Ikiru on sun 13 jun 99
------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Aldridge =3Cpbwriter=40fwb.gulf.net=3E
=3E
=3E But would this then mean that American potters would also
=3Ehave to adopt Japanese styles in order to sell?
I don't think so. There is a large market there (I've seen
handmade pottery at convenience stores) and the public is better educated
about pottery in Japan. On the whole, your quality has to be better,
that's all. Japan is the potter's wonderland. :=5E)
=3EIt's my understanding that few American potters are held
=3Ein high regard in Japan.
There are few American potters selling their pottery in Japan. I
was in a show in Japan last spring, curated by Warren MacKenzie. It
included 12 other Minnesota and Wisconsin potters and several hundred pots
(Mac had 100 in the show and each of us had 10 pieces each.) The show
was almost totally sold out in the first couple hours of the opening.
People liked the American work displayed there.
=3E Frankly, I prefer the best American potters' work to that of the
=3Ebest Japanese potters. Does that mean that my esthetic is
=3Etherefore inferior to the typical Japanese person's?
Ray, a good pot is a good pot, it has nothing to do with race or place of
birth. But quality is effected by an educated public and a demand for
quality work. Where that exists, there is a better chance for quality
work to be supported.
I just won a Jerome travel/study grant. I'm going to
Mashiko, Japan to work at a friend's pottery for at least a year. Hope
to leave in October.
/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com
=A7 http://hachiko.com
=22The significant problems we face...cannot be solved by the
same level of thinking that created them.=22 =7E Einstein
Ray Aldridge on mon 14 jun 99
At 12:52 PM 6/13/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ray Aldridge
>
>>It's my understanding that few American potters are held
>>in high regard in Japan.
>
> There are few American potters selling their pottery in Japan. I
>was in a show in Japan last spring, curated by Warren MacKenzie. It
>included 12 other Minnesota and Wisconsin potters and several hundred pots
>(Mac had 100 in the show and each of us had 10 pieces each.) The show
>was almost totally sold out in the first couple hours of the opening.
>People liked the American work displayed there.
Was it really "American", in the strictest esthetic sense? I'm a big
MacKenzie (and disciples) fan, but it's clear his esthetic is derived
fairly directly from the Leachian assimilation of Eastern values. So it
isn't surprising that he would be appreciated in Japan-- it's not as much
of a stretch for the Japanese as it would be to appreciate pots originating
largely outside the Leach tradition.
I's be interested in knowing whether American potters outside the Leachian
lineage, whose work is not yet collectable in the financial sense, have
much of a following in Japan. If the well-established Japanese xenophobia
extends to experimental barbarian work, I would imagine that Japan is not a
good market for American avant garde. I could be completely wrong, since
I've visited Japan only twice and for the briefest imaginable time. My
knowledge of things Japanese is very shallow and mostly limited to the pots
published in the West.
>
>> Frankly, I prefer the best American potters' work to that of the
>>best Japanese potters. Does that mean that my esthetic is
>>therefore inferior to the typical Japanese person's?
>
>Ray, a good pot is a good pot, it has nothing to do with race or place of
>birth.
I don't mean to be difficult, but that's not really an answer. (A clever
parry, though!) I framed the question deliberately to expose bias of a
different sort than mine, (which I freely acknowledge-- an artist without
any biases is a cipher.) I hoped to point out to the folk who haven't
thought it through that lionizing Japanese esthetics is exactly the same
thing as disparaging the esthetics of other cultures, particularly when
expressed in terms like, "if only Americans could be more like the Japanese
in their appreciation for pottery." There's nothing really wrong with
this, of course, even though I wonder if the ramifications of this wish
have been sufficiently explored by those who feel this way.... I'm just
trying to promote critical thinking, I suppose.
The best American potters and the best Japanese potters, (judging "best"
by public and critical acceptance) do very different work. However, there
seems far less diversity among the best Japanese potters, which may
constitute a strength, or may reveal a weakness. I don't really have any
idea, as must be obvious, and opinions will vary depending on the
importance you assign to originality. (But to quote Satan, I know what I
like.) Oddly enough, in my own artistic endeavors, I make a great effort
to avoid any anxiety about the originality of what I'm doing. You'd think
I'd be more sympathetic to the pots produced in a more tradition-bound
culture. And I do appreciate many Japanese pots, especially the ones that
remain within the boundaries of sensible function. I'm a particular fan of
the work of Shimaoka, whom I've always considered a better potter than
Shoji Hamada. I'm not a fan of work that seems to be a
deliberately-grotesque distortion of the traditional concerns, while still
attempting to remain sufficiently within the tradition to be promotable to
a tradition-oriented public. Many artists here in America do the same
thing, but without the financial incentives that appear to influence
Japanese potters who follow this path.
> I just won a Jerome travel/study grant. I'm going to
>Mashiko, Japan to work at a friend's pottery for at least a year. Hope
>to leave in October.
>
Congratulations! I may take a perverse pleasure in sacred cow tipping, but
I deeply envy you the opportunity. Eclecticism is my personal Muse--
exposure to other cultures and ways of thinking can only nurture your art.
Again, let me apologize if I've offended anyone with my opinions, which are
worth exactly what they cost. But it seems a shame that an artist cannot
express a negative opinion of an esthetic tradition without upsetting some
of his listeners. I wonder... if I had criticized the American esthetic
tradition in similarly vague and polite terms, would anyone here have been
upset? Would any Japanese potter have leapt to its defense? Maybe--
remarkable people can be found in both countries.
Ray
Lee love on wed 16 jun 99
------------------
Hi Ray,
Our two experinces of MacKenzie's work and Leach's work are really
different. There is no way I could mix up MacKenzie's work with
Japanese work, it is totally him. I live with his work, use it every
day, and can see his Scottish background in his work and also the MidWest.
I recognize the Asian influences, but is Japanese =22unAmerican?=22 Asia =
is
a part of our heritage too, as we head into the 21st century.
I know a different Leach too. Leach is Leach, even though I
think his best work had a stronger Chinese influence in it. He was
influenced by the folks that did the best work in his medium. He had a
cosmopolition attitude.
We might ask what exactly is American? You know, Leach and
MacKenzie had arguments about this. Leach said our American work was
weak because =22It had no tap root.=22 Actually, a lack of a single =
=22tap
root=22 can be an advantage. Instead of a single tap root with no choice,
we have numerous tap rootlets. What we choose to follow is up to us as
creative people. The only problem with so much choice is that it
requires more skill, because the path and map are not perscribed.
It is irrelevant to think in terms of American and not
American in this day and age. It is better to see the work beyond our
labeling it. Let's think about the aesthetic strength of the work, no
matter what its influences are. In the past, we did not have knowledge
about the best work that existed in the world. We only knew what happened
in our little corner of our village. We know better now. We have no
excuses.
/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com
=A7 =A7 http://hachiko.com/akita-g.html
The Akita Dog Graphics Email List.
Ray Aldridge on wed 23 jun 99
At 09:17 AM 6/16/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Hi Ray,
>
>
> Our two experinces of MacKenzie's work and Leach's work are really
>different. There is no way I could mix up MacKenzie's work with
>Japanese work, it is totally him. I live with his work, use it every
>day, and can see his Scottish background in his work and also the MidWest.
I evidently failed to make my viewpoint clear. I'm not saying that
MackKenzie's work is "Japanese," whatever that might be. I'm saying that
it is more accessible to the Japanese because he shares influences with
Japanese potters. All great potters (and I certainly regard MacKenzie as
one) acknowledge such influences and it would, in my opinion, be silly not
to accept that this influence exists and is a significant component in both
his work and in his acceptance by Japanese collectors. Of course
MacKenzies work is "totally him," just as Shimaoka's is. That doesn't mean
they don't share roots.
>I recognize the Asian influences, but is Japanese "unAmerican?" Asia is
>a part of our heritage too, as we head into the 21st century.
Yes of course, Japanese art is unAmerican, just as American art is
unJapanese. What is the point of blurring such particularites, especially
for the artist? It is exactly the "particularity" of art that makes it
fascinating to most human beings. The particularity of folk art, for
example, is derived almost entirely from the time and place of its
creation. The particularity of self-conscious 20th century "fine art"
derives more from an individual artist, but wouldn't it be naive to
entirely discount the influence of time and place?
>
> I know a different Leach too. Leach is Leach, even though I
>think his best work had a stronger Chinese influence in it. He was
>influenced by the folks that did the best work in his medium. He had a
>cosmopolition attitude.
>
No doubt... but I don't see how this runs counter to my observation that
Leach's work, and that of his esthetic heirs, including MacKenzie, is more
accessible to the Japanese than potters who derive their memes from other
traditions.
> We might ask what exactly is American? You know, Leach and
>MacKenzie had arguments about this. Leach said our American work was
>weak because "It had no tap root." Actually, a lack of a single "tap
>root" can be an advantage. Instead of a single tap root with no choice,
>we have numerous tap rootlets. What we choose to follow is up to us as
>creative people. The only problem with so much choice is that it
>requires more skill, because the path and map are not perscribed.
I'd certainly agree with this, and I think Leach was wrong about the
weakness of American work (or at least about the reason for it, if it is
indeed weak.)
>
> It is irrelevant to think in terms of American and not
>American in this day and age.
Again, I think you must be misunderstanding me in some important respect.
It is not irrelevant if we are discussing the acceptance of American work
by Japanese collectors, or whether or not the Japanese esthetic is perhaps
too narrow in its precepts to be a Good Thing, were it to be adopted by the
American public. Since that was indeed what we were discussing, I must
respectfully disagree with you.
> It is better to see the work beyond our
>labeling it. Let's think about the aesthetic strength of the work, no
>matter what its influences are. In the past, we did not have knowledge
>about the best work that existed in the world. We only knew what happened
>in our little corner of our village. We know better now. We have no
>excuses.
>
I certainly find no fault with these platitudes, and will forthwith begin a
needlepoint sampler embodying them that I can hang over my monitor, lest I
forget.
Hey, I hope you know I'm just kidding around. Eclecticism is my god.
You'd probably be astonished if you knew how many and how diverse are the
influences I admit to. Some might even call me an excessively avid
collector of weird unAmerican ideas. I'm really not an esthetic jingoist,
as perhaps you suspect. I'm just contrary.
Ray
| |
|
