Dinah Snipes Steveni on thu 21 apr 11
Hi Clayart
A couple of days ago an eloquent posting covered a myriad of topics but his=
=3D
one phrase which has had me thinking is "the ethical pot". The poster -- a=
=3D
nd I do apologize for not saving his name but he'll recognize his fingerpri=
=3D
nts all over the thought -- cited this as one of Bernard Leach's missions =
=3D
at St Ives. Never mind that BL teetered on the brink of bankruptcy -- twice=
=3D
-- and finally reluctantly allowed his son, David, to go earn a degree in=
=3D
ceramic technology up at the Potteries and DL subsequently returned with s=
=3D
olid practice which enabled BL to continue his pursuit the ethical pot -- a=
=3D
s do the rest of the Leach family. Never mind that he had two chums from Ja=
=3D
pan come over and rebuild his kiln which he and Hamada couldn't get consist=
=3D
ent results from. Never mind he build his pottery at the arse end of the UK=
=3D
as far as obtaining raw materials...and wood? Read his accounts and the l=
=3D
ong interview with Hamada of those early days. Basically he got caught up w=
=3D
ith patronage, with strings attached, in St Ives area.=3D20
I think I know what an unethical pot is. There's been some discussion about=
=3D
potters' work on exhibition, which if one didn't know the behind t=
=3D
he work, one wouldn't afford it house-room. Those are unethical pots. Beaut=
=3D
y is not in the eye of the beholder in our craft. For instance, it's in the=
=3D
handle, mouth-feel on the rim, balance, the lugs which help support the ca=
=3D
sserole using padded mitts from oven to table,etc. We are part of a craft w=
=3D
ith basic first principles, not some airy-fairy notions of tripping through=
=3D
the world expressing feelings and slamming together some sort of installat=
=3D
ion to decry then sip execrable plonk and =
=3D
pick at nibblies whilst we woe and moan. Pete Pinnell has an excellent talk=
=3D
on You Tube about mugs and design. It's only a partial seminar because my =
=3D
next point is not covered by PP. I received an unethical pot in mug exchan=
=3D
ge. Handle had Serious Shivering on the outer curve; and it was just by the=
=3D
grace of the kiln gods that I didn't cut up my throwing finger as I reache=
=3D
d for it in the packing. Frankly, I was very shocked. The fluting reply upo=
=3D
n being gently told about this shivering problem (my first email was flamin=
=3D
g but I deleted it) the maker was glad I spotted it and glad the rubbing st=
=3D
one helped and oh, that slip always does that under that glaze. Well, my th=
=3D
inking that combination of slip & glaze has no call to remain in circulatio=
=3D
n. I can't bear to even look at it, and will no doubt hammer it. I want no =
=3D
one to think it's mine.... No name, no pack drill. But shame on you.=3D20
Dinah
Dianthus Ceramics
Mount Vernon, WA.
www.dinahsnipessteveni.com
"To obtain a certain thing, you have to become a certain person."
Zen Buddhist saying
Randall Moody on fri 22 apr 11
I agree to a certain extent. Sometimes work does suck and sometimes it need=
=3D
s
to be said. I have been known on more than one occasion to make work that
sucks. Once said, however, the responsibility of the one making the charge
is to inform the person as to why the work sucks. Without that important
piece of information the criticism becomes nothing more than opinion. How t=
=3D
o
make the work suck less is on the maker.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Lis Allison wrote:
> On April 22, 2011, Neon-Cat wrote:
> >
> >
> > The next year before mug exchange time I asked someone to mentor me.
> > He told me my work =3D93sucked=3D94 but didn=3D92t go on to say how I m=
ight m=3D
ake
> > it not suck.
>
> Anybody who thinks telling someone their work 'sucks' is so ignorant or
> un-clued that you should not even consider listening to them. What the
> heck kind of a critique is that???? That really makes me angry!
>
> Every pot has something good about it.... and something that can perhaps
> be improved. A good critique points out both. A critique that doesn't giv=
=3D
e
> you any specifics to go on is useless, and demoralizing.
>
> Shame on your so-called 'mentor'!
>
> 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
>
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Neon-Cat on fri 22 apr 11
It was quickly ex-mentor, Lis.
Much more I could not have taken (grin)
Thanks for the note!
Marian
Taylor Hendrix on fri 22 apr 11
Dinah,
Firsties: Please review Rule 4 of the Stay-At-Home-Mug-Exchange. Shame on Y=
=3D
ou.
Secondies: I believe that when Leach, Wildenhain, and others made
mention of the "ethical pot" they were not speaking of the pot
abscised from the one who made it. You can not separate the man from
the results of his actions, as it were. What I mean is that you can
talk about shivering, dunting, poor handle constructing and such in a
technical way, as a level of craftsmanship if you wish, but you can
not talk about an ethical pot without at least some fundamental
understanding of the person making the pot and the choices he has made
in the process. An ethical potter makes ethical pots. Do you have such
knowledge of the person?
This means that not only can a pot be ethical but it can be ethical
AND poorly made. That's right, an ethical pot derives it's ethical
standing from the potter herself, not the pot alone. Technical issues
are not ethical issues. Technique develops over time with practice,
ethical behavior requires choice. The potter makes ethical pots by
working in an ethical manner, whether she is at the start of her
career or nearing the end, or muddling along somewhere in the middle.
Now that's an interesting point, isn't it? What exactly does ethical
pot making look like? Not sure, but I'm willing to bet that a rank
beginner, honestly attempting to make a lasting object in clay,
subjecting herself to the local, economical, and social limitations of
her time, regardless of the ultimate outcome, is on the way to making
an ethical pot. I'm beginning to think it takes some time for this to
happen, but let's not jump to conclusions so early in the race. A
lifetime of ethical pots by necessity will have much better pots at
one end that at the other, but they are when considered in
toto,ethical pots.
I think we should leave the benedictions and maledictions of specific
pots to the pottery priests and be happy to have included ourselves in
the gift-giving of fellow makers.
Taylor, in Rockport TX
wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Dinah Snipes Steveni
wrote:
.... No name, no pack drill. But shame on you.
>
> Dinah
> Dianthus Ceramics
> Mount Vernon, WA.
> www.dinahsnipessteveni.com
> "To obtain a certain thing, you have to become a certain person."
> =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=
=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3D
=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3D=
C2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3DC2=3DA0 =3D
=3DC2=3DA0 Zen Buddhist saying
>
Ron Roy on fri 22 apr 11
Hi Dinah,
I sure like the way you talk - fear of technology is rampant or is it
just too hard? In the old days it was some kind of macho thing -
artists weren't supposed to even think about such mundane stuff - and
we are still working our way through generations of unethical potters
and pots.
Things are looking up however - I know there are now potters who care
about how their glazes last, about how they fit and if their clays do
what they are supposed to.
RR
Quoting Dinah Snipes Steveni :
> Hi Clayart
>
> A couple of days ago an eloquent posting covered a myriad of topics
> but his one phrase which has had me thinking is "the ethical pot".
> The poster -- and I do apologize for not saving his name but he'll
> recognize his fingerprints all over the thought -- cited this as
> one of Bernard Leach's missions at St Ives. Never mind that BL
> teetered on the brink of bankruptcy -- twice -- and finally
> reluctantly allowed his son, David, to go earn a degree in ceramic
> technology up at the Potteries and DL subsequently returned with
> solid practice which enabled BL to continue his pursuit the ethical
> pot -- as do the rest of the Leach family. Never mind that he had
> two chums from Japan come over and rebuild his kiln which he and
> Hamada couldn't get consistent results from. Never mind he build his
> pottery at the arse end of the UK as far as obtaining raw
> materials...and wood? Read his accounts and the long interview with
> Hamada of those early days. Basically he got caught up with
> patronage, with strings attached, in St Ives area.
>
> I think I know what an unethical pot is. There's been some
> discussion about potters' work on exhibition, which if one didn't
> know the behind the work, one wouldn't afford it house-room.
> Those are unethical pots. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder
> in our craft. For instance, it's in the handle, mouth-feel on the
> rim, balance, the lugs which help support the casserole using padded
> mitts from oven to table,etc. We are part of a craft with basic
> first principles, not some airy-fairy notions of tripping through
> the world expressing feelings and slamming together some sort of
> installation to decry then sip
> execrable plonk and pick at nibblies whilst we woe and moan. Pete
> Pinnell has an excellent talk on You Tube about mugs and design.
> It's only a partial seminar because my next point is not covered by
> PP. I received an unethical pot in mug exchange. Handle had Serious
> Shivering on the outer curve; and it was just by the grace of the
> kiln gods that I didn't cut up my throwing finger as I reached for
> it in the packing. Frankly, I was very shocked. The fluting reply
> upon being gently told about this shivering problem (my first email
> was flaming but I deleted it) the maker was glad I spotted it and
> glad the rubbing stone helped and oh, that slip always does that
> under that glaze. Well, my thinking that combination of slip & glaze
> has no call to remain in circulation. I can't bear to even look at
> it, and will no doubt hammer it. I want no one to think it's
> mine.... No name, no pack drill. But shame on you.
>
> Dinah
> Dianthus Ceramics
> Mount Vernon, WA.
> www.dinahsnipessteveni.com
> "To obtain a certain thing, you have to become a certain person."
> Zen Buddhist saying
>
Neon-Cat on fri 22 apr 11
Thanks, Taylor, for the reminder of my first and only mug exchange
adventure a few years ago. Just into the second semester of ceramic
art I sent out the best of the little I had at the time =3D96 a
weird-assed cat statue (and I knew this). How I labored to get it
wrapped and sent, and sent on time =3D96 an education right there with my
first shipped ceramic. I was a nervous wreck.
What did I get in return besides a gracious thank you for my poor
offering? More than I ever dreamed possible. It was a gorgeous,
flawless porcelain mug with Malcolm Shino glaze by Connie Christensen
of Colorado (I was pleased to see more of her work in a book I
recently got =3D96 Kevin A. Hluch=3D92s =3D93The Art of Contemporary Americ=
an
Pottery=3D94). This mug flashed orange just right and absolutely sang! I
took the mug everywhere with me and everywhere I went the mug drew
attention =3D96 potters and even teachers just had to come over and handle
the mug, look at and inside the mug, feel of the mug. For me, just
venturing out after many reclusive years after getting over Lyme
disease, the mug was a wonderful social ice-breaker =3D96 student potters
gathered round talking about making, style, beauty, glazes,
even-wall-thickness, etc. I took it to community college that summer
and the response was even better. Students examined, went to their
wheels, and tried to emulate. The teacher demo-ed. One potter who has
since become my local best bud worked for a good month trying to see
how Connie got that special twist effect in the mug. Mugs improved all
around. While not into throwing, I learned a lot watching. The class
went through several 5-gallon buckets of Malcolm Davis=3D92 carbon trap
cone 10 reduction glaze and we all learned about Mr. Davis, carbon
trap glazes, and with Connie=3D92s model, we all paid more attention to
good glaze application. I got out the spray gun, cranked up the
compressor, and potters were spraying glaze outside in the 110-degree
Texas heat. Then came the lessons on the heat sensitivity of certain
glaze formulas (interesting science behind that) as student potters
tried to match glaze appearance across sets of cups and teapots and
things glazed on different days at different times. There was so much
happy, inspired talk all centered around one exchange mug. That mug
not only sang, it taught =3D96 not just me, but many students. That one
mug was a good ambassador of the mug exchange program and of Clayart.
It opened up many vistas on multiple levels. Alas, one day I dropped
the mug and it cracked in half top-to-bottom. The studio fell into a
moment of stunned silence. They didn=3D92t let me toss the mug =3D96 potter=
s
kept the halves and the mug went on to continue teaching a little
while longer.
The next year before mug exchange time I asked someone to mentor me.
He told me my work =3D93sucked=3D94 but didn=3D92t go on to say how I might=
make
it not suck. To tell the truth I haven=3D92t sent out anything since then,
nor done much at all with my work. Every time I get down to going to
work I hear that =3D93your work sucks=3D94 and have that to overcome. How m=
uch
better off might I have been had I just kept the broken halves of the
beautiful, singing, teaching, ethical mug ...
(if this is not PC correct as per exchange rules I no longer remember,
shoot me; I am not going to take time to go find them in the archives)
Marian
Neon-Cat Ceramics
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Taylor Hendrix wr=
=3D
ote:
> I think we should leave the benedictions and maledictions of specific
> pots to the pottery priests and be happy to have included ourselves in
> the gift-giving of fellow makers.
>
Lis Allison on fri 22 apr 11
On April 22, 2011, Neon-Cat wrote:
>
>=3D20
> The next year before mug exchange time I asked someone to mentor me.
> He told me my work =3D93sucked=3D94 but didn=3D92t go on to say how I mig=
ht make
> it not suck.=3D20
Anybody who thinks telling someone their work 'sucks' is so ignorant or=3D2=
0
un-clued that you should not even consider listening to them. What the=3D20
heck kind of a critique is that???? That really makes me angry!
Every pot has something good about it.... and something that can perhaps=3D=
20
be improved. A good critique points out both. A critique that doesn't give=
=3D
=3D20
you any specifics to go on is useless, and demoralizing.
Shame on your so-called 'mentor'!=3D20
Lis
=3D2D-=3D20
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
Taylor Hendrix on sat 23 apr 11
Forgive my fanciful interpretation of "ethical pot" ala Leach. It seems I
may have conflated concepts of the historical movement with issues that are
currently bouncing their way around in my head.
Now I'm going wade fishing, so ptth!
Taylor, in Rockport TX
wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Dinah Snipes Steveni <
jd.steveni@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Clayart
>
> Taylor, I really appreciate your comments and observations linking
person+mug =3D ethical at all times because maker's intentions were pure ev=
en
if maker possibly technically naive and inexperienced. I liken it to giving
a machine gun to a baby. It's early in the morning and my Logic 101 is
pretty dusty. Non existent! I hear you mutter.... Yes, mug was made to hold
liquid, maker serene and pure in their intentions. Mug. Unethical. In.
Outcome. Because. There's an end user implied in the making here. As fate
would have it: Me. I provided criticism without overtones of heavy-handed
censure, more saint me than bullying know it all -- suggesting way forward.
As RR points out, in his recent comment to us on this topic, the ceramic
road to the 21C is littered with good intentions. I've got a shed-load of
shards to contribute to that road. In my thinking the maker eventually has
to stand back literally and figuratively and let the mug speak for itself. =
I
am discussing utilitarian ware here as I trust you are, not a sunflower see=
d
installation, nor the wilder edgier shores of making. This mug did not spea=
k
"the truth" as it were and was Not Fit for Purpose. It was not a vase, a
glaze dipper, or a pencil holder. It was a mug with severe raised up
shivering on the handle, plus I tested for mouth feel yesterday just to mak=
e
sure I wan't imagining things, and as a right-handed user the lip was rough
and unappealing. Is it possible for the Ethical Pot not to be fit for
purpose? I don't need to know the back-story of the maker. I do know the
maker's intentions: a mug. I, like squillions of people, daily acquire/use
machine designed or hand made objects without involving ourselves too deepl=
y
in reductionist scenarios. Yes, some do and I've posted before about chums
who descry clocks in stove top consoles.... Basic question: Is it fit for
purpose? We all know that careful designers,and informed makers do, or damn
well should, meditate on function daily. Their work will grow in stature an=
d
resonate with users. I'm coming round to one of your points here which is
one we all subscribe to in some atavistic way, shape, or form: eating the
enemy's heart will give us strength and courage. In other words, just to
make my point clearer, we take, make, and use the best. But one has to put
oneself -- or be firmly placed there by mentors/teachers -- in the path of
the best, conscientiously and without flinching; and not get mired in an
Emperor's New Clothes game. I apologize to the Mug Exchange for any
transgressions, real or imagined. Mustn't look a gift mug -- oops! sorry,
horse -- in the mouth, must we? Let alone try to use it qua mug. Yes, I'm =
a
reconstructed ethical potter full of contrition and good will; and my
Exchange Mug will hold throwing tools in full sight so that I can daily
meditate on the compatibility of making ethical pots and whistle-blowing.
>
> Dinah
> Mount Vernon, WA.
> website www.dinahsnipessteveni.com
> blog www.dinahsnipessteveni.wordpress.com
> "To obtain a certain thing, you have to become a certain person."
> Zen Buddhist saying
>
Snail Scott on sat 23 apr 11
On April 22, 2011, Neon-Cat wrote:
> The next year before mug exchange time I asked someone to mentor me.
> He told me my work =3D93sucked=3D94 but didn=3D92t go on to say how I mig=
ht =3D
make
> it not suck...
That critique sucked, surely more than the mug. ; )
A critique that offers no new perception, and no way=3D20
forward, is not a competent critique, nor is it (shall I=3D20
say) an _ethical_ critique. It deserves no more=3D20
credence, and no more regard, than incompetence=3D20
in any other area of endeavor. Its provider is to be=3D20
corrected if it lies within your purview, and ignored=3D20
if not.
-Snail=3D
Randall Moody on sat 23 apr 11
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Taylor Hendrix wrot=
e:
> An ethical potter makes ethical pots. Do you have such
> knowledge of the person?
>
> This means that not only can a pot be ethical but it can be ethical
> AND poorly made. That's right, an ethical pot derives it's ethical
> standing from the potter herself, not the pot alone. Technical issues
> are not ethical issues. Technique develops over time with practice,
> ethical behavior requires choice. The potter makes ethical pots by
> working in an ethical manner, whether she is at the start of her
> career or nearing the end, or muddling along somewhere in the middle.
>
It appears that you are confusing or mixing the definitions of "ethical".
ethical:
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or
the
principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or
practice, especially the standards of a profession: It was not considered
ethical for physicians to advertise.
When the "ethical pot" is spoken of, it is the second definition being used=
.
When the "ethical potter" is spoken of it is the first. An ethical potter
can make an unethical pot and an unethical potter can make an ethical pot.
The pot itself has no morals only the technical standards set forth by the
profession.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
James Freeman on sat 23 apr 11
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Neon-Cat wrote:
> Thanks, Taylor, for the reminder of my first and only mug exchange
> adventure a few years ago.
>
Advice for aspiring artists, from an accomplished artist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DIVwdBCb8S1I
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Taylor Hendrix on sat 23 apr 11
Now that we've finally had someone write the dictionary, I'll say again tha=
t
a soundly made or a poorly made pot has nothing to do with what I believe
Leach meant by the ethical pot. He was not simply finding an occult method
of saying "well made pot."
Free online dictionary didn't coin the phrase "ethical pot" so don't take t=
o
much stock in one of its entries. Crack open Leach...a lot.
On Apr 23, 2011 8:16 AM, "Randall Moody" wrote:
Dinah Snipes Steveni on sat 23 apr 11
Hi Clayart
Taylor, I really appreciate your comments and observations linking person+m=
=3D
ug =3D3D ethical at all times because maker's intentions were pure even if =
ma=3D
ker possibly technically naive and inexperienced. I liken it to giving a ma=
=3D
chine gun to a baby. It's early in the morning and my Logic 101 is pretty d=
=3D
usty. Non existent! I hear you mutter.... Yes, mug was made to hold liquid,=
=3D
maker serene and pure in their intentions. Mug. Unethical. In. Outcome. Be=
=3D
cause. There's an end user implied in the making here. As fate would have i=
=3D
t: Me. I provided criticism without overtones of heavy-handed censure, mor=
=3D
e saint me than bullying know it all -- suggesting way forward. As RR point=
=3D
s out, in his recent comment to us on this topic, the ceramic road to the 2=
=3D
1C is littered with good intentions. I've got a shed-load of shards to cont=
=3D
ribute to that road. In my thinking the maker eventually has to stand back =
=3D
literally and figuratively and let the mug speak for itself. I am discussin=
=3D
g utilitarian ware here as I trust you are, not a sunflower seed installati=
=3D
on, nor the wilder edgier shores of making. This mug did not speak "the tru=
=3D
th" as it were and was Not Fit for Purpose. It was not a vase, a glaze dipp=
=3D
er, or a pencil holder. It was a mug with severe raised up shivering on the=
=3D
handle, plus I tested for mouth feel yesterday just to make sure I wan't i=
=3D
magining things, and as a right-handed user the lip was rough and unappeali=
=3D
ng. Is it possible for the Ethical Pot not to be fit for purpose? I don't n=
=3D
eed to know the back-story of the maker. I do know the maker's intentions: =
=3D
a mug. I, like squillions of people, daily acquire/use machine designed or=
=3D
hand made objects without involving ourselves too deeply in reductionist s=
=3D
cenarios. Yes, some do and I've posted before about chums who descry clocks=
=3D
in stove top consoles.... Basic question: Is it fit for purpose? We all kn=
=3D
ow that careful designers,and informed makers do, or damn well should, medi=
=3D
tate on function daily. Their work will grow in stature and resonate with u=
=3D
sers. I'm coming round to one of your points here which is one we all subsc=
=3D
ribe to in some atavistic way, shape, or form: eating the enemy's heart wi=
=3D
ll give us strength and courage. In other words, just to make my point clea=
=3D
rer, we take, make, and use the best. But one has to put oneself -- or be f=
=3D
irmly placed there by mentors/teachers -- in the path of the best, conscie=
=3D
ntiously and without flinching; and not get mired in an Emperor's New Cloth=
=3D
es game. I apologize to the Mug Exchange for any transgressions, real or im=
=3D
agined. Mustn't look a gift mug -- oops! sorry, horse -- in the mouth, mus=
=3D
t we? Let alone try to use it qua mug. Yes, I'm a reconstructed ethical pot=
=3D
ter full of contrition and good will; and my Exchange Mug will hold throwin=
=3D
g tools in full sight so that I can daily meditate on the compatibility of =
=3D
making ethical pots and whistle-blowing.=3D20
Dinah
Mount Vernon, WA.
website www.dinahsnipessteveni.com
blog www.dinahsnipessteveni.wordpress.com
"To obtain a certain thing, you have to become a certain person."
Zen Buddhist saying
marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D on sun 24 apr 11
>From: Randall Moody
>I agree to a certain extent. Sometimes work does suck and sometimes it nee=
ds
> to be said.
The only reason that I can see to tell someone that their work sucks
( no matter what you think of it ) is to degrade them and hurt their
feelings. " That sucks" is not a meaningful criticism .
It is possible to critique a piece in a way that doesnt
demean the artist and a critique that points out flaws and ways to
correct them while also pointing out where the artist has done well
are the only meaningful critiques anyway .
And for heaven's sake, DONT critique something to someone's face
if they have NOT asked for a critique. Blindsiding a person with
negative comments when they are not ready to hear them serves the
same basic purpose as saying :" That sucks! " .Even if afterward, the
person can look at the piece and realize that maybe the criticizer
was correct, a Kamikaze critique just leaves bad feelings. ... so ,
please, keep your opinions to yourself unless youre asked for them .
Marci
Dannon Rhudy on sun 24 apr 11
Marci said:
" That sucks" is not a meaningful criticism ....
It is possible to critique a piece in a way that doesnt
demean the artist... please, keep your opinions to yourself
unless youre asked for them ........
Marci is correct in saying that "that sucks" is not
really meaningful criticism. When I was teaching,
students were required to critique one another's
work every couple weeks or so. The general advice
I gave them in their roles as both critique-er and critique-ee
was to assume no harm meant and nothing personal
intended. Easier said than done, but they learned
quickly to 1)look first for a positive remark "your
work seems to be improving" instead of "anything
would be better than the last stuff"
and 2) find a way of
presenting negatives "the foot does not seem to fit
the bowl as well as it could" instead of "the first
time anyone puts something in that bowl, it's going
to tip over, you moron". Of course, some
were terminally offended no matter what; but
most were able to converse in terms other than
"I like it" or "it sucks" by end of term. The
real reason for the group crits was, of course,
to help students learn to look at their own work
with the same critical eye they turned on work
NOT their own. Learning to see with a disinterested
eye is not easy, but it is necessary.
When one ASKS for a critique, then one should be
ready to listen with an open mind. Then, accept
or not. It's your work.
regards
Dannon Rhudy
marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D on sun 24 apr 11
At 10:54 AM 4/24/2011, Dannon Rhudy wrote:
> Easier said than done, but they learned
>quickly to 1)look first for a positive remark "your
>work seems to be improving" instead of "anything
>would be better than the last stuff"
>
LOL ! That reminds me of something my mom one said unwittingly to my
cousin ( intending to give her a compliment ) :
" Sharon, your hair looks nice for a change" ... :O)
marci the chinapainter
Lee on sun 24 apr 11
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Taylor Hendrix wro=
=3D
te:
> Forgive my fanciful interpretation of "ethical pot" ala Leach. It seems I
> may have conflated concepts of the historical movement with issues that a=
=3D
re
> currently bouncing their way around in my head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_pot
--
=3DA0Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3DA0"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D9=
7that is, =3D
"The
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Randall Moody on sun 24 apr 11
wow... sounds like someone got a really bad crit. I am done with this
particular line of discussion as it has started to suck. ... big time.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:35 PM, marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D
wrote:
> At 07:09 PM 4/24/2011, Randall Moody wrote:
>
>> It is ok to disagree with me. Reasonable people can disagree. One of the
>> biggest things students need to learn is that they are not their work.
>> Saying your work sucks is NOT saying that you suck. If the person doesn'=
t
>> pay attention to anything after the opening statement that is on them no=
t
>> the person trying to help them. Many times I find that there is too much
>> coddling and dancing around the students' feelings. God forbid the preci=
ous
>> little snow flakes get their egos dinged by some straight talk.
>>
>
>
> Hi Randall,
> First, I dont need your permission to disagree with you .
> Second : I dont see how giving an honest and straightforward critique wh=
en
> asked for one" coddles and dances around feelings." Lying by saying
> something is great when it isnt , THAT would be coddling. I still believe
> its possible to do some straight talking and give a tough critique witho=
ut
> telling someone their work sucks.
> There may be people out there who have 6 inch thick skin and who have s=
o
> much self-confidence that " your work sucks" bounces off their hide . Th=
en
> there are others who will hear those words in their head everytime they
> approach a piece of work . Is it worth damaging someone's fragile
> self-confidence just so you can have the pleasure of slapping them down
> verbally ? What does it accomplish ?
> The same goals can be accomplished by pointing out where a person has
> done something right and then pointing out what can be improved and its m=
ore
> effective because they are open to hearing the critique.
> Vinegar ? ................Or ... honey ?
> marci the chinapainter
>
>
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Randall Moody on sun 24 apr 11
You must read my entire short post on the subject of saying a work sucks. I=
t
isn't a meaningful criticism if the critic stops at "That sucks". However,
if the critic says "Your works sucks for these reasons......." Then it is a
meaningful criticism.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D o.com
> wrote:
> From: Randall Moody
>>
>> I agree to a certain extent. Sometimes work does suck and sometimes it
>> needs
>> to be said.
>>
>
>
> The only reason that I can see to tell someone that their work sucks
> ( no matter what you think of it ) is to degrade them and hurt their
> feelings. " That sucks" is not a meaningful criticism .
> It is possible to critique a piece in a way that doesnt
> demean the artist and a critique that points out flaws and ways to
> correct them while also pointing out where the artist has done well
> are the only meaningful critiques anyway .
> And for heaven's sake, DONT critique something to someone's face
> if they have NOT asked for a critique. Blindsiding a person with
> negative comments when they are not ready to hear them serves the
> same basic purpose as saying :" That sucks! " .Even if afterward, the
> person can look at the piece and realize that maybe the criticizer
> was correct, a Kamikaze critique just leaves bad feelings. ... so ,
> please, keep your opinions to yourself unless youre asked for them .
> Marci
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Randall Moody on sun 24 apr 11
It is ok to disagree with me. Reasonable people can disagree. One of the
biggest things students need to learn is that they are not their work.
Saying your work sucks is NOT saying that you suck. If the person doesn't
pay attention to anything after the opening statement that is on them not
the person trying to help them. Many times I find that there is too much
coddling and dancing around the students' feelings. God forbid the precious
little snow flakes get their egos dinged by some straight talk.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:48 PM, marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D
wrote:
> At 06:31 PM 4/24/2011, Randall Moody wrote:
>
>> You must read my entire short post on the subject of saying a work sucks=
.
>> It isn't a meaningful criticism if the critic stops at "That sucks".
>> However, if the critic says "Your works sucks for these reasons......." =
Then
>> it is a meaningful criticism.
>>
>
>
> I did read your entire post, Randall , and I still disagree with you. An=
y
> critique that includes the words " You ( or your work ) sucks" is not
> meaningful criticism no matter what gems of wisdom follow it... Why ?
> Because the critique-ee doesnt hear anything you say after the words " yo=
ur
> work sucks..."
> marci the chinapainter
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D on sun 24 apr 11
At 06:31 PM 4/24/2011, Randall Moody wrote:
>You must read my entire short post on the subject of saying a work
>sucks. It isn't a meaningful criticism if the critic stops at "That
>sucks". However, if the critic says "Your works sucks for these
>reasons......." Then it is a meaningful criticism.
I did read your entire post, Randall , and I still disagree with
you. Any critique that includes the words " You ( or your work )
sucks" is not meaningful criticism no matter what gems of wisdom
follow it... Why ? Because the critique-ee doesnt hear anything you
say after the words " your work sucks..."
marci the chinapainter
marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D on sun 24 apr 11
At 07:09 PM 4/24/2011, Randall Moody wrote:
>It is ok to disagree with me. Reasonable people can disagree. One of
>the biggest things students need to learn is that they are not their
>work. Saying your work sucks is NOT saying that you suck. If the
>person doesn't pay attention to anything after the opening statement
>that is on them not the person trying to help them. Many times I
>find that there is too much coddling and dancing around the
>students' feelings. God forbid the precious little snow flakes get
>their egos dinged by some straight talk.
Hi Randall,
First, I dont need your permission to disagree with you .
Second : I dont see how giving an honest and straightforward
critique when asked for one" coddles and dances around feelings."
Lying by saying something is great when it isnt , THAT would be
coddling. I still believe its possible to do some straight talking
and give a tough critique without telling someone their work sucks.
There may be people out there who have 6 inch thick skin and who
have so much self-confidence that " your work sucks" bounces off
their hide . Then there are others who will hear those words in
their head everytime they approach a piece of work . Is it worth
damaging someone's fragile self-confidence just so you can have the
pleasure of slapping them down verbally ? What does it accomplish ?
The same goals can be accomplished by pointing out where a
person has done something right and then pointing out what can be
improved and its more effective because they are open to hearing the critiq=
ue.
Vinegar ? ................Or ... honey ?
marci the chinapainter
marci Boskie's Mama =3D^..^=3D on sun 24 apr 11
At 07:42 PM 4/24/2011, Randall Moody wrote:
>wow... sounds like someone got a really bad crit. I am done with
>this particular line of discussion as it has started to suck. ... big time=
.
Seriously ? I thought reasonable people could disagree...
And what makes you assume I got a really bad crit? Just because I
choose to not subject my students to the "make ' em feel like shit so
you can teach 'em something" school of teaching?
Marci
David Woof on mon 25 apr 11
If after taking time to really 'see/apprehend' what is going on in a piece=
=3D
=3D3B we find a positive point to start from we have now prepared a relaxed=
a=3D
nd consequently more receptive mind in our student or peer who has sought a=
=3D
nd values our critical ability.
=3D20
Then in discussing the work I use terms like "I think" or "do you think tha=
=3D
t this would be" 'more effective' or 'less effective' in getting down to th=
=3D
e educational essentials of a productive critique.
=3D20
I personally am turned off by "sucks" in any conversation no matter how inf=
=3D
ormal and not much interested in engaging the mind that drives such a mouth=
=3D
.
=3D20
David Woof
=3D20
________________________________________________________________________
15a. Re: The Ethical Pot
Posted by: "Vince Pitelka" vpitelka@DTCCOM.NET=3D20
Date: Mon Apr 25=3D2C 2011 7:30 pm ((PDT))
=3D20
Any sensible person and any dedicated teacher will agree that "your work
sucks" never has any place in a critique of an artist's work=3D2C no matter=
w=3D
hat
the circumstances of the critique. Insults and rude=3D2C obnoxious language=
a=3D
re
completely counterproductive in any critique. You can say what you need to
say by comparing the positive and negative aspects of a piece=3D2C and anyo=
ne
who cannot come up with anything positive to say about ANY piece is a
negative and unimaginative person. This is not a question of coddling
students=3D2C because that certainly does no good. It is possible to be ver=
y
firm and direct=3D2C and still be respectful and supportive. Being unsuppor=
ti=3D
ve=3D2C
rude=3D2C and/or disrespectful is bad teaching no matter how you look at it=
.
- Vince
=3D20
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net=3D3B wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
=3D20
=3D20
=3D
Kathy Forer on mon 25 apr 11
On Apr 25, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Any sensible person and any dedicated teacher will agree that "your work
> sucks" never has any place in a critique of an artist's work, no matter w=
h=3D
at
> the circumstances of the critique.
"Your work sucks" says far more about the person voicing such malcontent th=
a=3D
n it could possibly allow for any observation or perception. It's a self-re=
f=3D
erential phrase, likely best met with humor, else doom to oblivion.=3D20
Kathy Forer
Forever Ink=3D
Vince Pitelka on mon 25 apr 11
Any sensible person and any dedicated teacher will agree that "your work
sucks" never has any place in a critique of an artist's work, no matter wha=
t
the circumstances of the critique. Insults and rude, obnoxious language ar=
e
completely counterproductive in any critique. You can say what you need to
say by comparing the positive and negative aspects of a piece, and anyone
who cannot come up with anything positive to say about ANY piece is a
negative and unimaginative person. This is not a question of coddling
students, because that certainly does no good. It is possible to be very
firm and direct, and still be respectful and supportive. Being unsupportive=
,
rude, and/or disrespectful is bad teaching no matter how you look at it.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
| |
|
