs I have checked out. They ALL
stressed how the candidate would be prepared to teach at university level
and their success at placement in such positions. None had even mentioned
prep to be a working studio artist.=3D20
I wish there was a certification program in this area like one you are
recognized by. It would certainly help to separate the tares from the wheat=
.
Perhaps it would help those of us who are trying to make a living at this t=
o
elevate our status (and out prices) to open doors into galleries and shows.
We have a regional art fair in a nearby city that hosts around 180 artists
each year. I am told that they receive 500+ entries each year, most of whic=
h
should never apply to such a show. They also tell me that the hardest job
they have is their jury process. If they were able to limit their
applications to artists who were a juried member of such a group I'm sure i=
t
would help in them to have superior artists at their show.
Every year I see one or two potters who got into the fair that should not b=
e
there but as we all know, judging from a photo does not tell all. Plus, if
you have 100 potters to look at for 20 slots - just how much time does a
judge have to make a decision.
Perhaps the potters council could do this, I'm sure it would be a horrendou=
s
job and you would make somebody unhappy. That just might be the reason they
would not do the job. Can't say I'd blame them.
Can't believe I've stuck my neck out this far but this is a very real issue
faceing all us full timers.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart =3D5Bmailto:Clayart=3D40LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=3D5D On Behalf Of Jo=
hn
Hesselberth
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:52 PM
To: Clayart=3D40LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Pricing: Glad we are talking
> 5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, upping of quality, a
> demand BY US of higher standards. I am hoping
> for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters with
> real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, PBS,
> decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good word
by
> those who do teach the recreational courses.
>=3D20
Lili, and others who have contributed to this thread. I can resist no
longer. I will probably be skewered, but such is life.
We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an
oxymoron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; therefore
we probably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, whatever our
feeling about standards, the fact is we have none=3D21 Furthermore bringing=
up
the subject of standards is the surest way to get torn limb from limb by
this group of wannabe artists who resent even a hint of having to be judged
on the quality of their work by their peers or, heaven forbid, some
=3D22organization=3D22. That has happened several times over the many years=
I =3D
have
been a member of Clayart. Only Lili has the courage to initiate a discussio=
n
of this type.
Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and many
others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low quality
work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in those
occupations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and requirements
to meet before they are allowed to sell their services. We have none. Until
we do, this problem will exist and we have no right to complain about it.
The craft guilds used to handle this problem. You didn't achieve journeyman
or master status--nor did you sell your services-- without your peers
agreeing you and your work were up to standard. I think when we decided we
wanted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we started down a long
slippery slope. We must find a way to assure that craftsmanship is the
foundation and without it our =3D22art=3D22 is worthless.
A second point I would make is that none of us have the right to make a
living from clay. In all occupations, only the best can make it. Wannabe
doctors flunk out of school, wannabe lawyers fail to pass the bar exam.
Wannabe professional engineers fail to graduate or pass the professional
engineering exam. And on and on. And so it is with wannabe professional
potters. Some can't make it because they don't possess the total required
skill set or don't have the drive and dedication required to be successful.
Such is life. Our challenge is perhaps more difficult in some respects in
that working with clay is fun and lots more people than our society can or
will support want to be potters. In addition we have a low entry barrier. I=
t
doesn't take much to take a course at a community center, buy a kiln and
wheel, and set ourselves up to sell pottery. The issue of making pots being
fun is the same problem wannabe professional athletes have. But, in
addition, we have no standards to weed out the clearly incapable. Athletes
are under a microscope every time they take the field from junior high on.
The weeding out process is ruthless. We have none of that.
So from my viewpoint, the process starts with beginning to set standards.
Until we do so we will be having the same discussion many years from now.
The Potter's Council is the only organization that can address this on a
national level, but it doesn't seem inclined to do so. A few craft guilds
are addressing it with limited success on a local or regional level--the
Southern Highland Craft Guild, Piedmont Craftsmen, Ohio Designer Craftsmen,
and, my own guild, the Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen are some that come t=
o
mind in the eastern half of the country. How many of us have joined one of
those organizations and submitted our work to their jurying process? I have
and found it to be a very useful experience when I was rejected the first
time around. I got specific feedback and worked for another 6 or more month=
s
before I tried again and was accepted. Some of our members have had to come
back 3 or 4 times before having their work accepted. Some never get
accepted. Others get mad or frustrated with the first rejection and decide
the organization =3D22doesn't understand me and my work=3D22 and never come=
=3D
back.
Check out our web site at www.pacrafts.org to get a sense of the scope and
quality of our programs.
Well, that's my 2=3DA2 worth. Rebuttals are welcome.
Regards,
John
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15400)
http://www.pctools.com/
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
John Hesselberth on sat 10 jul 10
> 5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, upping of quality, =3D
a
> demand BY US of higher standards. I am hoping
> for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters =3D
with
> real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, =3D
PBS,
> decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good =3D
word by
> those who do teach the recreational courses.
>=3D20
Lili, and others who have contributed to this thread. I can resist no =3D
longer. I will probably be skewered, but such is life.
We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an =3D
oxymoron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; =3D
therefore we probably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, =3D
whatever our feeling about standards, the fact is we have none! =3D
Furthermore bringing up the subject of standards is the surest way to =3D
get torn limb from limb by this group of wannabe artists who resent even =
=3D
a hint of having to be judged on the quality of their work by their =3D
peers or, heaven forbid, some "organization". That has happened several =3D
times over the many years I have been a member of Clayart. Only Lili has =
=3D
the courage to initiate a discussion of this type.
Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and =3D
many others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low =
=3D
quality work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in =3D
those occupations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and =3D
requirements to meet before they are allowed to sell their services. We =3D
have none. Until we do, this problem will exist and we have no right to =3D
complain about it.
The craft guilds used to handle this problem. You didn't achieve =3D
journeyman or master status--nor did you sell your services-- without =3D
your peers agreeing you and your work were up to standard. I think when =3D
we decided we wanted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we =3D
started down a long slippery slope. We must find a way to assure that =3D
craftsmanship is the foundation and without it our "art" is worthless.
A second point I would make is that none of us have the right to make a =3D
living from clay. In all occupations, only the best can make it. Wannabe =
=3D
doctors flunk out of school, wannabe lawyers fail to pass the bar exam. =3D
Wannabe professional engineers fail to graduate or pass the professional =
=3D
engineering exam. And on and on. And so it is with wannabe professional =3D
potters. Some can't make it because they don't possess the total =3D
required skill set or don't have the drive and dedication required to be =
=3D
successful. Such is life. Our challenge is perhaps more difficult in =3D
some respects in that working with clay is fun and lots more people than =
=3D
our society can or will support want to be potters. In addition we have =3D
a low entry barrier. It doesn't take much to take a course at a =3D
community center, buy a kiln and wheel, and set ourselves up to sell =3D
pottery. The issue of making pots being fun is the same problem wannabe =3D
professional athletes have. But, in addition, we have no standards to =3D
weed out the clearly incapable. Athletes are under a microscope every =3D
time they take the field from junior high on. The weeding out process is =
=3D
ruthless. We have none of that.
So from my viewpoint, the process starts with beginning to set =3D
standards. Until we do so we will be having the same discussion many =3D
years from now. The Potter's Council is the only organization that can =3D
address this on a national level, but it doesn't seem inclined to do so. =
=3D
A few craft guilds are addressing it with limited success on a local or =3D
regional level--the Southern Highland Craft Guild, Piedmont Craftsmen, =3D
Ohio Designer Craftsmen, and, my own guild, the Pennsylvania Guild of =3D
Craftsmen are some that come to mind in the eastern half of the country. =
=3D
How many of us have joined one of those organizations and submitted our =3D
work to their jurying process? I have and found it to be a very useful =3D
experience when I was rejected the first time around. I got specific =3D
feedback and worked for another 6 or more months before I tried again =3D
and was accepted. Some of our members have had to come back 3 or 4 times =
=3D
before having their work accepted. Some never get accepted. Others get =3D
mad or frustrated with the first rejection and decide the organization =3D
"doesn't understand me and my work" and never come back. Check out our =3D
web site at www.pacrafts.org to get a sense of the scope and quality of =3D
our programs.
Well, that's my 2=3DA2 worth. Rebuttals are welcome.
Regards,
John
James Freeman on sat 10 jul 10
Amen, Brother John.
The difference between making pots and all of the other professions
you mentioned is that in each of the others, there is a right answer
and a wrong answer. The patient lived, or he didn't. The bone
knitted, or it didn't. The building stood, or it didn't. The machine
functioned, or it didn't. The ball went through the hoop, or it
didn't. The shirt fit, or it didn't. You ran faster than the other
guy, or you didn't. The pins fell, or they didn't. You got it right,
or you got it wrong. Period.
With pottery, there is no right answer and there is no wrong answer.
Thus, there is nothing to test, nothing to serve as a standard,
nothing to license. "Lid that fits, spout that doesn't dribble" is
trivial.
I might say that thin walls demonstrate skill, while another says
thicker is more durable. I may say a matched set demonstrates skill,
while another says everyone's hand is different; give them a choice.
I might say tightness and precision demonstrates skill, while another
says it lacks "feeling". I may say a pot without a proper foot is a
slapdash shortcut, while another argues that a pot does not need a
foot.
We can't agree on standards, because there is no universal standard.
Whatever anyone does or aims for is the best of all possible goals,
and everything else is second rate. Who gets to decide?
There was a time in history when the Academy absolutely did dictate
what was art and what was not. They set standards. Most of our best
loved artists failed to meet those standards. Much of the work that
did meet those standards is formulaic and boring; "academic".
Just as some of the most interesting glazes lay beyond accepted limit
formulas, the most interesting work will be found outside of the
accepted standards.
I also have some thoughts on the idea of dabblers undercutting the
pros too, but they will have to wait (collective sigh of relief
breathed by clayart in unison!). Too tired after a long day of
breaking rocks in the hot sun.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 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/resources
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 8:52 PM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
>
> We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an oxym=
=3D
oron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; therefore we p=
=3D
robably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, whatever our feeling =
=3D
about standards, the fact is we have none! Furthermore bringing up the subj=
=3D
ect of standards is the surest way to get torn limb from limb by this group=
=3D
of wannabe artists who resent even a hint of having to be judged on the qu=
=3D
ality of their work by their peers or, heaven forbid, some "organization". =
=3D
That has happened several times over the many years I have been a member of=
=3D
Clayart. Only Lili has the courage to initiate a discussion of this type.
>
> Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and many=
=3D
others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low qualit=
=3D
y work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in those occup=
=3D
ations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and requirements to me=
=3D
et before they are allowed to sell their services. We have none. Until we d=
=3D
o, this problem will exist and we have no right to complain about it.
>
marci and rex on sat 10 jul 10
At 02:09 PM 7/10/2010, Lili Krakowski wrote:
>1. Art In The Schools. Mentioned several times. What's that about? Our
>schools have have huge drop-out rates, huge drug problems,rate low on
>international achievements tests...and some worry about the "disappearance=
"
>of Art in the Schools?
>Yes, it is great if kid an art teacher knows a Monet from a Manet, and ca=
n
>teach children the language of art...It used to be "shop" classes were
>required and children learned that they could use their hands to "do" usef=
ul
>stuff. No one called it "art".
********** Hi Lili,
Maybe the disappearance of art in schools has something to do
with the huge dropout-rates, drug problems etc.. Maybe kids need some
kind of creative outlet . I know that music and art help when
learning other skills such as math ... and its interesting that many
of the kids that are having a tough time in school turn to things
like dance and rapping outside of school. I dont recall shop classes
ever being required ( I was in the " headed to college' group and as
such , we were nt even allowed to take typing because it was only for
the secretarial students ) .. but I agree that its a shame they are
dropping those too . There are a lot of kids out there who do best
working with their hands and denying them the training robs them AND
us . We are losing skilled craftsmen : carpenters, mechanics, etc.
You also said:
>However,. While we wintered in Charleston SC I "hung out" at the Studio
>the Gibbes Museum then ran...Great good place. I would go over to the
>Museum proper for one thing or another, and see huge yellow school buses
>arrive carrying school children.
****************Dragging kids through a museum on a field trip is a
far cry from handing them clay or paint and letting them create.
you also said:
>2.As to the OB/GYN man who writes mysteries. You make my point while
>questioning it. That MD could publish his books on his own. But he
>doesn't. And the publisher who does publish his work invests his own mone=
y
>in the book, and does not undersell other publishers. Too many people wh=
o
>do not need to sell their pots ,happily undersell the pros., the gallerie=
s.
>6. "We" allow our craft to be debased by hundreds of whanabees, of
>inexperienced and arrogant people who saturate the market with bad pots.
>And as said earlier: those people are like those who breed a registered
>bitch once a year to pay vet bills, sell the puppies for a song,and kneeca=
p
>serious professional breeders.
*********** 5 and 6 are kinda the same for me.. While I agree that it
sucks when professionals undercut each other , the wannabees are a
fact of life.. EVERYBODY was a wanabee at some point or other .
I watch things like American Idol ( My secret shame LOL ) and " So
You Think You Can Dance" and cant believe the auditions where there
are so many clueless people out there auditioning who are truly
convinced that they are God's gift to the world. I wonder how they
can possibly NOT see themselves for what they really are... then I
think back to my early days learning music .. or heck, even
clay and I recall being fairly self-satisfied at those points in my
career ( looking back makes me shudder) ... and I think that its a
defense mechanism to keep us from quitting.
If we truly believed we sucked at various stages in our careers,
would we keep doing it? ( And yes, Im sure in a few years,Ill look
back at the stuff Im doing now and think " What was she THINKING???!!!!" )
Anyway , the point is that , when youre at different learning
stages, you dont realize youre making bad pots. So whats the
alternative? Not allowing anyone to sell a pot until that pot is
approved by the Pot Police?
And do you expect inexperienced potters to sell their pieces for
the same prices as those who have mastered their craft ?
THAT would be arrogance, ( I disagree that arrogant people undercut
prices.They are more likely to over-estimate the worth of their pieces) ..
I think we cant worry about all of this so much. I think the
energy is best put into making our own work as unique as possible and
creating our own market ...and then price wont matter. I know for
myself, if I REALLY want a mug , ILl pay $ 50 bucks for it . It make
take me ages to decide to spend that much but if its unique and Im
in love, ILl do it... On the other hand , if I hate it, I dont care
if its free. It'll still sit on the table..
Marci the chinapainter
www.PPIOforum.com
Robert Harris on sat 10 jul 10
Oh As an addendum - in times past apprentices and journeymen could
sell stuff, but it would have to be approved (often selaed or stamped)
by their Master first.
R
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 8:52 PM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
>> 5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, =3DA0upping of quality=
, =3D
a
>> demand BY US of higher standards. =3DA0I am hoping
>> for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters with
>> real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, =3DA0P=
BS=3D
,
>> decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good word=
=3D
by
>> those who do teach the recreational courses.
>>
>
> Lili, and others who have contributed to this thread. I can resist no lon=
=3D
ger. I will probably be skewered, but such is life.
>
> We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an oxym=
=3D
oron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; therefore we p=
=3D
robably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, whatever our feeling =
=3D
about standards, the fact is we have none! Furthermore bringing up the subj=
=3D
ect of standards is the surest way to get torn limb from limb by this group=
=3D
of wannabe artists who resent even a hint of having to be judged on the qu=
=3D
ality of their work by their peers or, heaven forbid, some "organization". =
=3D
That has happened several times over the many years I have been a member of=
=3D
Clayart. Only Lili has the courage to initiate a discussion of this type.
>
> Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and many=
=3D
others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low qualit=
=3D
y work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in those occup=
=3D
ations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and requirements to me=
=3D
et before they are allowed to sell their services. We have none. Until we d=
=3D
o, this problem will exist and we have no right to complain about it.
>
> The craft guilds used to handle this problem. You didn't achieve journeym=
=3D
an or master status--nor did you sell your services-- without your peers ag=
=3D
reeing you and your work were up to standard. I think when we decided we wa=
=3D
nted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we started down a long s=
=3D
lippery slope. We must find a way to assure that craftsmanship is the found=
=3D
ation and without it our "art" is worthless.
>
> A second point I would make is that none of us have the right to make a l=
=3D
iving from clay. In all occupations, only the best can make it. Wannabe doc=
=3D
tors flunk out of school, wannabe lawyers fail to pass the bar exam. Wannab=
=3D
e professional engineers fail to graduate or pass the professional engineer=
=3D
ing exam. And on and on. And so it is with wannabe professional potters. So=
=3D
me can't make it because they don't possess the total required skill set or=
=3D
don't have the drive and dedication required to be successful. Such is lif=
=3D
e. Our challenge is perhaps more difficult in some respects in that working=
=3D
with clay is fun and lots more people than our society can or will support=
=3D
want to be potters. In addition we have a low entry barrier. It doesn't ta=
=3D
ke much to take a course at a community center, buy a kiln and wheel, and s=
=3D
et ourselves up to sell pottery. The issue of making pots being fun is the =
=3D
same problem wannabe professional athletes have. But, in addition, we have =
=3D
no standards to weed out the clearly incapable. Athletes are under a micros=
=3D
cope every time they take the field from junior high on. The weeding out pr=
=3D
ocess is ruthless. We have none of that.
>
> So from my viewpoint, the process starts with beginning to set standards.=
=3D
Until we do so we will be having the same discussion many years from now. =
=3D
The Potter's Council is the only organization that can address this on a na=
=3D
tional level, but it doesn't seem inclined to do so. A few craft guilds are=
=3D
addressing it with limited success on a local or regional level--the South=
=3D
ern Highland Craft Guild, Piedmont Craftsmen, Ohio Designer Craftsmen, and,=
=3D
my own guild, the Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen are some that come to mi=
=3D
nd in the eastern half of the country. How many of us have joined one of th=
=3D
ose organizations and submitted our work to their jurying process? I have a=
=3D
nd found it to be a very useful experience when I was rejected the first ti=
=3D
me around. I got specific feedback and worked for another 6 or more months =
=3D
before I tried again and was accepted. Some of our members have had to come=
=3D
back 3 or 4 times before having their work accepted. Some never get accept=
=3D
ed. Others get mad or frustrated with the first rejection and decide the or=
=3D
ganization "doesn't understand me and my work" and never come back. Check o=
=3D
ut our web site at www.pacrafts.org to get a sense of the scope and quality=
=3D
of our programs.
>
> Well, that's my 2=3DA2 worth. Rebuttals are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
--=3D20
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harris on sat 10 jul 10
I completely agree with John. I would also say to Lili apropos "SAC? Alfred=
=3D
?
Ohio State? Cranbrook?", what about an old fashioned good old
apprenticeship. Don't need no stinkin college to be a good potter.
Again as John says, backed by a guild an apprentice could not start
his own pottery till he was determined to be a Master.
Incidentally I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology. I think it is the
closest thing you can get to a formal apprenticeship these days. I was
"apprenticed" under a member of faculty for 4 years, followed by a
serious examination of my work by a committee of "Masters", followed
by the awarding of a Ph.D. from an accredited University (ie guild) -
this is more or less qualifying as a journeyman. I then did a
postdoctoral fellowship at another university under the supervision of
a member of faculty, but doing far more independent research. In other
words my journeyman work.
Frankly I think it's a pretty good system and one I'd like to see
instituted by potters outside the university system.
Robert
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 8:52 PM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
>> 5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, =3DA0upping of quality=
, =3D
a
>> demand BY US of higher standards. =3DA0I am hoping
>> for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters with
>> real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, =3DA0P=
BS=3D
,
>> decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good word=
=3D
by
>> those who do teach the recreational courses.
>>
>
> Lili, and others who have contributed to this thread. I can resist no lon=
=3D
ger. I will probably be skewered, but such is life.
>
> We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an oxym=
=3D
oron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; therefore we p=
=3D
robably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, whatever our feeling =
=3D
about standards, the fact is we have none! Furthermore bringing up the subj=
=3D
ect of standards is the surest way to get torn limb from limb by this group=
=3D
of wannabe artists who resent even a hint of having to be judged on the qu=
=3D
ality of their work by their peers or, heaven forbid, some "organization". =
=3D
That has happened several times over the many years I have been a member of=
=3D
Clayart. Only Lili has the courage to initiate a discussion of this type.
>
> Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and many=
=3D
others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low qualit=
=3D
y work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in those occup=
=3D
ations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and requirements to me=
=3D
et before they are allowed to sell their services. We have none. Until we d=
=3D
o, this problem will exist and we have no right to complain about it.
>
> The craft guilds used to handle this problem. You didn't achieve journeym=
=3D
an or master status--nor did you sell your services-- without your peers ag=
=3D
reeing you and your work were up to standard. I think when we decided we wa=
=3D
nted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we started down a long s=
=3D
lippery slope. We must find a way to assure that craftsmanship is the found=
=3D
ation and without it our "art" is worthless.
>
> A second point I would make is that none of us have the right to make a l=
=3D
iving from clay. In all occupations, only the best can make it. Wannabe doc=
=3D
tors flunk out of school, wannabe lawyers fail to pass the bar exam. Wannab=
=3D
e professional engineers fail to graduate or pass the professional engineer=
=3D
ing exam. And on and on. And so it is with wannabe professional potters. So=
=3D
me can't make it because they don't possess the total required skill set or=
=3D
don't have the drive and dedication required to be successful. Such is lif=
=3D
e. Our challenge is perhaps more difficult in some respects in that working=
=3D
with clay is fun and lots more people than our society can or will support=
=3D
want to be potters. In addition we have a low entry barrier. It doesn't ta=
=3D
ke much to take a course at a community center, buy a kiln and wheel, and s=
=3D
et ourselves up to sell pottery. The issue of making pots being fun is the =
=3D
same problem wannabe professional athletes have. But, in addition, we have =
=3D
no standards to weed out the clearly incapable. Athletes are under a micros=
=3D
cope every time they take the field from junior high on. The weeding out pr=
=3D
ocess is ruthless. We have none of that.
>
> So from my viewpoint, the process starts with beginning to set standards.=
=3D
Until we do so we will be having the same discussion many years from now. =
=3D
The Potter's Council is the only organization that can address this on a na=
=3D
tional level, but it doesn't seem inclined to do so. A few craft guilds are=
=3D
addressing it with limited success on a local or regional level--the South=
=3D
ern Highland Craft Guild, Piedmont Craftsmen, Ohio Designer Craftsmen, and,=
=3D
my own guild, the Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen are some that come to mi=
=3D
nd in the eastern half of the country. How many of us have joined one of th=
=3D
ose organizations and submitted our work to their jurying process? I have a=
=3D
nd found it to be a very useful experience when I was rejected the first ti=
=3D
me around. I got specific feedback and worked for another 6 or more months =
=3D
before I tried again and was accepted. Some of our members have had to come=
=3D
back 3 or 4 times before having their work accepted. Some never get accept=
=3D
ed. Others get mad or frustrated with the first rejection and decide the or=
=3D
ganization "doesn't understand me and my work" and never come back. Check o=
=3D
ut our web site at www.pacrafts.org to get a sense of the scope and quality=
=3D
of our programs.
>
> Well, that's my 2=3DA2 worth. Rebuttals are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
--=3D20
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Selsor on sat 10 jul 10
Lili,
You are such a good writer. And you summarized this thread -right on the =
=3D
head.
Marcia
On Jul 10, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Lili Krakowski wrote:
> The discussion has been far ranging. Forgive me (or not) for =3D
recapitulating
> and commenting on some comments. Old-timers on ClayArt know, La =3D
Condition
> Potiere is very central to my thinking...and has been for 60 years.
>=3D20
> 1. Art In The Schools. Mentioned several times. What's that about? =3D
Our
> schools have have huge drop-out rates, huge drug problems,rate low on
> international achievements tests...and some worry about the =3D
"disappearance"
> of Art in the Schools?
>=3D20
> Yes, it is great if kid an art teacher knows a Monet from a Manet, =3D
and can
> teach children the language of art...It used to be "shop" classes =3D
were
> required and children learned that they could use their hands to "do" =3D
useful
> stuff. No one called it "art".
>=3D20
> However,. While we wintered in Charleston SC I "hung out" at the =3D
Studio
> the Gibbes Museum then ran...Great good place. I would go over to the
> Museum proper for one thing or another, and see huge yellow school =3D
buses
> arrive carrying school children. One day while I was looking at an
> exhibit, and admiring a sculpture of great beauty, energy, and charm =3D
a
> crocodile of children went by. The teachers were hurrying them =3D
along with
> cries like: "Hurry up there. We don't have all day. Come along, =3D
Betsy..."
> The sculpture I was staring at was called "Moses" and was a portrait =3D
of
> Harriet Tubman. It was of a silky golden wood..I think satin =3D
wood...And
> showed Tubman as a proud young woman. She was wearing her well-known
> bandana, but it was at a somewhat jaunty angle, much like the coronets =
=3D
of
> flowers young girls are portrayed in in 19th century portraits.
>=3D20
> As most, if not all , of the children getting the benefit of "Art in =3D
the
> Schools" were African American. I was as thunderstruck as enraged....
>=3D20
> 2.As to the OB/GYN man who writes mysteries. You make my point while
> questioning it. That MD could publish his books on his own. But he
> doesn't. And the publisher who does publish his work invests his own =3D
money
> in the book, and does not undersell other publishers. Too many =3D
people who
> do not need to sell their pots ,happily undersell the pros., the =3D
galleries.
>=3D20
> 3.I too Remember Rhinebeck. Back then most potters were--oh, no, she =3D
said
> it!--potters. When one said one was a potter people asked "SAC? =3D
Alfred?
> Ohio State? Cranbrook?" "Potters took pride in their calling. They =3D
might
> not necessarily mix their own clay bodies,and glazes, but they knew =3D
how. No
> potter was arithmetically challenged!
>=3D20
> 4.The Wal-Mart Comparison Does Not Apply! In fact I am drafting a =3D
letter to
> several stores that used to sell made in USA quality products and now =3D
at
> same "pretentious" prices sell imported goods. When I go to WalMart =3D
(where I
> am not ashamed to be seen!) or LaDiDa Bowtick (where I AM embarrassed) =
=3D
the
> goods are identical...all from China or thereabouts. The problem is =3D
NOT
> with WalMart but with the LaDiDa Bowtick that once backed its high =3D
prices
> with Made in USA goods!
>=3D20
> 5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, upping of quality, =3D
a
> demand BY US of higher standards. I am hoping
> for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters =3D
with
> real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, =3D
PBS,
> decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good =3D
word by
> those who do teach the recreational courses.
>=3D20
> 6. "We" allow our craft to be debased by hundreds of whanabees, of
> inexperienced and arrogant people who saturate the market with bad =3D
pots.
> And as said earlier: those people are like those who breed a =3D
registered
> bitch once a year to pay vet bills, sell the puppies for a song,and =3D
kneecap
> serious professional breeders.
>=3D20
> 7. Someone wrote: " Most people look at your mug and don't realize =3D
the time
> and effort that went into it." Sorry. Can't resist.Laughing too hard. =
=3D
When
> people look at my mug they generally think "Oh my, oh my! Perhaps =3D
some
> anti-wrinkle cream and botox would help!" No time, no effort, no =3D
results!!
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Lili Krakowski
> Be of good courage
>=3D20
Marcia Selsor
http://www.marciaselsor.com
William & Susan Schran User on sun 11 jul 10
On 7/10/10 8:52 PM, "John Hesselberth" wrote:
> The issue of making pots being fun is the same problem wannabe profession=
al
> athletes have. But, in addition, we have no standards to weed out the cle=
arly
> incapable. Athletes are under a microscope every time they take the field=
from
> junior high on. The weeding out process is ruthless. We have none of that=
.
I agree with much of what you have written about the "profession" of
pottery, that there doesn't seem to be a national standard.
On the other hand, without some type of national guild, as you point out,
standards must be set locally or regionally. You mentioned a few guilds.
Here in Virginia we have the Artisans Center of Virginia,
http://virginiaartisans.org/about.shtml
Thought I am not currently a member, I plan to become one when I finish
teaching and move to clay work full-time and I will submit to the Master
Virginia Artisan judging process.
I was fortunate enough to play a small role supporting the founding of this
organization's predecessor. As with any endeavor, it takes a few dedicated
people to champion the need and set to ball rolling. Whether this could
happen at a national level is questionable.
Perhaps regional or State artist guilds/organizations might begin
communicating and reaching some sort of understanding to recognize and
acknowledge each others membership as a starting point towards a larger
regional association.
Having said that, there is a division of quality through the jurying proces=
s
at the larger, well marketed shows - like the Strictly Functional National
show and several other shows/fairs of national status. I have been at both
ends of this - artist and juror. As an artist, I have received many
rejections peppered with some acceptances. As a juror, I have judged many
local/regional shows over the years, and have been honored to judge my firs=
t
national show this past spring.
At this point, the juried show/fair is our weeding out process at the
national level.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
Lis Allison on sun 11 jul 10
On July 10, 2010, Marcia wrote:
> .... So
> whats the alternative? Not allowing anyone to sell a pot until that pot
>is approved by the Pot Police?
> And do you expect inexperienced potters to sell their pieces for
> the same prices as those who have mastered their craft ?
That, Lili, is why I so bluntly asked if you had any suggestions. In my
area, both those ideas have been heavily promoted by people who, in my
opinion, ought to know better.
While the concerns about newbies or hobbyists undercutting the pros and
such are certainly valid, I think there is such a huge market for good
pots that people buying el-cheapos aren't really that much of a problem.
Just because someone pays $6 for a bad mug doesn't mean nobody will pay
$25 for your good one.
Potters making $6 mugs either don't keep it up for very long and/or never
produce very many.
It would be good if there were a way to make it easier for new potters to
see what they should be charging for things. Heck, old potters could use
that too!
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
website: www.pine-ridge.ca
Pottery blog: www.studio-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Garden blog: www.garden-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Fabienne McMillan on sun 11 jul 10
or stolen by and possibly turned down by the fear of being surpassed.
Fabienne
"We never touch people so lightly that we do not leave a trace." ~
Peggy Tabor Millin
On Jul 10, 2010, at 9:29 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Oh As an addendum - in times past apprentices and journeymen could
> sell stuff, but it would have to be approved (often selaed or stamped)
> by their Master first.
>
> R
Dana & Chris Trabka on sun 11 jul 10
John,
In the winter I am a ski instructor at a local ski area. I am and have been
a member of PSIA (Professional Ski Instructors of America) for quite some
time. They have three "levels" of certification. The first level is of
course the easiest. It requires some demonstratable skills, some knowledge
about the sport, and some ability to teach a person the initial steps of
snow skiing. The second level is quite a bit more challenging. You have to
demonstrate that you are an accomplished skier, you have a sound knowledge
of the biomechanical aspects of skiing, and can observe some one skiing and
provide positive feed back to help them improve. The third level means that
you can ski any where under any circumstances without making any mistakes,
know all the biomechanical aspects of skiing, and can help anyone improve
(even if they have been skiing for 20 years). The exam for level 2 and 3 is
a three day test out on the hill where you demonstrate various turns, teach
to a group (the other people in your group) and provide feedback on their
skiing skills. I've known people who take an exam for a level 3 or more
times.
Additionally to retain your "certification", it is necessary to attend one
"educational event" every other year.
Perhaps in lieu of having a "pass/fail" set of standards, a sliding scale o=
f
expectations for potters would be better. The sliding scale allows you to
enter without a lot effort/knowledge; provides a forum to help you improve,
has specific criteria (which are documented, and for which examples are
provided) for each level. The nice part of this is that everyone can choose
what level they want to achieve. To move from one level to the next require=
s
a good bit of independent study and some mentoring from the "examiners".
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hesselberth"
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Pricing: Glad we are talking
> 5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, upping of quality, a
> demand BY US of higher standards. I am hoping
> for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters with
> real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, PBS,
> decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good word
> by
> those who do teach the recreational courses.
>
Lili, and others who have contributed to this thread. I can resist no
longer. I will probably be skewered, but such is life.
We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an
oxymoron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; therefore
we probably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, whatever our
feeling about standards, the fact is we have none! Furthermore bringing up
the subject of standards is the surest way to get torn limb from limb by
this group of wannabe artists who resent even a hint of having to be judged
on the quality of their work by their peers or, heaven forbid, some
"organization". That has happened several times over the many years I have
been a member of Clayart. Only Lili has the courage to initiate a discussio=
n
of this type.
Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and many
others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low quality
work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in those
occupations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and requirements
to meet before they are allowed to sell their services. We have none. Until
we do, this problem will exist and we have no right to complain about it.
The craft guilds used to handle this problem. You didn't achieve journeyman
or master status--nor did you sell your services-- without your peers
agreeing you and your work were up to standard. I think when we decided we
wanted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we started down a long
slippery slope. We must find a way to assure that craftsmanship is the
foundation and without it our "art" is worthless.
A second point I would make is that none of us have the right to make a
living from clay. In all occupations, only the best can make it. Wannabe
doctors flunk out of school, wannabe lawyers fail to pass the bar exam.
Wannabe professional engineers fail to graduate or pass the professional
engineering exam. And on and on. And so it is with wannabe professional
potters. Some can't make it because they don't possess the total required
skill set or don't have the drive and dedication required to be successful.
Such is life. Our challenge is perhaps more difficult in some respects in
that working with clay is fun and lots more people than our society can or
will support want to be potters. In addition we have a low entry barrier. I=
t
doesn't take much to take a course at a community center, buy a kiln and
wheel, and set ourselves up to sell pottery. The issue of making pots being
fun is the same problem wannabe professional athletes have. But, in
addition, we have no standards to weed out the clearly incapable. Athletes
are under a microscope every time they take the field from junior high on.
The weeding out process is ruthless. We have none of that.
So from my viewpoint, the process starts with beginning to set standards.
Until we do so we will be having the same discussion many years from now.
The Potter's Council is the only organization that can address this on a
national level, but it doesn't seem inclined to do so. A few craft guilds
are addressing it with limited success on a local or regional level--the
Southern Highland Craft Guild, Piedmont Craftsmen, Ohio Designer Craftsmen,
and, my own guild, the Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen are some that come t=
o
mind in the eastern half of the country. How many of us have joined one of
those organizations and submitted our work to their jurying process? I have
and found it to be a very useful experience when I was rejected the first
time around. I got specific feedback and worked for another 6 or more month=
s
before I tried again and was accepted. Some of our members have had to come
back 3 or 4 times before having their work accepted. Some never get
accepted. Others get mad or frustrated with the first rejection and decide
the organization "doesn't understand me and my work" and never come back.
Check out our web site at www.pacrafts.org to get a sense of the scope and
quality of our programs.
Well, that's my 2=A2 worth. Rebuttals are welcome.
Regards,
John
Fabienne McMillan on sun 11 jul 10
How can one standardize an art? Okay, maybe no cracks or holes...
what about Voulkos, who said "I've never seen a crack, I didn't like."
Imagine if he would have followed set standards; what a loss. How
about telling a painter he can only use pure colors? No shades of red
or yellow, just one red, one yellow, etc. Sounds ridiculous unless
you're Piet Mondrian? I can imagine rules like that stifling a break
through or a new idea, creativity. This sounds more like the art
inquisition than anything else to me.
I can see a show having rules/standards about entries; it's their
prerogative, their show. If I don't like the rules, I move on, but
this sounds like we're not only setting rules about how to make
pieces, but also about who can distribute them. Then what? Punish
those who won't conform by closing the door on them because they can't
afford to join or they choose to not submit themselves to some self-
anointed ruling body, or they just don't fit in like Voulkos? I see
more and more of those so called associations in every field
sprouting; just make rules and adopt a creative official looking name,
charge for membership then have more classes (for a fee, of course) to
stay with the program. Why didn't I think of that? This will open
the door for more abuse and elitism; it always gets political and that
says it all. Who polices the police?
"[...] conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." ~
John F. Kennedy
Fabienne
"We never touch people so lightly that we do not leave a trace." ~
Peggy Tabor Millin
Bonnie Staffel on sun 11 jul 10
Hi John,
When I first began my serious entry into the clay world, it was the norm =
=3D
to
enter local, regional and national museum competitions such as the =3D
Everson,
Wichita, Young American Potters, etc. To me this was my entry into being
accepted as a serious potter. My work was chosen for various awards. I =3D
don't
see this sort of thing happening now. Or it doesn't seem to be the goal =3D
of
serious potters to go that route. After becoming established, I then =3D
started
the art fair route as well as having my work in galleries. Seems like =3D
this
method could be a requisite for standards for professionalism. Being
accepted in an art fair doesn't sound to me to be such a criteria. Seems
like there are a lot of politics in art fair jurying too. However, there =
=3D
are
some that have the standards that makes acceptance a step up in one's
career.=3D20
Here in my town, we have two fairs. There is the very old juried art =3D
fair
started in the 60s with quite high standards and is not connected to the
city but is formed to establish grants for area artists from the entry =3D
fees.
Since the rejected artists still wanted to exhibit, the local Chamber =3D
set up
a "craft" fair for these artists/hobbyists the month earlier. Of course =3D
the
Chamber saw the crowds of people who came to our town and how it helped =3D
our
economy for both fairs. It seems that about every town in the country =3D
now
have a fair. It is good for business as well as good for the artists.
Whachagonndo?
Bonnie
http://webpages.charter.net/bstaffel/
http://vasefinder.com/bstaffelgallery1.html
DVD=3DA0 Throwing with Coils and Slabs
DVD=3DA0 Introduction to Wheel Work
Charter Member Potters Council
Snail Scott on sun 11 jul 10
On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:13 PM, Larry Kruzan wrote:
> Many people mistakenly think that a MFA or MA is about mastering art =3D2=
0=3D
> and
> don=3D92t realize that today these programs provide more of a teaching =
=3D20=3D
> degree.
> Before every MFA/MA on Clayart get mad at me, please consider that I =3D2=
0=3D
> am
> referring to the limited number of programs I have checked out. They =3D2=
0=3D
> ALL
> stressed how the candidate would be prepared to teach at university =3D20=
=3D
> level
> and their success at placement in such positions. None had even =3D20
> mentioned
> prep to be a working studio artist...
It is good to know what a program's intentions
are for its students, as well as for prospective
students to know their expectations for the school.
A bad fit in this is a waste of everyone's efforts.
Every MFA program I know of defines itself
as either oriented primarily toward training
studio artists, or toward training academic
artists/teachers. Most do a little of both, but
there is most often a chosen specialization in
this. You may have only hit the academically-
oriented programs, as many are indeed aimed
at training independent studio artists. The
academic approach may dominate, if only
because you can be an artist with no college
degree at all, but you cannot teach college (or
at some high schools) without one. Even if a
student has no intention of teaching college
as a career path, the credential helps make the
cost of grad education a bit more justifiable.
The MFA, in any flavor, essentially represents a
mastery (or at least development and refinement)
of the artist's own work. The graduate is not
expected to master every aspect of their chosen
medium, but rather to gain some mastery over
their own work, both technical and otherwise, as
is required by the work itself.
Some people, especially in ceramics, want an
MFA program to be a sort of full-on technical
training school. It is not. A student is expected to
have a direction and to work toward that, gaining
what skills are needed. In fact, though it seems
counter-intuitive, teaching-oriented programs
probably come closest to that sort of technical
all-around development. Most studio artists work
in just a few chosen ways, while teachers may
need to teach many more methods than they
actually use in their own work.
An MFA, even from a teaching-oriented program, is
very, very far from being a degree in art education.
Such academic-oriented programs put a heavy
emphasis (nearly all of it, in fact) on the student's
own studio work and development as an artist.
Without that, no prospective instructor would have
any chance of getting a decent teaching position,
or of teaching how to be an artist if they did.
-Snail
Lis Allison on sun 11 jul 10
On July 10, 2010, you wrote:
> Interesting thoughts, John. Does it make more sense to judge the work
> or the maker?
>
> I remember when I was at the Northern Clay Center, I would see some
> wonderful work from people who probably bought pre-mixed clay, used
> NCC's glazes, and handed the stuff off to the studio tech to be fired.
> As potters they perhaps would not be ranked very highly because of
> their gaps in knowledge, but if one has only the work to evaluate,
> without knowing the process behind it, who would know? Who would say
> it's worth less that the similar item made by an experienced and
> well-known potter?
>
> Part of what earns a few makers the big money is simply the celebrity
> factor. Not that their work isn't good, but it seems that some achieve
> a level of celebrity that makes people want to purchase their work,
> with little regard to the specific item or its pricetag. One
> purchases an investment, bragging rights, or perhaps just a connection
> to a celebrity.
>
> And this is all an extension to the relationships we know we must
> foster with our customers, many of whom want to feel a connection, and
> know the maker of the mug they use. We try to become "local"
> celebrities.
>
> We also emphasize the "hand-made" aspect of our work, which is what is
> most important to some purchasers. So important, in fact, that some
> have little interest in evaluating the quality of a piece - in fact,
> something a little amateurish could seem "extra" hand-made!
>
> But we could do this. Organic certification started the same way. But
> I suggest we certify the makers, and not the work, and have these
> certifications in multiple areas - making clay, making glazes, perhaps
> various firing methods, and then (hardest of all) achieving certain
> standards in various kinds of work. The potter can then advertise
> that they've achieved "certification" in whatever areas. But the
> market can still decide what the work is worth. And the maker could
> change his or her work, without worrying about losing certification.
>
> I suspect we can only certify with respect to "craft" and process, and
> not to "art." Organic standards might tell you how to grow your
> carrots, but they stop short of saying how they must taste.
>
> Just some thoughts.
Excellent ones! Now set this up so a working potter could get certified
without taking 3 years off (hard not to eat for that long) and I'll sign
on!
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
website: www.pine-ridge.ca
Pottery blog: www.studio-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Garden blog: www.garden-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Snail Scott on sun 11 jul 10
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hesselberth Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:52 PM
> ...whatever our
> feeling about standards, the fact is we have none! ...I think when
> we decided we
> wanted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we started down
> a long
> slippery slope. We must find a way to assure that craftsmanship is the
> foundation and without it our "art" is worthless...
This is too long, so I've split it in two. part 1:
I sympathize with John's desire for skill and
mastery of craft to be recognized. However, i
doubt that it would result in the the desired
outcome, i.e. more people paying good
money for well-crafted pots. Or ceramic art
in any form - i don't exempt sculpture.
Even if the general public could recognize
excellent craftsmanship on sight, would that
really be enough? Mass-produced good have,
in many cases, improved their quality to the point
where it is difficult to say that they are actually
inferior in workmanship, Only the lack of an
identifiable workman sets them apart.
As craftspeople, we value, even revere, excellent
craftsmanship, but it cannot be an end in itself.
Unless that craftsmanship manifests itself in a
way that affects the end user's appreciation of
the object, then it benefits only the maker.
We respect those who make their own clay and
compose their own glaze formulas, and honor
them above those who use pre-made materials.
We give credit to a skilled kiln operator, and to
the people who has mastered some particularly
difficult skill in order to produce their work. But,
these are OUR standards. Why should the customer
care?
A few will - the real aficionados who want to know
all about the process and participate vicariously
in the making - but most will not, and why should
they? What is your process to them?
As for quality control, well, that applies to factory-
made goods as well. If I buy a manufactured chair,
I consider the durability of the upholstery and its
likelihood of being a pet-hair magnet. Will it clean
easily? Is the frame sturdy and assembled using
strong joints, or just tacked and covered? Are the
legs braced diagonally under the seat, or are they
just bolted in place without reinforcement?
This is how I shop for a chair. Other people also
shop this way, regardless of the product sought.
To do so effectively requires knowledge of what
to look for, and how to evaluate what you see.
Some people will seek out this knowledge, look
up info on how to evaluate a used car, for instance.
Others stick with what is visible and use their basic
knowledge to go from there. They are probably the
norm. If it looks really 'wrong' they'll sheer off, but
how wrong does it have to look?
These are the same people who will demand a
discount if a prospective house has chintzy carpet.
But how many will take that money to put in better
quality carpet, and how many will simply consider
the fairness of the price, and live with cheap carpet
satisfied they weren't ripped off? How many will
demand quality at any price? If the carpet wasn't
as important to them as the floor plan or location,
it may not be worth more to them. Are your pots
actually more desirable, or just higher quality?
And what if the buyer just doesn't care about it?
Homebuilders know this. Granite countertops will
sell more houses than 30-year shingles and R-50
insulation will. There's a limit to what higher quality
can sell for, for all but a few buyers. and even for them,
quality is not the only factor if they just don't like it.
There are many people who would notice and reject
a shirt with frayed, irregular stitching. But what if that
frayed shirt is the latest fashion, as such things are
at the moment. Suddenly, the appearance of 'bad
craftsmanship' has been transformed into a desirable
look. Anybody who makes crackled raku or seeks
crawled shino glazes is participating this multi-valent
standard of quality. Even things that might seem like
'always bad' flaws to us may not seem that way to a
buyer. Why should a nasty s-crack in the underside
of a pot be unacceptable to a buyer who may think
it's interesting and unusual? It doesn't violate _their_
standards.
-Snail
James Freeman on sun 11 jul 10
John...
Yes, I quite agree. I was obviously not clear in my writing. I used
"lid that fits, spout that doesn't dribble" as a metaphor for all of
those very basic things you mentioned. I used "trivial" in the sense
of obvious or dull. I meant that they were basic and uninteresting.
Even if you could get your hypothetical guild members to agree to
accept pottery police on these issues, there is a whole world of
factors beyond these small things upon which potters will never agree,
upon which there are no right answers nor wrong answers.
Also, I have purchased and discarded many commercially made items,
even pottery, which fail these basic tests. I wrote some time ago
about a set of very expensive German "must-have" yuppie mugs received
as a gift that were porous and got untouchably hot in the microwave.
I have a fine china gravy boat from a well known company which
dribbles as much gravy as it pours, I have measuring cups that
dribble. I have a portable tablesaw from a major manufacturer that
burned itself up in less than a week. I can go on, but the point has
been made.
All fields are full of people who pretend to know what they are doing,
but in fact do not. This problem is not unique to pottery.
Back to work. Be well.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 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/resources
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:54 PM, John Hesselberth
wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:30 PM, James Freeman wrote:
>
>> With pottery, there is no right answer and there is no wrong answer.
>> Thus, there is nothing to test, nothing to serve as a standard,
>> nothing to license. =3DA0"Lid that fits, spout that doesn't dribble" is
>> trivial.
>
> Hi James,
>
> I think there are some wrong answers for the functional potter. How about=
=3D
a colander that splits it half when the mix of spaghetti and boiling water=
=3D
is poured into it? Or the coffee mug handle that gets too hot to touch whe=
=3D
n water or coffee in it is heated in a microwave? Or the handle that breaks=
=3D
off a pitcher when it is full? Or the oil lamp that leaks oil onto your fi=
=3D
ne furniture? There are people making and selling oil lamps who have no bus=
=3D
iness doing so. Even the unfinished pot bottom that scratches the buyer's f=
=3D
urniture. And then there is the glaze that leaches so badly that the pot lo=
=3D
ses color after a couple months of use. I have seen teapots that 'dribble' =
=3D
so badly that half the stream goes where it is supposed to and the other ha=
=3D
lf goes down the side of the pot. That is not trivial--I suppose one could =
=3D
say it takes real talent to make a spout that is that bad. But the person w=
=3D
ith burning hot water in their lap doesn't think it is funny. There are wro=
=3D
ng answers but you do have to be careful in establishing standards so that =
=3D
they are meaningful. It is not an easy task.
>
John Hesselberth on sun 11 jul 10
On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:30 PM, James Freeman wrote:
> With pottery, there is no right answer and there is no wrong answer.
> Thus, there is nothing to test, nothing to serve as a standard,
> nothing to license. "Lid that fits, spout that doesn't dribble" is
> trivial.
Hi James,
I think there are some wrong answers for the functional potter. How =3D
about a colander that splits it half when the mix of spaghetti and =3D
boiling water is poured into it? Or the coffee mug handle that gets too =3D
hot to touch when water or coffee in it is heated in a microwave? Or the =
=3D
handle that breaks off a pitcher when it is full? Or the oil lamp that =3D
leaks oil onto your fine furniture? There are people making and selling =3D
oil lamps who have no business doing so. Even the unfinished pot bottom =3D
that scratches the buyer's furniture. And then there is the glaze that =3D
leaches so badly that the pot loses color after a couple months of use. =3D
I have seen teapots that 'dribble' so badly that half the stream goes =3D
where it is supposed to and the other half goes down the side of the =3D
pot. That is not trivial--I suppose one could say it takes real talent =3D
to make a spout that is that bad. But the person with burning hot water =3D
in their lap doesn't think it is funny. There are wrong answers but you =3D
do have to be careful in establishing standards so that they are =3D
meaningful. It is not an easy task.
And I really don't worry about the people who make this stuff =3D
underselling others with low prices. What I worry about is the damage =3D
they do to the reputation of all of us. A person who buys one of the =3D
above examples is soon thinking handmade stands for crap instead of =3D
handmade stands for quality. They quickly will decide to stick with =3D
quality functional pottery from an established manufacturer that they =3D
get at WalMart or Bed, Bath, and Beyond rather than the handmade junk =3D
like they bought at a craft fair. These folks drag all of us down with =3D
them. And I have seen every one of the examples I cite above and more. I =
=3D
am embarrassed to say I made a few of them myself when I was a beginning =
=3D
potter. I had no business selling some of my early pots.
Regards,
John
Lee Love on mon 12 jul 10
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Robert Harris wr=
=3D
ote:
> Oh As an addendum - in times past apprentices and journeymen could
> sell stuff, but it would have to be approved (often selaed or stamped)
> by their Master first.
This system still works in Japan, though traditional apprenticeships
are quickly disappearing. You can get a certificate from the
prefecture that authorizes you to teach too.
Back to pricing: There is no formula. Much depends upon your
work, who your target customers is, and where you live. But you
don't need to be stuck in thinking you cannot sell high end if you
sell low end and vice versa. Fore example, yesterday at St. Kate's
Art Fair, I sold $150.00 boxed tea bowls, $175.00 platters, $15.00
small plates and $10.00 guinomi. I tried to buy a $24.00 vase from
Mike Norman for Jean. It was a lady with a flower coming out of the
top of her head. He tried to give it to me, but I suggested a trade,
so he got a couple guinomi he was admiring in exchange. Mike also
sells low end pieces and more elaborate high end.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Larry Kruzan on mon 12 jul 10
Hi Steve, mighty inventor/maker of that modern wonder - The Steve Tool,
Money making??? That would exempt a lot of us - including me for the past =
=3D
year or so. LOL
The idea about a basic skills test is good for a starting level. It is =3D
much the same method I use the teach beginning wheel classes. Students =3D
start out only working with one pound lumps of clay, then we spend the =3D
next 5 sessions, three hours at a time, on ONE of five basic forms, dog =3D
food dish, cylinder - raise the dog food dish, bowl - belly out the dog =3D
food dish, plate - keep pulling out the dog food dish, lastly they learn =
=3D
to make a bottle neck. Then we jump the clay limit to three poundage of =3D
clay - they are always surprised that they have to learn new reflexes as =
=3D
we quickly review the basic forms. Structure, it matters.
I should add that along the way I interject a lot of demonstration and =3D
one-on-one time with my hands on theirs, teaching, not just handing out =3D
the clay ans sitting back, drinking coffee, like a few of my instructors =
=3D
did.
After the basic boot camp I allow the experimenting and play that puts the =
=3D
muscle memory they have gained to work. In short, I make sure they get =3D
their money's worth and actually learn how to throw.
But that=3DE2=3D80=3D99s just me.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: steve graber =3D5Bmailto:slgraber=3D40yahoo.com=3D5D=3D20
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:22 AM
To: Larry Kruzan; Clayart=3D40LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Pricing: Glad we are talking
you know, along the lines of certification, in my day job there's a =3D
Solidworks=3D20
Professional Certification exam anyone can take and assuming you pass you =
=3D
gain=3D20
some recognition of being able to use their CAD software very well. i =3D
never=3D20
bothered with it but the ability to say =3D22here - i have this cert=3D22 i=
s =3D
handy for=3D20
some people. a formal pottery group could compile an exam of some sort =3D
to=3D20
enable people to get their cert. hell, it could even be a money making =3D
test=3D21 =3D20
http://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/797_ENU_HTML.htm
i learned pottery thru the local city adult education program. one of the =
=3D
early=3D20
questions i had of the teacher was =3D22what should i learn first, second, =
=3D
so on?=3D22. =3D20
i was thinking i should perhaps learn a cylinder first, then a pure round=
=3D20
piece? then a square pieces? etc. some mastery of given shapes? i =3D
never did=3D20
get an answer but learned the t-pot is a good collection of skills. =3D20
i started taking up karate 5 years ago mainly to loose weight (65 pounds =
=3D
so=3D20
far=3D21) and the belt color system is a handy scheme for people to judge =
=3D
their=3D20
capabilites or learning progress. i guess as it could relate to pottery a =
=3D
black=3D20
belt knows clay and shapes and kilns and glazes to some level. in martial =
=3D
arts=3D20
a black belt is the end of the beginer stage..... and a 4th degree black =
=3D
belt=3D20
is considered a master. so a pottery belt system could be of value as =3D
well. =3D20
but the proof is in the cash isn't it? or the feeling you get yourself =3D
from=3D20
working the clay. if the teaching institutions demand a degree, then =3D
that's the=3D20
requirement. at an art show, customers don't care, they only see the =3D
pots. =3D20
Steve Graber, Graber's Pottery, Inc
Claremont, California USA
The Steve Tool - for awesome texture on pots=3D21=3D20
www.graberspottery.com steve=3D40graberspottery.com=3D20
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15400)
http://www.pctools.com/
=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
steve graber on mon 12 jul 10
you know, along the lines of certification, in my day job there's a Solidwo=
=3D
rks =3D0A=3DA0Professional Certification exam anyone can take and assuming =
you =3D
pass you gain =3D0Asome recognition of being able=3DA0to use their CAD soft=
ware=3D
=3DA0very well.=3DA0 i never =3D0Abothered with it but the=3DA0ability to s=
ay "here=3D
- i have this cert" is handy for =3D0Asome people.=3DA0 a formal pottery g=
roup=3D
could compile an exam of some sort to =3D0Aenable people to get their cert=
.=3D
=3DA0 hell, it could even be a money making test!=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3DA0=
=3D0A=3DA0http:/=3D
/www.solidworks.com/sw/support/797_ENU_HTML.htm=3D0A=3DA0=3D0A=3D0Ai learne=
d potter=3D
y thru the local city adult education program.=3DA0 one of the early =3D0Aq=
uest=3D
ions i had of the teacher was "what should i learn first, second, so on?".=
=3D
=3DA0 =3D0Ai was thinking i should perhaps learn a cylinder first, then a p=
ure =3D
round =3D0Apiece?=3DA0 then a square pieces?=3DA0 etc.=3DA0 some mastery of=
given s=3D
hapes?=3DA0 i never did =3D0Aget an answer but learned the t-pot is a good =
coll=3D
ection of skills.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3DA0=3D0A=3DA0=3D0Ai started taking up ka=
rate 5 years a=3D
go mainly to loose weight (65 pounds so =3D0Afar!) and the belt color syste=
m =3D
is a handy scheme for people to judge their =3D0Acapabilites or learning pr=
og=3D
ress.=3DA0 i guess as it could relate to pottery a black =3D0Abelt knows cl=
ay a=3D
nd shapes and kilns and glazes to some level.=3DA0 in martial arts =3D0Aa b=
lack=3D
belt is the end of the beginer stage.....=3DA0 and a 4th degree black belt=
=3D
=3D0Ais considered a master.=3DA0 so a pottery belt system could be of valu=
e as=3D
well.=3DA0 =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0Abut the proof is in the cash isn't it?=3DA0=
or the feel=3D
ing you get yourself from =3D0Aworking the clay.=3DA0 if the teaching insti=
tuti=3D
ons demand a degree, then that's the =3D0A=3D0Arequirement.=3DA0 at an art =
show, =3D
customers don't care, they only see the pots.=3DA0 =3D0A=3DA0=3D0A=3DA0=3D0=
ASteve Grabe=3D
r, Graber's Pottery, Inc=3D0AClaremont, California USA=3D0AThe Steve Tool -=
for=3D
awesome texture on pots! =3D0Awww.graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery.=
co=3D
m =3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOn Laguna Clay's website=3D0Ahttp://www.lagunaclay.com/blo=
gs/ =3D0A=3D
=3D0A=3D0A
Luke Nealey on mon 12 jul 10
Lili et al,
I guess why this discussion seems so compelling to me is that, at least in
my mind, it is flawed. The pricing problem you bring up is a demand proble=
m
( I am assuming you do not want to tell any one that they can't sell their
wares if they choose) that you want to solve with a supply solution.
Both the MD writer and the one litter a year puppies exist because they
produce a thing that people want to purchase. And, further more, there is
nothing to say that the book or puppies are necessarily less good because
they are not produced by "professionals". The background, education,
experience, expertise of the producers of these goods is not
necessarily important, especially when the product can be readily assessed
by the customer. There is also no morality to how these products are
priced. The purchaser determines their value and the seller is free to set
the price. If the customer cannot perceive any value from the
qualifications of the producers, it has no value.
This thread has made many valid points on the supply side. It seems to me
that shows with some filtering would attract more buyers because they would
know there is quality work, and over time perhaps educate people on what
makes a well made pot.
With James F now on the thread I am reminded of his post some time ago
describing the stages of throwing skill. I remember that because it was
both humbling and one of the things that I work on now is that
inside/outside shape thing. However, I have mused for years now that there
is no Olympics of throwing, no professional throwing league with big
contracts, all that matters is what is produced and can it be sold for
enough to make the endeavor worthwhile, if that is the objective of your
effort.
Luke Nealey
Rankin Co. MS
Lee Love on mon 12 jul 10
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Fabienne McMillan wrote:
> anything else. =3DA0Now, if someone shows me his/her pot and talks to me
> about the glazing, the firing, etc and they have accomplished what
> they set to do (with or without holes/cracks etc) then they have
> mastered their craft not the testing process.
This is how craft apprenticeship systems and trade apprenticeship
systems work. The test is completed craft objects.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Marcia Selsor on mon 12 jul 10
I agree with your preceding statement: I would imagine that before being =
=3D
an artist one would have to be a
craftsman in those terms.
Fabienne
Voulkos was a student of Frances Senska's in Bozeman. And before he =3D
started ripping forms apart as he delved into Abstract Expresionism,
he made some fine casseroles.
Marcia
On Jul 11, 2010, at 11:13 PM, Fabienne McMillan wrote:
> How can one standardize an art? Okay, maybe no cracks or holes...
> what about Voulkos, who said "I've never seen a crack, I didn't like."
> Imagine if he would have followed set standards; what a loss. How
> about telling a painter he can only use pure colors? No shades of red
> or yellow, just one red, one yellow, etc. Sounds ridiculous unless
> you're Piet Mondrian? I can imagine rules like that stifling a break
> through or a new idea, creativity. This sounds more like the art
> inquisition than anything else to me.
>=3D20
> I can see a show having rules/standards about entries; it's their
> prerogative, their show. If I don't like the rules, I move on, but
> this sounds like we're not only setting rules about how to make
> pieces, but also about who can distribute them. Then what? Punish
> those who won't conform by closing the door on them because they can't
> afford to join or they choose to not submit themselves to some self-
> anointed ruling body, or they just don't fit in like Voulkos? I see
> more and more of those so called associations in every field
> sprouting; just make rules and adopt a creative official looking name,
> charge for membership then have more classes (for a fee, of course) to
> stay with the program. Why didn't I think of that? This will open
> the door for more abuse and elitism; it always gets political and that
> says it all. Who polices the police?
>=3D20
> "[...] conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." ~
> John F. Kennedy
>=3D20
> Fabienne
>=3D20
> "We never touch people so lightly that we do not leave a trace." ~
> Peggy Tabor Millin
>=3D20
Marcia Selsor
http://www.marciaselsor.com
Alice DeLisle on mon 12 jul 10
from John Hesselberth:
=E2EURoe. . . So from my vi=3D
John, Lili, All,=3D0A=3D0Afrom John Hesselberth:=3D0A=3DE2=3D80=3D9C. . . S=
o from my vi=3D
ewpoint, the process starts with beginning to set standards. =3D0A. .=3DE2=
=3D80=3D
=3D9D=3D0A=3D0AJust to throw another perspective into the mix - setting sta=
ndards=3D
may be one =3D0Aapproach, but is it a double-edged sword? Standards might=
d=3D
iscourage hobbyists =3D0Afrom pursuing the craft/art. They might reduce th=
e =3D
number of people selling =3D0Atheir work and thus competing with professio=
na=3D
ls' sales. But then who would =3D0Abuy all of those books and CDs? Who wo=
ul=3D
d go to the workshops? I suspect that =3D0Abooks, CDs and workshops repres=
en=3D
t a significant part of the income for =3D0Aprofessionals who could not mak=
e =3D
ends meet otherwise. =3D0A=3D0A=3D0AHmmmm,=3D0A=3D0AAlice DeLisle=3D0A=3D0=
Awanderland@at=3D
t.net=3D0Ahttp://delisle.aftosawebhosting.com=3D0Ahttp://www.etsy.com/shop/=
Isla=3D
ndTextures
Larry Kruzan on mon 12 jul 10
Hi Snail,
Thanks for jumping in on this part of the discussion. I'm offering my own,
admittedly poor opinions here in and hoped to solicit responses from folks
like you.
A few years back MFA programs were intense 2 year sprints that were studio
orientated. Now more and more are slower paced 3 year programs that use the
extra year in student teaching situations or worse yet they demand the
candidate teach undergrad intro classes. Most of these stress the importanc=
e
of conceptual art
Now some of these I was exposed to did an admirable job - these were those
candidate who wanted to teach and had taken foundation teaching classes as
preparation. A few had no skills as teachers, did not want to teach, were
poor communicators and knowing students avoided their worthless classes.
If this extra year was spent developing good skills (read craftsmanship),
chemistry knowledge - not a degree but they really should have a clue about
this fundamental part of being a potter (artist), kiln building, a welding
class, and so on, I would not feel that this was a bad thing.
Sadly most (regionally all) programs seem to see candidates as low paid
"Staff" professors in training. I recognize that the teaching experience is
a fundamental part of a well rounded, advanced education - experience that
may even change the direction of the candidate - but that experience should
not be the driving reason for being there.
All students need to be challenged by public speaking and instruction. Ther=
e
was a fellow art student I was a friend of who stuttered but was otherwise
as talkative and fun to be around as any other class chum, but he was scare=
d
to death of public speaking and avoided it whenever possible. He was a
magnificent photographer who is doing very, very well for himself - working
for somebody else. He can't be the front man, but does he have skills, wow!
Should this guy be denied an advanced degree just because he can't stand in
front of a classroom? I don't think so but so that is the case. He cannot
find a program where further advancing his mastery of photography is the
goal and teaching is not required. It's a loss for us all.
I know there are super good programs out there - our good friend Vince head=
s
up a wonderfully strong program that I'd love to attend if they would have
me. Sadly, it is a long way from home and with my special needs, housing is
a problem.
Perhaps this important to this discussion or perhaps I'm just venting, your
call.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Snail Scott
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 5:57 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Pricing: Glad we are talking
On Jul 10, 2010, at 10:13 PM, Larry Kruzan wrote:
> Many people mistakenly think that a MFA or MA is about mastering art
> and
> don't realize that today these programs provide more of a teaching
> degree.
> Before every MFA/MA on Clayart get mad at me, please consider that I
> am
> referring to the limited number of programs I have checked out. They
> ALL
> stressed how the candidate would be prepared to teach at university
> level
> and their success at placement in such positions. None had even
> mentioned
> prep to be a working studio artist...
It is good to know what a program's intentions
are for its students, as well as for prospective
students to know their expectations for the school.
A bad fit in this is a waste of everyone's efforts.
Every MFA program I know of defines itself
as either oriented primarily toward training
studio artists, or toward training academic
artists/teachers. Most do a little of both, but
there is most often a chosen specialization in
this. You may have only hit the academically-
oriented programs, as many are indeed aimed
at training independent studio artists. The
academic approach may dominate, if only
because you can be an artist with no college
degree at all, but you cannot teach college (or
at some high schools) without one. Even if a
student has no intention of teaching college
as a career path, the credential helps make the
cost of grad education a bit more justifiable.
The MFA, in any flavor, essentially represents a
mastery (or at least development and refinement)
of the artist's own work. The graduate is not
expected to master every aspect of their chosen
medium, but rather to gain some mastery over
their own work, both technical and otherwise, as
is required by the work itself.
Some people, especially in ceramics, want an
MFA program to be a sort of full-on technical
training school. It is not. A student is expected to
have a direction and to work toward that, gaining
what skills are needed. In fact, though it seems
counter-intuitive, teaching-oriented programs
probably come closest to that sort of technical
all-around development. Most studio artists work
in just a few chosen ways, while teachers may
need to teach many more methods than they
actually use in their own work.
An MFA, even from a teaching-oriented program, is
very, very far from being a degree in art education.
Such academic-oriented programs put a heavy
emphasis (nearly all of it, in fact) on the student's
own studio work and development as an artist.
Without that, no prospective instructor would have
any chance of getting a decent teaching position,
or of teaching how to be an artist if they did.
-Snail
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15410)
http://www.pctools.com/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Terrance on mon 12 jul 10
All of this discussion about standards and certifications brings back mem=
=3D
ories=3D20
of my young days as a cook. I wanted to be called a chef but according =
=3D
to=3D20
the standards in Canada you could call yourself a chef but not a "Chef de=
=3D
=3D20
Cuisine" unless you wrote what I believe was a five part exam. The exam =
=3D
was=3D20
made up of multiple choices but it also contained a simple question. For=
=3D
=3D20
example, Did you ever make an ice carving? The person writing could an=
=3D
swer=3D20
yes but by doing so they placed them selves in a position of being called=
=3D
upon=3D20
to do one for some special event by the association.=3D20=3D20=3D20=3D20
Many of the questions were of this nature. Nevertheless there was suffic=
=3D
ient=3D20
question formats to ensure the person writing the exam knew what he was=3D2=
0=3D
talking about and was capable of making the dish.=3D20=3D20
The exams were set up so that they could be taken all at once or one or t=
=3D
wo=3D20
at a time. The exams were not necessary to apply to work as a chef but w=
=3D
ere=3D20
used to help the executive chef recognize the potential of the person app=
=3D
lying=3D20
for a position on his staff.
I am not saying that the potters council adopt a plan to certify anyone w=
=3D
ho=3D20
wants to be a potter. Nevertheless, there is nothing to stop them from=3D2=
0=3D
putting together an examination process that could be recognized by craft=
=3D
=3D20
stores, craft shows, and what ever.=3D20=3D20=3D20
Some would ask, "What would the exam prove?" It could show that the pott=
=3D
er=3D20
knows the characteristics of a well glazed object. It could show that th=
=3D
e=3D20
potter understands the safety criteria on running a studio. It could sho=
=3D
w that=3D20
the potter knows a bit about the history of clay. I am sure there is a l=
=3D
ot of=3D20
areas that could be explored for qualification processes to be given.
Such an examination system could be developed to a level where by with th=
=3D
e=3D20
knowledge, and the years of experience and other criteria one could event=
=3D
ually=3D20
wear the title Master.=3D20=3D20
This would by no means stop the weekend potter from fulfilling their pass=
=3D
ion.
Food for thought.
Terrance=3D20=3D20
Fabienne McMillan on mon 12 jul 10
I've seem ppl able to take tests who are unable to apply their
knowledge. Those tests only prove one can afford them and that one is
good at taking tests imo not that they are accomplished at doing
anything else. Now, if someone shows me his/her pot and talks to me
about the glazing, the firing, etc and they have accomplished what
they set to do (with or without holes/cracks etc) then they have
mastered their craft not the testing process.
Fabienne
"We never touch people so lightly that we do not leave a trace." ~
Peggy Tabor Millin
phil on thu 15 jul 10
Hi John, all...
Yes...all of this is a difficult to put into words once 'quality' is the
geometric
center of a consideration.
While the shape and the figurative Center-of-Mass of something can
combine...to where we can the Geometric Center to be present only as an
absence.
I am reninded once again of the vicissitudes which befell poor old Robert M=
.
Persig...and who knows how many others we never heard of.
Professional 'standards' in any areas effecting ( fleecing ) the public,
have merely
allowed the clever and mercenary to cheat and scam in ways less easy to
define, or, less easy to regulate or over see, or easy to over look when on=
e
gets greased well enough to overlook ( mopnsanto, BP, AMA, FDA, on and
remourselessly on, hell, a list longer than one's Arm, longer than one's
Leg, ) while satisfying a few
superficial appearances in mostly a pre-emptive ( or bullying ) way, to
stuff the bosses or
underwriter's
postures, or to have ammunition in ready for facing or preventing some
amount of law suits.
Mostly shams and frauds of course.
Some areas of endevor worse than others.
This is also the true charm of politically mandated 'diversity' - the
impossibility then of
having or insisting on any 'Standards' at all...since to do so, could offen=
d
someone, or, leave someone out, especially the unqualified.
Technical standards in purely technical areas, are in pretty good shape in
theory, sometimes in practice, but, kinda depends on who's paying.
ASME had impeccible Standards for Screw Sizes and specs ( and a great deal
else)...but, those who
had no self respect or respect for a subject ( see the 'grease' part
again ), prefered to import metric
screws since they were cheaper for being made in third world shit
holes...and, of course, everyone lacking any meaningful standards for
themselves, pretty much buy the products regardless,
and or soon defends the product as 'convenient' as well, since cheap is all
that matters, and screw
the future and screw everything and everyone.
Oooops, sorry, almost ranting...
Lol...
Love,
Phil
Lv
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hesselberth"
>
>
>> 5.What I am hoping for is elevation of standards, upping of quality, a
>> demand BY US of higher standards. I am hoping
>> for more Leagues with jurying for admission, more co-ops of potters with
>> real resumes, pressure of one kind or another on TV, Ad Agencies, PBS,
>> decorators...anything you can think of....And a passing of the good word
>> by
>> those who do teach the recreational courses.
>>
>
> Lili, and others who have contributed to this thread. I can resist no
> longer. I will probably be skewered, but such is life.
>
> We are a profession without standards. That statement is probably an
> oxymoron. I tend to believe that all professions have standards; therefor=
e
> we probably don't deserve the title of 'profession'. But, whatever our
> feeling about standards, the fact is we have none! Furthermore bringing u=
p
> the subject of standards is the surest way to get torn limb from limb by
> this group of wannabe artists who resent even a hint of having to be
> judged
> on the quality of their work by their peers or, heaven forbid, some
> "organization". That has happened several times over the many years I hav=
e
> been a member of Clayart. Only Lili has the courage to initiate a
> discussion
> of this type.
>
> Lawyers, doctors, school teachers, CPAs, electricians, plumbers, and many
> others have very little problem with beginners and producers of low
> quality
> work undercutting their livelihood. That is not to say all in those
> occupations are competent, but they do have tests to pass and requirement=
s
> to meet before they are allowed to sell their services. We have none.
> Until
> we do, this problem will exist and we have no right to complain about it.
>
> The craft guilds used to handle this problem. You didn't achieve
> journeyman
> or master status--nor did you sell your services-- without your peers
> agreeing you and your work were up to standard. I think when we decided w=
e
> wanted to be considered artists instead of craftsmen we started down a
> long
> slippery slope. We must find a way to assure that craftsmanship is the
> foundation and without it our "art" is worthless.
>
> A second point I would make is that none of us have the right to make a
> living from clay. In all occupations, only the best can make it. Wannabe
> doctors flunk out of school, wannabe lawyers fail to pass the bar exam.
> Wannabe professional engineers fail to graduate or pass the professional
> engineering exam. And on and on. And so it is with wannabe professional
> potters. Some can't make it because they don't possess the total required
> skill set or don't have the drive and dedication required to be
> successful.
> Such is life. Our challenge is perhaps more difficult in some respects in
> that working with clay is fun and lots more people than our society can o=
r
> will support want to be potters. In addition we have a low entry barrier.
> It
> doesn't take much to take a course at a community center, buy a kiln and
> wheel, and set ourselves up to sell pottery. The issue of making pots
> being
> fun is the same problem wannabe professional athletes have. But, in
> addition, we have no standards to weed out the clearly incapable. Athlete=
s
> are under a microscope every time they take the field from junior high on=
.
> The weeding out process is ruthless. We have none of that.
>
> So from my viewpoint, the process starts with beginning to set standards.
> Until we do so we will be having the same discussion many years from now.
> The Potter's Council is the only organization that can address this on a
> national level, but it doesn't seem inclined to do so. A few craft guilds
> are addressing it with limited success on a local or regional level--the
> Southern Highland Craft Guild, Piedmont Craftsmen, Ohio Designer
> Craftsmen,
> and, my own guild, the Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen are some that come
> to
> mind in the eastern half of the country. How many of us have joined one o=
f
> those organizations and submitted our work to their jurying process? I
> have
> and found it to be a very useful experience when I was rejected the first
> time around. I got specific feedback and worked for another 6 or more
> months
> before I tried again and was accepted. Some of our members have had to
> come
> back 3 or 4 times before having their work accepted. Some never get
> accepted. Others get mad or frustrated with the first rejection and decid=
e
> the organization "doesn't understand me and my work" and never come back.
> Check out our web site at www.pacrafts.org to get a sense of the scope an=
d
> quality of our programs.
>
> Well, that's my 2=A2 worth. Rebuttals are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2995 - Release Date: 07/10/10
> 12:59:00
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2997 - Release Date: 07/11/10
11:36:00
| |
|
