Barney Adams on wed 8 sep 99
First I want to preface this with I've only been doing clay for 11/2 years.
Second
It actually pains me to disagree with Mel or Tony. I was trying to keep my
mouth
shut but I thought maybe there is a lurker out there that needs me to
champion
our side of this. I agree that planning the pot ahead of time and having an
idea of
the glaze is useful. (what am I doing this is bucking against Ron too).
I however took on the clay stuff knowing I had two paths before me. I could
choose the
more formal which I believe Mel represents or I could go at it on my own in
a more
self disiplined approach. If I do it right the path I chose is the more
difficult. Obviously
it isn't the road Mel took. Sorry Mel, I highly respect your way I just had
to follow another
calling.
My biggest influence in my pots and my turning back to art is Christopher
Alexander's
book "The Timeless Way of Building". It was 3 or 4 months after I had caught
the clay bug
before I even heard of this Leech and Hamada guy. I have read a few of the
articles about
them, but I have to admit I don't get IT from them. I like the what I read
and what they did
and their influence and all but it is some distant history that didn't
include me. I'm pretty much
self taught so my clay influence isn't molded toward any teacher's style.
I never know what I'm going to throw when I go to the studio. I may have a
leaning toward
a bottle or bowl, but I really don't think about it. I decide how much
clay. That's my first
decision because it has to come first. It determines a limit on what I make.
I decide how much
to wedge it. I decide how much to wheel wedge. How the centered shape is at
the moment I center.
All these decisions are made at the moment I do them. I then open as
deciding how wide that will be.
I adjust the shape of the piece as I throw as something the clay does may
attract my attention. I finish
on piece and move on to the next. I admire only when I'm done. Some I ball
back up and put back in a bag.
I take the same approach when I trim. The piece may look entirely diffrent
by the time I get done trimming.
Mostly because things go wrong and I have to adjust. These adjustments
sometimes are the better pots.
This continues with glazing. I have 30 to 50 bisque pots and I just glaze as
the mood strikes me. I tend to
only use a set number of glazes I branch out with the others cuz I want to
use them up.
I do not let the clay determine what it looks like to excuse my lack of
technique. I think I do pretty well
for only at it for 11/2 years. I work hard to improve on everything. More
importantly, I've never liked
what I've drawn or painted. I'm very critical of my own work. I like what
I'm doing know. I hope to get
better. I follow one simple rule: There are no rules but the laws of nature.
(I repeal a few of those if I could).
I also do not fondle my pots. I like the process of making them. I don't
begrudge you fondlers it's just not
where I am. I do recognize how pieces could be regarded this way. I just
want to make something else.
If you need to judge my stuff to decide if I'm full of crap you can check
out some of my work at
http://www.bigfoot.com/~barneya
Sorry again Mel, Tony, Ron and the rest but there is another path. The
problem is it is much more difficult to
maintain a self disipline. I think that is the point you are trying to make.
Barney
mel jacobson wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> one of the most interesting things about the uchida workshop in kyoto
> was that we always knew ahead of time what the pots would look like.
>
> when we did a series...(of course, that is how we made all pots)
> uchida would set the piece on our workbench.
> we would then take the tools, or make them, to create the pieces.
> we would all throw the same pot. and it would be white.
> pure white....as 80 %of his pots where.
>
> when we did the 4,000, or so, tea bowls during the month of august 1971
> we even had two throwers come on board, to help us.
> that made 5 of us throwing all those bowls.
> no one knew who's pots where who's.
> but, we sure knew what they would look like coming from the kilns.
>
> it helps.
>
> that is sorta what professional means. it means that you can predict
> with some accuracy, that what you do, will turn out.
>
> it does not mean...never experiment, don't try new things, don't have
> a pallet of glazes.
> i have many....it is just that i have learned to use them....and do not
> use every one, every time.
>
> certain of my pots work better with certain glazes.
> and, i do not read a recipe on clayart, run to the studio, make it..and
> slather it on my pots.
> dumb.
>
> there are so many glaze books, recipes, ideas floating around, man it
> is like a candy store..............or free booze.
> so, the answer is:
> so many glazes are the same.
> look at the shinos....almost the same recipe.
> malcom davis has given us a good one.
> but, how you fire, what your kiln is like, how thickly you apply..how
> long the pots sit on the shelf before firing...all have their affects.
> your own style plays a very big role in what happens.
>
> ron roy is totally correct in my opinion.
> `see the pots, and think what color as you are working.`
>
> kurt's deal is different.....he makes simple forms, keeps things well
> designed...nothing is silly or `experimental`....
> and, he is just like an old japanese sensai, he has people to make
> the simple forms...he decorates. a perfect balance to craft.
> they are his pots...they could be no one else's.
> mel/mn
> http://www.pclink.com/melpots
> from minnetonka, minnesota, u.s.a.
Barney Adams on sun 12 sep 99
Thanks Tom I think we are of similar mind. The only diffrence I see so far
is I throw only for myself and this allows me more freedom in what I try out.
I think we agree that we both strive for the "nameless quality".
Barney
Tom Wirt wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hey Barney......
> Great post! (I suppose because I tend to agree with you). Betsy and I, too,
> took the "self-taught" route (are any of us really self-taught?) and while
> it's probably the harder route with lots more self-doubt and struggle, the
> one who follows the teacher/taught route ends up fighting to rid themselves
> of the teaching in order to find their own expression.
>
> > I however took on the clay stuff knowing I had two paths before me. I
> could
> > choose the
> > more formal which I believe Mel represents or I could go at it on my own
> in
> > a more
> > self disciplined approach. If I do it right the path I chose is the more
> > difficult.
>
> I struggle almost daily with thoughts that "boy if I only had someone to
> teach me all this stuff, life would be so much easier." On the other hand,
> every thing I find, more or less has to be me, or things I've seen and have
> selected out as something that's attractive to me. So I actually find
> myself avoiding listening to people telling me how things "have" to be to be
> good. If I listen to those on this list, Betsy and I make really lousy
> pots. (We sell a lot of GASP blue).
> On the other hand, we sell some 7,000 of them every year, not only to
> pottery neophytes, but to collectors of MacKenzie, Jacobson, R. Johnston,
> Bresnahan and other potters and I don't believe they all have bad taste.
>
> Sometimes I think that potters get into all the esoterica of woodfired and
> heavy reduction and shinos and oribes in the same way wine aficionados get
> into pear tones and an apple finish or computer nerds get into their lingo
> and esoterica that lock out the uninitiated. Certainly there is a factor
> that as we learn more and see more, our tastes mature, but then we should be
> able to tell someone else precisely why it is better, rather than just
> implying that "you just don't understand". It's kind of an emperor's
> clothes thing.
>
> > I agree that planning the pot ahead of time and having an
> > idea of
> > the glaze is useful. (what am I doing this is bucking against Ron too).
>
> As a functional potter, with me working throwing and Betsy glazing, it is
> impossible for me to know exactly what glaze is going on what pot at the
> time of throwing. Betsy has to do some selection of shape and surface for
> specific glazes, but even then, if the order's due, she has to use what
> she's got. Does it make the perfect pot everytime? Probably not, but when
> you throw 30-50 pots a day, even if you did your own glazing, I'd submit
> it's not possible to remember the intended glaze for each pot. I'd also
> submit that as you make more pots and glaze more pots, you'll find that
> certain things work for you better than others.
>
> > I never know what I'm going to throw when I go to the studio. I may have a
> > leaning toward
> > a bottle or bowl, but I really don't think about it. I decide how much
> > clay.
>
> One thing that I've found that works for me, is to throw to a throwing list.
> I have to do this because it's the only way to get orders done, but it also
> forces a discipline to throw series. And per the recent discussion,
> throwing series is arguably the best way to develop shape and form. Each
> piece should get better trhan the last (not always though). And if you
> don't dump one once in awhile, you're probably not pushing yourself.
>
> As you develop, I'd also suggest concentrating on the specific parts of each
> piece...rim, foot, belly, spout...whatever....at different times. Figure
> out details you especially like, then start to assemble them into a whole.
> Ultimately I think this will lead you to develop "your style". I see way
> too many pots at shows that were obviousdly thrown just to get a surface to
> decorate. So the decoration is interestijng, but who'd want to live with
> the whole pot? And, at least for functional work, and for me, you live with
> the whole pot because you handle it as well as look at it.
>
> When I first started out, potters I did talk to said it will take 6-10 years
> of regular throwing to begin to develop your style. At his point, 6 years
> in, I suspect that's about right. It takes that long until you get enough
> command of the material (clay) to begin to be able to "put it where you want
> it". At least for me this is true.
>
> > I adjust the shape of the piece as I throw as something the clay does may
> > attract my attention. I finish
> > on piece and move on to the next. I admire only when I'm done.
>
> While I generally know where I'm headed from my throwing list, I ususally
> "see" new shapes develop as I throw. Sometimes I can pursue this envisioned
> shape in the currrent piece, sometimes I have to finish the current and then
> go start to develoop the "seen" shape. I'm sure each of us has different
> ways of doing this. Some are more comfortable drawing things out ahead of
> time and then thrwoing to the drawings.
>
> > Mostly because things go wrong and I have to adjust. These adjustments
> > sometimes are the better pots.
> > This continues with glazing. I have 30 to 50 bisque pots and I just glaze
> as
> > the mood strikes me. I tend to
> > only use a set number of glazes I branch out with the others cuz I want to
> > use them up.
>
> I think the important thing here is that after all is done, you look at the
> end results and take time to decide what you like and why. This selection
> process will also lead you toward developing who you are in clay. And you
> will cast aside shapes, glazes and combinations you don't liek for whatever
> reason. As soon as you l;et someone else tell you what is good, then you
> are persuing their aesthetic, not yours.
>
> > I'm very critical of my own work. I like what
> > I'm doing now. I hope to get
> > better. I follow one simple rule: There are no rules but the laws of
> nature.
> > (I repeal a few of those if I could).
>
> And here in lies the rule. You are your only valid critic in developing
> your own style. If you aren't harsh on yourself, you will not get better
> and be true to yourself. It is inherent in the creative and producing act
> that as soon as soething exists, it can be made better. It is a never
> ending process. If it wasn't, you might as well work on the line at an
> assembly plant.
>
> Even making pots as we do, or the "Unkown Craftsman" pots of the old
> Koreans, production work can have life. Alexander talks about this in
> depth. It is summonig up the unconscious subtilties that makes a pot live.
> Quickness, sureness, leaving spontanaeity in form and surface, even though
> the basic shape is determined. Too much analysis and intentional form kills
> the pot as it does a building. Self consciousness kills the end result. A
> good friend/potter once said it is the "intentional accident" that makes the
> great pot.
>
> I think one of the things that is constantly repeated here is that you must
> learn the skills and put them away so they are unconscious. Only then can
> the true creativity come out because only then do you have enough command of
> the materials to make them do what you want.
>
> Everytime I read someone saying, "this is the way to do it" (including this
> post), I read that as "this is the way I did it, maybe there's a lesson in
> there for me". I pick the things that might work, and leave the rest for
> others to pick from. If we don't learn from our elders (like Mel and Kurt
> and Ron and Tony and David and all the others) we're bound to do all the
> dumb stuff they did all over again. Damned if I want to blow up our kiln.
>
> Anyway...enough. There's potting to do. So Barney....stay the course.
> You've chosen your path, and it is the right one for you or you wouldn't be
> on it. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
>
> Tom Wirt
Barney Adams on sun 12 sep 99
Dave,
Yes I see that. There must be some degree of self control. I don't let
the clay randomly make stuff and then put my name on it. I throw
bottle's and dognuts and I try to throw off the hump (Mel makes taking
the piece off seem much easier than it is). I work on control of my
technique, but not in trying to formalize my technique. Especially in
thinking of the form except in guiding it on the fly. I'm in charge when I
throw a piece (unless gravity and centrifigal force revolt and overthrow me).
I believe Mel was leaning toward a self-disipline in our technique or skill.
I hate putting words in Mel's mouth, but I believe that when he was learning
to throw he didn't thing of the glaze but the act of throwing. Once he aquired
the skill to control what he threw then he move to actually producing pieces.
This is the foundation he comes from. I think my goals are the same as his were
when he started I'm just taking a diffrent path where I am repondsible for my
maintaining
the self-disipline. Do I seem to have this right Mel?
Again I prefaced my other posting with how much experience in clay I have
opposed
to Mel or Tony's and others so bear that in mind.
Barney
Dave Finkelnburg wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Barney, All,
> Let's see, is this a question of control????? :-)
> What I got out of Mel's post is this--if someone asks you to make
> something specific, certain shape, color, surface, etc, and you can, you
> have accomplished a great deal in your development as a potter. On the
> other hand, perhaps someone is (like me!) new and learning and all they can
> say is, "Well, I'll try and see what turns out, because I really can't
> predict when I start to work, what I'll have when I'm finished." That
> latter person has a way to go in their development.
> This doesn't mean one should never work spontaneously. Experiment, be
> creative! That's a great way of learning! It is less controlled (ackkk,
> the dreaded "C" word!) than a fully planned piece, but both methods are
> important, valid ways of potting.
> Sorry, I got carried away. I'll go back to the kiln room now. :-)
> Dave Finkelnburg on another gorgeous cool, almost fall day in
> southern Idaho
> dfinkeln@cyberhighway.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barney Adams
> To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 11:10 AM
> Subject: Re: see before you glaze (long)
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >First I want to preface this with I've only been doing clay for 11/2 years.
> >Second
> >It actually pains me to disagree with Mel or Tony. I was trying to keep my
> >mouth
> >shut but I thought maybe there is a lurker out there that needs me to
> >champion
> >our side of this. I agree that planning the pot ahead of time and having an
> >idea of
> >the glaze is useful. (what am I doing this is bucking against Ron too).
> >
> >I however took on the clay stuff knowing I had two paths before me. I could
> >choose the
> >more formal which I believe Mel represents or I could go at it on my own in
> >a more
> >self disiplined approach. If I do it right the path I chose is the more
> >difficult. Obviously
> >it isn't the road Mel took. Sorry Mel, I highly respect your way I just had
> >to follow another
> >calling.
> >
> >My biggest influence in my pots and my turning back to art is Christopher
> >Alexander's
> >book "The Timeless Way of Building". It was 3 or 4 months after I had
> caught
> >the clay bug
> >before I even heard of this Leech and Hamada guy. I have read a few of the
> >articles about
> >them, but I have to admit I don't get IT from them. I like the what I read
> >and what they did
> >and their influence and all but it is some distant history that didn't
> >include me. I'm pretty much
> >self taught so my clay influence isn't molded toward any teacher's style.
> >
> >I never know what I'm going to throw when I go to the studio. I may have a
> >leaning toward
> >a bottle or bowl, but I really don't think about it. I decide how much
> >clay. That's my first
> >decision because it has to come first. It determines a limit on what I
> make.
> >I decide how much
> >to wedge it. I decide how much to wheel wedge. How the centered shape is at
> >the moment I center.
> >All these decisions are made at the moment I do them. I then open as
> >deciding how wide that will be.
> >I adjust the shape of the piece as I throw as something the clay does may
> >attract my attention. I finish
> >on piece and move on to the next. I admire only when I'm done. Some I ball
> >back up and put back in a bag.
> >
> >I take the same approach when I trim. The piece may look entirely diffrent
> >by the time I get done trimming.
> >Mostly because things go wrong and I have to adjust. These adjustments
> >sometimes are the better pots.
> >This continues with glazing. I have 30 to 50 bisque pots and I just glaze
> as
> >the mood strikes me. I tend to
> >only use a set number of glazes I branch out with the others cuz I want to
> >use them up.
> >
> >I do not let the clay determine what it looks like to excuse my lack of
> >technique. I think I do pretty well
> >for only at it for 11/2 years. I work hard to improve on everything. More
> >importantly, I've never liked
> >what I've drawn or painted. I'm very critical of my own work. I like what
> >I'm doing know. I hope to get
> >better. I follow one simple rule: There are no rules but the laws of
> nature.
> >(I repeal a few of those if I could).
> >
> >I also do not fondle my pots. I like the process of making them. I don't
> >begrudge you fondlers it's just not
> >where I am. I do recognize how pieces could be regarded this way. I just
> >want to make something else.
> >
> >If you need to judge my stuff to decide if I'm full of crap you can check
> >out some of my work at
> >http://www.bigfoot.com/~barneya
> >
> >Sorry again Mel, Tony, Ron and the rest but there is another path. The
> >problem is it is much more difficult to
> >maintain a self disipline. I think that is the point you are trying to
> make.
> >
> >Barney
> >
> >
> >
> >mel jacobson wrote:
> >
> >> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >> one of the most interesting things about the uchida workshop in kyoto
> >> was that we always knew ahead of time what the pots would look like.
> >>
> >> when we did a series...(of course, that is how we made all pots)
> >> uchida would set the piece on our workbench.
> >> we would then take the tools, or make them, to create the pieces.
> >> we would all throw the same pot. and it would be white.
> >> pure white....as 80 %of his pots where.
> >>
> >> when we did the 4,000, or so, tea bowls during the month of august 1971
> >> we even had two throwers come on board, to help us.
> >> that made 5 of us throwing all those bowls.
> >> no one knew who's pots where who's.
> >> but, we sure knew what they would look like coming from the kilns.
> >>
> >> it helps.
> >>
> >> that is sorta what professional means. it means that you can predict
> >> with some accuracy, that what you do, will turn out.
> >>
> >> it does not mean...never experiment, don't try new things, don't have
> >> a pallet of glazes.
> >> i have many....it is just that i have learned to use them....and do not
> >> use every one, every time.
> >>
> >> certain of my pots work better with certain glazes.
> >> and, i do not read a recipe on clayart, run to the studio, make it..and
> >> slather it on my pots.
> >> dumb.
> >>
> >> there are so many glaze books, recipes, ideas floating around, man it
> >> is like a candy store..............or free booze.
> >> so, the answer is:
> >> so many glazes are the same.
> >> look at the shinos....almost the same recipe.
> >> malcom davis has given us a good one.
> >> but, how you fire, what your kiln is like, how thickly you apply..how
> >> long the pots sit on the shelf before firing...all have their affects.
> >> your own style plays a very big role in what happens.
> >>
> >> ron roy is totally correct in my opinion.
> >> `see the pots, and think what color as you are working.`
> >>
> >> kurt's deal is different.....he makes simple forms, keeps things well
> >> designed...nothing is silly or `experimental`....
> >> and, he is just like an old japanese sensai, he has people to make
> >> the simple forms...he decorates. a perfect balance to craft.
> >> they are his pots...they could be no one else's.
> >> mel/mn
> >> http://www.pclink.com/melpots
> >> from minnetonka, minnesota, u.s.a.
> >
| |
|
