Lili Krakowski on sat 23 apr 11
The discussion of "ethical pots" is gripping.
We tend to navigate between technology--are encapsulated stains safe for =
=3D
food related pots, how do cristobalite, tridymite relate, what IS a =3D
polymorph (and can I be one when I grow up?) and like that--and =3D
aesthetics, ethics, criticism, and such.
In this navigation we reveal who we are: grafts.
"We" have, for close to two centuries of "Western civilization", =3D
grafted intellectual philosophies onto folk craft stock. =3D20
By which I mean that William Morris inter al was an upper middle class =3D
Brit with the appropriate schooling of such in his day. While he was =3D
very nice to his "workers" and married a stableman's daughter etc. he =3D
never ovecame that "du haut en bas" mind set. Not did his followers. =3D20
I am not an admirer of Bernard Leach. Never was. I do admire Cardew, =3D
because I think Cardew was genuine and sincere, and Leach was a poseur.
And I admire the Wildenhains, and Rie, and Coper because they never =3D
pretended to be anything but what they were. Frans came from the =3D
working class; but Marguerite, Lucie, Hans definitely did not. And none =
=3D
pretended. None "posed".
Nor do I think their, or the next generation of American potters did.
However.=3D20
I do not see how an object can be ethical. Ethics being a function of =3D
mind.
Products reflect the ethics of the maker. And many makers are =3D
unethical.
If there are bad pots, cracked pots, mended pots, leaching pots, etc out =
=3D
there, it is not the pot that is "unethical" but the maker.
And one needs to be clear that klutziness, inexperience, and so on do =3D
not make the potter unethical--till that moment when, if, may it never =3D
come-- a defective pot is passed off as a good one....or a defect =3D
rationalized as "artistic expression".
There are functional criteria for pots--even simple mugs. Which makes
Marian's story so hair-raising!
She writes:
".... I asked someone to mentor me.
He told me my work "sucked" but didn't go on to say how I might make
it not suck. To tell the truth I haven't 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 "your work sucks" and have that to overcome. "
"Sucks" is plain rude. It is not a word used in criticism. So used, =3D
it means nothing. . And the person who used "sucks" in relation to that =
=3D
mug only revealed terrible ignorance and worse manners.
Yes, there are "mug" rules!!! (And similar one for other objects)
Simple mug rules:
A mug must be of reasonable size, so that the average person can lift =3D
it, full of hot liquid , by the handle alone . ("Hot" because if a full =
=3D
mug is too heavy, it will tilt and splash.)
The handle must be solid, big enough so fat fingers curled around it =3D
will not touch the mug (See hot above) The handle must be such that =3D
one's thumb does not poke one's eye out when one is emptying the mug =3D
(i.e. when it is fully tilted)
The rim should be pleasant to the lip.
The mug must be cleanable. No one enjoys having to dig away at cocoa =3D
or soup that dried in a mug over the weekend!
The glaze must not leach, be crazed, pinholed, etc.. (I have some =3D
commercial mugs that stain from tea!)
Ideally the bottom must be smooth so the mug does not scratch surfaces =3D
on which it might sit.
Following criteria reflects the ethics of the potter. Not the poor =3D
little pot's. And we, as these "grafts", care--because plenty, plenty =3D
of folk craft is shoddy, poorly made, over-rated for quality. --and =3D
while the makers may not know better, the sellers should. =3D20
(And that applies to stuff in some catalogs I get from do-gooder =3D
organizations trying to sell me unfortunate objects made by the damned =3D
of the earth.)=3D20
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
pdp1 on mon 25 apr 11
Hi Lili, James, whomever else, and all,
I am not familiar enough with Bernard Leach, to suppose I understand
narrowly enough, what he had meant by the phrase.
But in my own view, I would suppose that ethics are not a matter of 'mind'
( whatever that would
mean ) but, of deeds or conduct in which others in addition to the
deed-doer,
are in some way effected or invited to be effected or are in some position
to be interacting.
Certainly, even deeds, gestures, or conduct of the highest ethics, is no
guarantee that an audience will be positively effected, or, approving, or
even that they would in any positive sense, even notice or understand the
gesture-deed-conduct, at all. They may even resent it, mis-understand it, o=
r
dislike it or wish to rebuke it.
We may do well to bear this in mind, when musing on the wider or
over-arching quesiton(s).
Ethics, as far as I may understand them, are a synonym for aesthetics in
conduct - a condition, which when 'positive', wishes to be positively
responsible to and or deferential to, ( the better parts of ) those whom it
shall effect.
I believe this would distingish it from pandering or condescention or
gratuitous patronizing, which of course, are the antipodes.
Pots are a form of deed...a form of conduct...
An 'ethical Pot', or, an 'ethical object' then, to my imagination, would
represent the ethics and or positive quality/clearity of intelligence ( and
thus, deferences, ) which embue and animate the involvement of the maker,
and, the deed or
gesture and quality of intelligence the object then represents or embodies
or is an emblem for and of.
The ethics or intelligence or literacy in whatever idiom, of whomever shall
evaluate the object, of course, are the other
portion of the equation of how(ever) this works out in practice.
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lili Krakowski"
The discussion of "ethical pots" is gripping.
We tend to navigate between technology--are encapsulated stains safe for
food related pots, how do cristobalite, tridymite relate, what IS a
polymorph (and can I be one when I grow up?) and like that--and aesthetics,
ethics, criticism, and such.
In this navigation we reveal who we are: grafts.
"We" have, for close to two centuries of "Western civilization", grafted
intellectual philosophies onto folk craft stock.
By which I mean that William Morris inter al was an upper middle class Brit
with the appropriate schooling of such in his day. While he was very nice
to his "workers" and married a stableman's daughter etc. he never ovecame
that "du haut en bas" mind set. Not did his followers.
I am not an admirer of Bernard Leach. Never was. I do admire Cardew,
because I think Cardew was genuine and sincere, and Leach was a poseur.
And I admire the Wildenhains, and Rie, and Coper because they never
pretended to be anything but what they were. Frans came from the working
class; but Marguerite, Lucie, Hans definitely did not. And none pretended.
None "posed".
Nor do I think their, or the next generation of American potters did.
However.
I do not see how an object can be ethical. Ethics being a function of mind=
.
Products reflect the ethics of the maker. And many makers are unethical.
If there are bad pots, cracked pots, mended pots, leaching pots, etc out
there, it is not the pot that is "unethical" but the maker.
And one needs to be clear that klutziness, inexperience, and so on do not
make the potter unethical--till that moment when, if, may it never come-- a
defective pot is passed off as a good one....or a defect rationalized as
"artistic expression".
There are functional criteria for pots--even simple mugs. Which makes
Marian's story so hair-raising!
She writes:
".... I asked someone to mentor me.
He told me my work "sucked" but didn't go on to say how I might make
it not suck. To tell the truth I haven't 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 "your work sucks" and have that to overcome. "
"Sucks" is plain rude. It is not a word used in criticism. So used, it
means nothing. . And the person who used "sucks" in relation to that mug
only revealed terrible ignorance and worse manners.
Yes, there are "mug" rules!!! (And similar one for other objects)
Simple mug rules:
A mug must be of reasonable size, so that the average person can lift it,
full of hot liquid , by the handle alone . ("Hot" because if a full mug is
too heavy, it will tilt and splash.)
The handle must be solid, big enough so fat fingers curled around it will
not touch the mug (See hot above) The handle must be such that one's thumb
does not poke one's eye out when one is emptying the mug (i.e. when it is
fully tilted)
The rim should be pleasant to the lip.
The mug must be cleanable. No one enjoys having to dig away at cocoa or
soup that dried in a mug over the weekend!
The glaze must not leach, be crazed, pinholed, etc.. (I have some
commercial mugs that stain from tea!)
Ideally the bottom must be smooth so the mug does not scratch surfaces on
which it might sit.
Following criteria reflects the ethics of the potter. Not the poor little
pot's. And we, as these "grafts", care--because plenty, plenty of folk
craft is shoddy, poorly made, over-rated for quality. --and while the
makers may not know better, the sellers should.
(And that applies to stuff in some catalogs I get from do-gooder
organizations trying to sell me unfortunate objects made by the damned of
the earth.)
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
| |
|
