John Britt on sun 30 may 99
Ray,
First of all I want to say Ron Roy is the finest and most generous man
to ever grace the pages of Clayart. So whatever I say is in no way
meant to to ever criticize him. He is the Bernard Leach of Clayart, and
I mean that in the best way!
Additionally, whatever I say about Leach is meant not about the man
Leach, who I am sure was a fine person with both good and bad
attributes. It is about the "Mythic Leach" who has become somewhat of a
Paul Bunyan figure.
What I am saying it that Leach is not reponsible for "why" we fire to
cone 10. I gave a small list of other historic figures who were also
responsible for developments in Western Ceramics. (I failed to mention
Binns, from Alfred, and others at Ohio State University, etc.) Another
oft neglected example: Adelaide Robineau who was firing to cone 10
before Leach ever touched clay. She had created what is argueable the
greatest ceramic piece of the century by 1910, the Scarab Vase. She was
publishing "Keramic Studio" with technical articles on high fire
porcelain (grand feu) by Taxile Doat as early as 1903 . Leach wrote his
book in 1939.
Also, Leach was not the man who opened up the Orient. He was not the
only person who could see that the Sung work was fantastic. Many of his
contemporaries were also enamored with and emulating Chinese Works of
art. (Morris for example, who taught at the Royal Academy, a job Leach
applied for.)
If just writing about Sung high fire works makes him the "why we fire to
cone 10", then he is "why" we fire raku, or he is "why" we fire with
lead glazes, etc. Or why we wood fire or oil fire etc. But we know that
is not true.
I think what happen is "Leach" has become the catch all. If we don't
know who, what , where etc, we attribute it to Leach. It is better to
give him his due for what he deserves and spread the rest around the
appropriate others. I certainly agree that Leach has had a tremendous
influence on contemporary ceramics! No question. But I think that a
cursory reading of history, particularly with recently published books,
gives a person a better understanding of ceramics and it course into the
next century. I guess I feel that my previous lack of knowledge of
ceramics history has caused me many misconceptions.
Now, I don't think it could be definitively said who is the reason we
fire to cone 10, but it isn't Leach. I may argue that it is the
property of the materials, (clay, melting point of feldspar, ceramics
technology, availabliity of fuel, clay glaze interface, etc. or some
combination of those.)
As for my being an apostate, I really am not. I am still knee deep in
temnoku, celadon, fluted bowls, etc. (Actually I am sorry it took so
long to reply to you on this tread but I was wood firing. Imagine that
- brown, ash and shino.) I just think that we should be honest about
the record. And the more people read and discuss Leach and ceramic
history rather than the "Leach Myth" the better off we will be.
Thanks for the reply,
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:46:50 EDT
From: Ray Aldridge
Subject: Leachian myths
----------------------------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.
>
>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
-----------------------------
--
Thanks,
John Britt claydude@unicomp.net
Dys-Functional Pottery
Dallas, Texas
http://www.dysfunctionalpottery.com/claydude
| |
|
