Ray Aldridge on fri 28 may 99
At 12:49 PM 5/26/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ron Roy,
>
>Before any more myths get started about Leach....
>
>I think it can safely be said that Leach had nothing whatsoever to do
>with the reason people fire to cone 10. He attended his first Raku
>party in 1911.
Strong statement, considering that _A Potter's Book_ has to be regarded as
the engine that drove the popular highfire revival in the West. Though I
certainly agree that as far as establishing ^10 as the Holy Firing Range,
he's not the culprit.
>
>There is quite a history of pottery before Leach was born. Chinese,
>Koreans, Japanese, Germans, French, etc. Dwight (patent on stoneware
>1671), Chelsea Porcelain works (1744), Seger (1751), Cooksbury "hard
>paste" (1768), Stokes Pottery, StaffordshirePotteries, Wedgewood,
>William Murray,Doulton, Martin Brothers, etc., etc.
>
>Leach was no technician. After setting up his studio in England and
>finding he was unable to fire the kiln, he had to have a kiln technician
>brought over from Japan for two years to help him.
>
All true, but probably irrelevant. I make fun of the little brown pot
myself sometimes, but even if Leach wasn't a very gifted potter, or even a
particularly likable human being, no one who cares about the history of the
craft can discount his significance. The pen is evidently mightier than
the kiln. He got there fustest with the mostest in this century, and even
if his message was a tad poorly thought-out, he's still The Man, and still
casting a very long shadow over the field. And really, in many ways he had
the right idea, if sometimes for silly reasons. Who, holding a perfect
Song bowl, is going to say, "Wotta pieceacrap?" The bowl may not be
beautiful _because_ it was made by highly evolved yet childlike peasants...
but it's indisputably beautiful, all the same. Leach was the aesthetic
sire of the best potters of this century, so we have to give him a little
credit, if we're fair.
By the way, I enjoyed your CM commentaries a great deal, having been a
victim of similar (but self-inflicted) atrocities. Still, apostasy is a
bitter condition, so I practice it only in moderation.
I found it particularly interesting when I realized that, if you're right
about the primacy of aesthetic relativism, it follows that the most
significant object produced by contemporary potters is the mug. I agree
completely, but that's another thread.
I can't remember if you mentioned this in your more serious piece, but the
4th Kenzan was, I understand, a professional whoremaster. It's a common
wisdom that he who succeeds to a hereditary title inherits both the lustre
and the tarnish accumulated by the previous holders, so maybe this fits.
Ray
Ray Aldridge on tue 1 jun 99
At 12:32 AM 6/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Ray,
>
>I am afraid the source of these comments is not me - my original comments
>follow - I can't remember who supplied the following and I have deleted the
>original.
>It seems to look like I disagree with what you are saying when I actually
agree.
>
Ron, sorry about the confusion. These were John Britt's remarks. The
problem is that my mail software inserts "you wrote" rather than the more
specific "John Britt wrote", and that John prefaced his remarks with "Ron
Roy," as a greeting. I knew that the remarks were John's and not yours,
and I assumed that everyone else would also. I was, of course, replying to
John.
I'll cc this to the list, just to clarify.
Ray
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 12:49 PM 5/26/99 EDT, you wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Ron Roy,
>>
>>Before any more myths get started about Leach....
>>
>>I think it can safely be said that Leach had nothing whatsoever to do
>>with the reason people fire to cone 10. He attended his first Raku
>>party in 1911.
>
>Strong statement, considering that _A Potter's Book_ has to be regarded as
>the engine that drove the popular highfire revival in the West. Though I
>certainly agree that as far as establishing ^10 as the Holy Firing Range,
>he's not the culprit.
>
>>
| |
|
