John Baymore on tue 3 nov 98
------------------
(clip)
The new instructor I have insistes that I do not need to test glazes,
because it may mess up the shelves. I feel that the glazes and our
recipies are like a painters........
(snip)
If this is the REAL reason he/she is saying this...... I think you need to
find yourself another instructor =3Cg=3E.
One other thought........ to give the possible =22benefit of the doubt=22 to
this new instructor:
Is this a convenient excuse that was used (badly) to avoid addressing
another issue?
I have occasionally had students that get so hung up on the technical side
of clayworking that they can't seem to see WHAT it is that they are making.
In this case the pursuit of the technical (glazes, clay bodies, kiln
designs, firing techniques, etc.) becomes the driving focus of the
student's work....... and the forms and surface treatments become merely
the vehicle for the technical stuff. So the technical skill develops at
the expense of (or in the absence of) the aesthetic.
Is it possible this instructor sees this type of tendency and is using the
=22messes up the shelves=22 dodge to try to stop what he/she sees as =
excessive
focus on the technical, and get the emphasis back to forms and surface
enrichment? Admitedly this =22excuse=22 thing is poor teaching ...... =
he/she
should be addressing the issue much more directly.
Another variation on this =22technical focus=22 syndrome is that the =
instructor
sees the student jumping around all over the place all the time with trying
new things (glazes)........ not spending enough time to get to know the
uses of one thing in any meaningful way. =22Jack of all trades....master =
of
none.=22 Again the =22excuse=22 thing would be a poor way to address it, =
I
think.
He/she could be doing the wrong thing for the right reason =3Cg=3E?
Just a couple of thoughts in case there is more here than what seems to be
obvious with the limited information available here.
Most likely, it is that he/she doesn't want the responsibility of dealing
with technical issues..... possibly because he/she is actually weak in that
area. And possibly because he/she is severely underpaid (like.... who
isn't in this field =3Cg=3E) and doesn't relish ANY second of =22extra=22 =
time that
might be involved........ like researching things to =22stay ahead=22 of the
students.
Those thoughts and a buck will get you a cup of coffee in most places.
Best,
....................john
PS: Don't get me wrong.... I am a tech-weenie from way back, and clearly
understand the value of understanding the whys and hows of the craft. But
the whys and hows have to be balanced with the whats. Otherwise we
probably should be studying ceramic engineering, not art =3Cg=3E.
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752
JBaymore=40Compuserve.com
Corinne Null on thu 5 nov 98
John,
I'm impressed with the possible "benefit of doubts" that you came up with for
this so called "instructor"!
In doing so, you have hit on a few fears that I have about my own development
as a potter. I have found it so difficult to balance
a) learning technical matters
b) studying ceramic history
c) developing my own artistic aesthetic
d) experimenting to extend my aesthetic
e) learning business and selling methods
f) learning all those other things that we talk about on clayart (god
bless you all)
In trying to get my hands around this ball of clay, which oozes out in all
directions, I feel I'll never get it all tidy and centered! You've named my
foibles - techno focused, and artistically scattered. And, forever feeling
like I don't know anything yet. Blaaaaa!
But, thanks. At least now I've got names for it.
Corinne (in southern NH where we're going to get our first real freeze
tonight,
27F)
>I have occasionally had students that get so hung up on the technical side
>of clayworking that they can't seem to see WHAT it is that they are making.
> In this case the pursuit of the technical (glazes, clay bodies, kiln
>designs, firing techniques, etc.) becomes the driving focus of the
>student's work....... and the forms and surface treatments become merely
>the vehicle for the technical stuff. So the technical skill develops at
>the expense of (or in the absence of) the aesthetic.
>
>Is it possible this instructor sees this type of tendency and is using the
>"messes up the shelves" dodge to try to stop what he/she sees as excessive
>focus on the technical, and get the emphasis back to forms and surface
>enrichment? Admitedly this "excuse" thing is poor teaching ...... he/she
>should be addressing the issue much more directly.
>
>Another variation on this "technical focus" syndrome is that the instructor
>sees the student jumping around all over the place all the time with trying
>new things (glazes)........ not spending enough time to get to know the
>uses of one thing in any meaningful way. "Jack of all trades....master of
>none." Again the "excuse" thing would be a poor way to address it, I
>think.
>
Corinne Null
Bedford, NH
USA
null@mediaone.net
ICQ #18593487
Earl Brunner on thu 5 nov 98
My comment to the below is simply that the teacher shouldn't be teaching
then. Get the blank out of the way and let someone who wants to teach have the
job.
We have schools out there that de-emphasize technical ability (wheel throwing)
de-emphasize glaze calculation and it's accompanying chemistry. "The tests
will ruin the shelves!" Put down anything that looks like, gasp! "production",
heaven forbid!
Too many programs , people look for shortcuts.
Walter Gropius put it this way:
"In rare moments of inspiration, moments beyond the control of his will, the
grace of heaven may cause his work to blossom into art. But proficiency in his
craft is essential to every artist."
I think that's about as good of a definition of art as you could find.
Painters aren't any more "artists" anymore of the time than potters are. But
too often our pottery programs in "art departments" want to act like the
bastard child looking for legitimacy, and they do this by avoiding the elements
of our CRAFT that resemble craft and go straight for the perceived "art",
de-emphasizing the things that will make us good at what we need to be good at
so that we can have the freedom to truly create without fighting our skill
level or lack thereof all the time. Man it's easy to slip into soapbox mode
here! I'll get off mine.... at least for now.
Earl Brunner
who still stuggles with the basics
......................................................
> Most likely, it is that he/she doesn't want the responsibility of dealing
> with technical issues..... possibly because he/she is actually weak in that
> area. And possibly because he/she is severely underpaid (like.... who
> isn't in this field ) and doesn't relish ANY second of "extra" time that
> might be involved........ like researching things to "stay ahead" of the
> students.
amy parker on sun 8 nov 98
>Too many programs , people look for shortcuts.
>Walter Gropius put it this way:
>"In rare moments of inspiration, moments beyond the control of his will, the
>grace of heaven may cause his work to blossom into art. But proficiency in his
>craft is essential to every artist."
Earl Brunner
>who still stuggles with the basics
I think Earl is right - I think we go to school to learn technique so that
we can apply our knowledge to our particular endeavor. After all, you go to
architecture classes to learn how to draw a blueprint that other people will
understand, and to learn enough engineering that your building will stand.
One of the most important things to learn in a course of ceramics study is
the basics of construction of both clay pieces & glazes, so that you will be
able to produce a piece that will withstand both the assembly/firing process
and its intended use. If you take classes & do not learn to properly join
slabs or to throw so that the structure will continue to exist, or to create
a glaze that will withstand weather, or domestic use, whichever the end
result, then you have received an incomplete education.
I think we should all be "graded" first on technique, then upon aesthetics!
amy parker Lithonia, GA
amyp@sd-software.com
SLAVEN DEIRDRE JANE on tue 10 nov 98
Hi- I'm pretty new to clayart and have enjoyed the conversation that
happens here. I feel like I need to make a reply to this conversation and
particularly to the comments below. I'm currently a student at CU in
Boulder where we are free and encouraged to do as much testing of clay and
glazes as we possibly can. Before I came to this school I went to a local
community college where we could not do either and we were not allowed to
fire either of the two electric kilns that we had. This was not because
the teacher was lazy or was not knowledgable. He was very interested in
giving his students a good education. Unfortunately, the school would
only give his classes a very limited amount of financial support and
space. We had a glaze room in which one person could fit, and the
students had to pay for their own clay, which came pre-made. Eventually I
was allowed to make a few glaze tests there, but that was because I had
been taking his classes for four semesters and had been asking for
permission pretty much from the beginning of my stay there. My teacher
was able to convince the school to give him a kiln yard (about 10 feet by
5 feet) so that we could experiment with raku. I appreciate the education
I got in his classes. That is where I learned to love clay. Maybe we
should consider a teachers position in this sort of situation before we
become angry or judgemental.
Deirdre Slaven
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Earl Brunner wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> My comment to the below is simply that the teacher shouldn't be teaching
> then. Get the blank out of the way and let someone who wants to teach have the
> job.
> We have schools out there that de-emphasize technical ability (wheel throwing)
> de-emphasize glaze calculation and it's accompanying chemistry. "The tests
> will ruin the shelves!" Put down anything that looks like, gasp! "production",
> heaven forbid!
> Too many programs , people look for shortcuts.
> Walter Gropius put it this way:
> "In rare moments of inspiration, moments beyond the control of his will, the
> grace of heaven may cause his work to blossom into art. But proficiency in hi
> craft is essential to every artist."
> I think that's about as good of a definition of art as you could find.
> Painters aren't any more "artists" anymore of the time than potters are. But
> too often our pottery programs in "art departments" want to act like the
> bastard child looking for legitimacy, and they do this by avoiding the element
> of our CRAFT that resemble craft and go straight for the perceived "art",
> de-emphasizing the things that will make us good at what we need to be good at
> so that we can have the freedom to truly create without fighting our skill
> level or lack thereof all the time. Man it's easy to slip into soapbox mode
> here! I'll get off mine.... at least for now.
> Earl Brunner
> who still stuggles with the basics
> .....................................................
>
> > Most likely, it is that he/she doesn't want the responsibility of dealing
> > with technical issues..... possibly because he/she is actually weak in that
> > area. And possibly because he/she is severely underpaid (like.... who
> > isn't in this field ) and doesn't relish ANY second of "extra" time that
> > might be involved........ like researching things to "stay ahead" of the
> > students.
>
| |
|
