Ray Aldridge on tue 25 jan 00
John Hesselberth wrote:
>P.S. As a side note to all Clayart members. I put in a proposal to
>present a paper on this general subject of glaze stability at NCECA.
>Even with good support from Louis Katz, Ron Roy and other Clayart
>members, it got rejected. Then I proposed to lead a discussion group on
>the subject. Got rejected a second time. Sigh. They said there would
>not be enough interest. Oh well, that means I'll get to attend NCECA
>with only the goals of soaking up as much as I can and meeting people-- I
>won't have to worry about doing any talking. That I'm looking forward to.
>
This could hardly be a better example of the shortcomings of NCECA when it
comes to serving the needs of studio potters, as opposed to educators.
It's difficult to imagine a more important subject for working potters--
that NCECA didn't think so says a lot about their priorities-- and perhaps
about the priorities of their constituency.
Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
L Skeen on wed 26 jan 00
Ray Aldridge wrote:
> Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
Ray,
I have not heard anything recently about the Potter's Organization. Can we
get an update?
Thanks
Lisa
elizabeth priddy on wed 26 jan 00
remember, it is NCECA, not NCESP
You are right, there ought to be an
organization of Studio Potters, then
I would be saving up for two conferences
instead of one.
Maybe NCECA could have an offshoot conference
organized by studio potters to meet their needs,
but meeting at the same time and place as NCECA.
It could meet in some convenient hotel nearby.
Maybe something of this sort could happen in
the Charlotte Event as there is time to
organize it.
---
Elizabeth Priddy
email: epriddy@usa.net
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/clayworkshop
Clay: 12,000 yrs and still fresh!
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:29:33 Ray Aldridge wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>John Hesselberth wrote:
>
>>P.S. As a side note to all Clayart members. I put in a proposal to
>>present a paper on this general subject of glaze stability at NCECA.
>>Even with good support from Louis Katz, Ron Roy and other Clayart
>>members, it got rejected. Then I proposed to lead a discussion group on
>>the subject. Got rejected a second time. Sigh. They said there would
>>not be enough interest. Oh well, that means I'll get to attend NCECA
>>with only the goals of soaking up as much as I can and meeting people-- I
>>won't have to worry about doing any talking. That I'm looking forward to.
>>
>
>This could hardly be a better example of the shortcomings of NCECA when it
>comes to serving the needs of studio potters, as opposed to educators.
>It's difficult to imagine a more important subject for working potters--
>that NCECA didn't think so says a lot about their priorities-- and perhaps
>about the priorities of their constituency.
>
>Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
>
>Ray
>
>
>Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
>http://www.goodpots.com
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
gburning.mail on wed 26 jan 00
So do we talk or do we make a move and use the clayart room (at NCECA) to
begin the process of dialogue and decision towards our own studio potter
group? What about those of us firmly astride the issue as educators and studio
potters? Lee
Ray Aldridge wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> John Hesselberth wrote:
>
> >P.S. As a side note to all Clayart members. I put in a proposal to
> >present a paper on this general subject of glaze stability at NCECA.
> >Even with good support from Louis Katz, Ron Roy and other Clayart
> >members, it got rejected. Then I proposed to lead a discussion group on
> >the subject. Got rejected a second time. Sigh. They said there would
> >not be enough interest. Oh well, that means I'll get to attend NCECA
> >with only the goals of soaking up as much as I can and meeting people-- I
> >won't have to worry about doing any talking. That I'm looking forward to.
> >
>
> This could hardly be a better example of the shortcomings of NCECA when it
> comes to serving the needs of studio potters, as opposed to educators.
> It's difficult to imagine a more important subject for working potters--
> that NCECA didn't think so says a lot about their priorities-- and perhaps
> about the priorities of their constituency.
>
> Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
>
> Ray
>
> Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
> http://www.goodpots.com
Bill Campbell on wed 26 jan 00
I really don't know why we bother with them at all. They really are only for
educators. It would be nice to have an organization that was more responsive
to the needs and issues of studio potters.
I believe that CerMATECH is focusing its energy toward studio, and ART
potteries. They are having a workshop in Clearwater Florida on Feb 3 and 4.
If you are interested E mail Debbie Johnston djohnston@offinger.com
NCECA and the American Ceramic Society were together until the mid 70s.
Splitting up really didn't do either organization any good.
I'll off my soapbox before I work myself up.
Bill Campbell
Julie Pash on wed 26 jan 00
Hi Ray,
I must disagree with you that the subject of
glaze stability is more important to studio potters than to
educators. I think that this issue is just as important, if not
more so, to educators.
However, I do agree with your subject heading. What I think is going
on here is that the NCECA officials are not concerned that there will
be too little interest in the topic, but TOO MUCH interest. The dead
giveaway is that they said that interest would be insufficient for even
a break out group discussion. Come on.
The real issue is that this would open up a can of worms that NCECA
would rather not deal with. I can certainly understand their squeamishness.
But that does not mean it is not the appropriate forum for this subject.
NCECA is the closest thing we have to an official voice for the clay
community. Just because the process would be difficult, does not mean that
we should not, at least, start tackling this problem.
This is a political hot potato that NCECA would rather leave in the
hands of an unofficial body like clayart. The problem is that many potters
do not read clayart. When you've been lurking on clayart as long as I
have, it's easy to forget that! Out there in non-clayart-land what goes on
here carries little weight. I've learned that from personal experience.
Maybe, as time goes on, that will change.
This is just another example of what a wonderful, incredible (please insert
more superlatives here) resource this list is for the clay community. I doubt
that even Joe and Richard could have envisioned all the different ways that
clayart would become so invaluable.
Thank you to the owners and contributors for donating so much of their
time to this forum.
Julie in Southern California, who is wondering whether she has enough
nerve to hit the send key.....
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>John Hesselberth wrote:
>
>>P.S. As a side note to all Clayart members. I put in a proposal to
>>present a paper on this general subject of glaze stability at NCECA.
>>Even with good support from Louis Katz, Ron Roy and other Clayart
>>members, it got rejected. Then I proposed to lead a discussion group on
>>the subject. Got rejected a second time. Sigh. They said there would
>>not be enough interest. Oh well, that means I'll get to attend NCECA
>>with only the goals of soaking up as much as I can and meeting people-- I
>>won't have to worry about doing any talking. That I'm looking forward to.
>>
>
>This could hardly be a better example of the shortcomings of NCECA when it
>comes to serving the needs of studio potters, as opposed to educators.
>It's difficult to imagine a more important subject for working potters--
>that NCECA didn't think so says a lot about their priorities-- and perhaps
>about the priorities of their constituency.
>
>Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
>
>Ray
>
>
>Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
>http://www.goodpots.com
>
Ray Aldridge on wed 26 jan 00
At 03:39 PM 1/26/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
>> Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
>
>Ray,
>I have not heard anything recently about the Potter's Organization. Can we
>get an update?
>
Lisa, it's gone the way of the coelacanth, but it may yet emerge from
extinction. Gavin, who'd volunteered to chair the effort, had to bow out,
and I've been waiting for Someone Other Than Me to volunteer to take his
place.
We do have a website, but so far all we have is our rough mission
statement, which is set up so that interested parties can comment on it.
http://www.clayguild.org/
Clearly we have to come up with a plan to drive interest in such an
organization. Good suggestions fly back and forth on Clayart constantly--
the one Hank Murrow made today, for a local materials infobank, is a great
one. Or a database on shows and exhibits, with frank reviews None of
these ideas would be expensive to set up, since there are public domain
databases that could be used.
Anyone who'd like to volunteer to chair or otherwise contribute to the
International Clay Guild, can write all the members at:
clayguild@egroups.com
I actually think this will eventually come to pass. Human beings are
organizing creatures by nature, and the need for such an organization is
obvious, at least to me.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Vince Pitelka on thu 27 jan 00
At 03:54 PM 1/26/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I really don't know why we bother with them at all. They really are only for
>educators. It would be nice to have an organization that was more responsive
>to the needs and issues of studio potters.
Them??? What is this? US versus THEM??? This surprises me. And it just
is not true at all, more so now than ever before. NCECA is becoming more and
more receptive to a broad diversity of independent studio artisans AND
educators. It started out just for educators, but it has changed a lot over
the years, and it has always been very down-to-earth and accessible. I
think that an organization for independent studio potters is a great idea,
but I'd like to see it kept within NCECA or concurrent with NCECA, rather
than making it a separate group meeting at a separate time.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Home - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Les Crimp on thu 27 jan 00
I dislike talking about a persons/organizatins shortcomings. It never seems
to lead anywhere as it starts on a negtive note to begin with.
I would like to come to NCECA but with the U.S. $$$ at such a premium it
makes it difficult for a Canadian potter to participate (although there are
many who do ... and I am sure with much enjoyment).
We in B.C. will be having our first CANADIAN CLAY - A CLAY SYMPOSIUM in
Burnaby, B.C. on Saturday March 25th at the Shadbolt Centre for the Arts.
There will be demonstrations, a film festival, gallery shows, firings, slide
shows, panel discussions, draws and more.
If you are in the Pacific Northwest and can not afford the trip to Denver
.... come on up!!! The cost is:
Early Bird $64.20 (with lunch $74.90)
After Feb. 15th $74.90 (with lunch $85.60) This is all in
Canadian Funds --- think about it !!!
Call The Shadbolt at (604)291-6864 or e-mail
bcpguild@intouch.bc.ca
We have 12 of our potters from across Canada coming to work their own brand
of magic and it will be a memorable day.
Y'all are welcome!!!
Les Crimp in Nanoose Bay, B.C. (Vancouver Island )
lcrimp@home.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Campbell
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: NCECA shortcomings
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I really don't know why we bother with them at all. They really are only
for
> educators. It would be nice to have an organization that was more
responsive
> to the needs and issues of studio potters.
> I believe that CerMATECH is focusing its energy toward studio, and ART
> potteries. They are having a workshop in Clearwater Florida on Feb 3 and
4.
> If you are interested E mail Debbie Johnston djohnston@offinger.com
> NCECA and the American Ceramic Society were together until the mid 70s.
> Splitting up really didn't do either organization any good.
> I'll off my soapbox before I work myself up.
> Bill Campbell
>
Janet Kaiser on thu 27 jan 00
OK so NCECA is not meeting the needs of professional potters in the US.
Obviously you need to organise in some was, but, it seems to me that you are
trying to put the cart before the horse!
The way it works is first a regional organisation (such as a State Guild),
then a national organisation, then a trans-national of neighbouring
countries (in your case USA/Canada/Middle America) and then once all that is
in place, an INTERNATIONAL organisation.
If you do not have a national guild which answers the needs of professional
potters in the US, how are you going to organise something international?
In the UK we have many regional organisations, which are potters who have
organised themselves to provide information, workshops, selling
opportunities, etc.
Then there is the CPA (Craft Potters Association) for the whole UK where
members first submit for selection and are vetted by a panel of several
"names" in UK ceramic circles. (Next submission date in Feb 5th.) IF
accepted (and it is not easy!), you become a Professional Member.
There are also Fellows, which are those animals that a parallel thread is
seeking to define... i.e. "Master Potters". There is also associate
membership where all we amateurs and people interested in clay are allowed
to lurk. At least this is my understanding of how it works... Carenza and
David may correct me here.
All members pay an annual subscription and receive the CPA News. The CPA
also publishes CERAMIC REVIEW which is a glossy magazine of international
reputation. It was first published in the 1970s, so it and the CPA have been
going a while!
British potters who live and work abroad can apply to be CPA members, as can
all potters who live and work in UK. The book "Potters" listing all members
and fellows is published regularly and is due to go into its 13th or 14th
edition. That has a page dedicated to each potter, his/her work, a brief
statement and full address and contact details. It is used widely by the
public and galleries.
Members can submit work for exhibition in the CPA shop in London... A first
stop for clay enthusiasts from UK, Europe and the world. I believe they
charge a hefty 117.5% commission but once your work appears there, you are
more or less "made" as a potter. This is the only CPA outlet, except for
selling shows which they organise. These are open to Associate as well as
Members and Fellows. But they are juried.
What I really want to say is that there are several tiers of admin and
organisation at play here. AND this is only the tiny UK... As far as I know,
it has not even gone on to the "trans-national" stage, which would mean
European in our case. OK here we have a language problem... If all the
national European Ceramic Associations were to join into one umbrella
organisation, it would be difficult for that reason alone.
But as I said... You really need a functioning National Association at all
levels before you start thinking of International.
Just my tuppence worth!
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art: Home of The International Potters' Path
Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales, UK
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
We have server problems. If you cannot access
The CoA web page, please try again later. Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Aldridge
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: 26 January 2000 21:52
Subject: Re: NCECA shortcomings
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 03:39 PM 1/26/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
>> Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
>
>Ray,
>I have not heard anything recently about the Potter's Organization. Can we
>get an update?
>
Lisa, it's gone the way of the coelacanth, but it may yet emerge from
extinction. Gavin, who'd volunteered to chair the effort, had to bow out,
and I've been waiting for Someone Other Than Me to volunteer to take his
place.
We do have a website, but so far all we have is our rough mission
statement, which is set up so that interested parties can comment on it.
http://www.clayguild.org/
Clearly we have to come up with a plan to drive interest in such an
organization. Good suggestions fly back and forth on Clayart constantly--
the one Hank Murrow made today, for a local materials infobank, is a great
one. Or a database on shows and exhibits, with frank reviews None of
these ideas would be expensive to set up, since there are public domain
databases that could be used.
Anyone who'd like to volunteer to chair or otherwise contribute to the
International Clay Guild, can write all the members at:
clayguild@egroups.com
I actually think this will eventually come to pass. Human beings are
organizing creatures by nature, and the need for such an organization is
obvious, at least to me.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Bobbi Bassett on thu 27 jan 00
In a message dated 01/26/2000 3:54:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
epriddy@my-Deja.com writes:
> You are right, there ought to be an
> organization of Studio Potters, then
> I would be saving up for two conferences
> instead of one.
>
> Maybe NCECA could have an offshoot conference
> organized by studio potters to meet their needs,
> but meeting at the same time and place as NCECA.
My 2 cents worth...................it seems there shouldn't have to be 2
conferences or even an offshoot conference. National Council for Education in
the Ceramic Arts does not SAY college or grad school. It says EDUCATION and
that can be at the studio level as well. I think the board of NCECA should
rethink their purpose and programs for the conference. It high time NCECA
grew up. Education does not stop at the door of the school. Education is
lifelong. The studio potters I met at NCECA last year were there to learn.
They are no different than the teachers or students........ most of us are
the teachers AND the students. When the teacher stops being the student
he/she is no longer a good teacher.
Bobbi in PA
"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun." Katherine Hepburn
Louis Katz on fri 28 jan 00
Dear Clayart,
Please carbon copy me in any reponses you might have. I am out of town.
The NCECA Board is just what it is, people elected by the members. If you don't
feel represented by the board nominate someone who will represent you. I did my
best to represent what I saw as the "Clayart concensous" when I was an elected
board member. Elect someone. You have the power. Make your feelings known. Make
them known in writing, hard snailmail copy addressed to the NCECA board and they
will be distributed and read.
Jist to clarify my role on the board. O have an appointed position. I do not
vote. I am not currently attending out of town meetings but I am supposed to
start after this conference. My job title is now ad-hoc director of electronic
communication.
I do consolidate all clayart eamil and distribute it to the board minus names
and peripheral information, but, snail mail gets far more attention.
Go to the meetings at the conference. Make your voices heard in a constructive
non acusitorial manner, and elect people who will represent you.
Louis
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> In a message dated 01/26/2000 3:54:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> epriddy@my-Deja.com writes:
>
> > You are right, there ought to be an
> > organization of Studio Potters, then
> > I would be saving up for two conferences
> > instead of one.
> >
> > Maybe NCECA could have an offshoot conference
> > organized by studio potters to meet their needs,
> > but meeting at the same time and place as NCECA.
>
> My 2 cents worth...................it seems there shouldn't have to be 2
> conferences or even an offshoot conference. National Council for Education in
> the Ceramic Arts does not SAY college or grad school. It says EDUCATION and
> that can be at the studio level as well. I think the board of NCECA should
> rethink their purpose and programs for the conference. It high time NCECA
> grew up. Education does not stop at the door of the school. Education is
> lifelong. The studio potters I met at NCECA last year were there to learn.
> They are no different than the teachers or students........ most of us are
> the teachers AND the students. When the teacher stops being the student
> he/she is no longer a good teacher.
>
> Bobbi in PA
> "If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun." Katherine Hepburn
>
Bill Campbell on fri 28 jan 00
Vince
I really disagree. I have been going to their events since 1970 and have
watched the focus continue to be toward educators only. I thought when Vivica
Hino Was elected to an office something would change. Unfortunately she died
before she help much. I would like to have you give me any example that you
can of how NCECA has become more responsive to our needs and issues.
I don't suggest that we meet in a different place necessarily. Our meetings
could be in the same places and at the same times and could be set up to
include the people from Clay Art.
We do not need to have a different organization if they choose to represent
us too, but it will have to be more than a few crumbs.
I remember well how much more their was back when the American Ceramic
Society met with NCECA.
NCECA must try harder if they want us. I cant afford to go to the meetings
and have to only value be as a social event.
Bill Campbell
NakedClay@aol.com on fri 28 jan 00
In a message dated 1/27/00 11:56:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, janet writes:
>
> Members can submit work for exhibition in the CPA shop in London... A first
> stop for clay enthusiasts from UK, Europe and the world. I believe they
> charge a hefty 117.5% commission but once your work appears there, you are
> more or less "made" as a potter.
--------------------------------------------------------
Hi Janet!
Thanks for your thorough report.
Could you clarify the quote above? Does this mean a potter who exhibits at
the CPA shop pays the gallery, once his pottery is sold? That's quite a
commitment, to be noted as a potter of note!
Thanks for your help.
Milton NakedClay@AOL.COM
Vince Pitelka on sat 29 jan 00
Bill -
Perhaps I should restate my point. It is true that educators are the
primary participants in the panels and lectures, and it is true that a lot
of the topics are pretty esoteric, aimed at the academic and the ceramic
sculptor. But the impression that potters are excluded from NCECA is in the
eye of the beholder and the potter. No one is excluding potters, and the
more of them participate, the more NCECA will respond to their needs. As
someone pointed out, NCECA is a grab bag of wonderful information and
experience for anyone open-minded enough to make the most of it. And as
Louis pointed out, the policies of this organization are determined by those
who vote and those who attend the meetings. So perhaps Clayart members
should make a pact to attend the meetings and vote???
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Home - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Ron Roy on sun 30 jan 00
I think there is much truth in what Julie says here. Remember - NCECA
relies on volunteers to do the much of the work and those in charge
this time have an attitude - as any will have. There will be other
workers with other attitudes and the work that John is doing will get
exposure. Waiting a while more will simply mean it will have more
meat.
There is no way that information this important to both the academics
and the working potters can be ignored.
RR
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi Ray,
> I must disagree with you that the subject of
>glaze stability is more important to studio potters than to
>educators. I think that this issue is just as important, if not
>more so, to educators.
>
> However, I do agree with your subject heading. What I think is going
>on here is that the NCECA officials are not concerned that there will
>be too little interest in the topic, but TOO MUCH interest. The dead
>giveaway is that they said that interest would be insufficient for even
>a break out group discussion. Come on.
>
> The real issue is that this would open up a can of worms that NCECA
>would rather not deal with. I can certainly understand their squeamishness.
>But that does not mean it is not the appropriate forum for this subject.
>NCECA is the closest thing we have to an official voice for the clay
>community. Just because the process would be difficult, does not mean that
>we should not, at least, start tackling this problem.
>
> This is a political hot potato that NCECA would rather leave in the
>hands of an unofficial body like clayart. The problem is that many potters
>do not read clayart. When you've been lurking on clayart as long as I
>have, it's easy to forget that! Out there in non-clayart-land what goes on
>here carries little weight. I've learned that from personal experience.
>Maybe, as time goes on, that will change.
>
> This is just another example of what a wonderful, incredible (please insert
>more superlatives here) resource this list is for the clay community. I doubt
>that even Joe and Richard could have envisioned all the different ways that
>clayart would become so invaluable.
>
> Thank you to the owners and contributors for donating so much of their
>time to this forum.
>
> Julie in Southern California, who is wondering whether she has enough
>nerve to hit the send key.....
>
>
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >John Hesselberth wrote:
> >
> >>P.S. As a side note to all Clayart members. I put in a proposal to
> >>present a paper on this general subject of glaze stability at NCECA.
> >>Even with good support from Louis Katz, Ron Roy and other Clayart
> >>members, it got rejected. Then I proposed to lead a discussion group on
> >>the subject. Got rejected a second time. Sigh. They said there would
> >>not be enough interest. Oh well, that means I'll get to attend NCECA
> >>with only the goals of soaking up as much as I can and meeting people-- I
> >>won't have to worry about doing any talking. That I'm looking forward to.
> >>
> >
> >This could hardly be a better example of the shortcomings of NCECA when it
> >comes to serving the needs of studio potters, as opposed to educators.
> >It's difficult to imagine a more important subject for working potters--
> >that NCECA didn't think so says a lot about their priorities-- and perhaps
> >about the priorities of their constituency.
> >
> >Another reason why studio potters need their own organization.
> >
> >Ray
> >
> >
> >Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
> >http://www.goodpots.com
> >
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail,
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada. M1G 3N8
Tel: 416-439-2621
Fax: 416-438-7849
Paul Lewing on tue 1 feb 00
This discussion of what studio potters could get out of NCECA has been
real interesting to me. I've been going almost every year for many
years. The first one I went to was Portland, and the one in
Philadelphia is the only one I've missed since then.
My perspective is that some years there is a lot for studio artists and
some years there's not. There's a different theme every year, although
there's always stuff on the panels that doesn't relate to the theme.
But here's one thing that has always mystified me about NCECA, and which
I think is, in relation to it stated mission, more of a shortcoming than
the lack of topics for studio artists. In all the years I've been
going, I've never seen a single panel or lecture that dealt even
tangentially with the whole world of workshop teaching, as opposed to
teaching in a regular academic setting. I've seen a few breakout
sessions that addressed the topic, but never a panel or lecture. Which
seems really odd to me since workshops are the venue in which many
people get all their ceramic education, and the rest of the people who
get formal educations get most of their specialized information from
workshops. Isn't NCECA about how people get educated in ceramics?
Whoever started this thread said that he couldn't believe NCECA would
turn down a panel on a topic like glaze safety. Well, I know how he
feels. I proposed panels on various aspects of the workshop system for
four consecutive years, with panelists like Paul Soldner, John Glick,
Dave Shaner, and the directors of some well-known schools, and was
turned down every time. I gave up.
Last year, however, I did have a panel topic accepted, and on the first
submission. It was a panel on using glaze calculation software- a topic
of at least as much interest to studio potters as to academics. The
panelists were John Baymore, who both teaches and sells pots; Ron Roy,
who makes his money as a consultant; and myself, a studio artist. It
was moderated by Mark Pharis, who's primarily an academic.
But I learned a lot about the process by doing that. I learned that who
you know counts, just like in every other field of endeavor. And I
learned that NCECA likes a particular pattern for its panels. It
doesn't want it to be just each person saying, "Here's what I do". They
want give-and-take between panelists and between the panel and the
audience.
Anyway, there can be many reasons why a particular topic isn't accepted,
and a lot of them don't have anything to do with the worth of the topic.
I just know that, for me at least, NCECA is well worth the money it
costs. And I once heard one of the Directors-at-Large asked if his time
as a director had been worth the effort. He said it had been a very
hectic couple of years, but it had been the best career move he'd ever
made.
See you there.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Dwiggins, Sandra (NCI) on wed 2 feb 00
I don't understand this issue at all. I started going to NCECA when it was
SuperMud. I was just a newbie then, and felt like I was trespassing a bit
since I was not affiliated with any school, and people kept asking me where I
went to school. But I learned an enormous amount of stuff.
I can imagine that if you are an established studio potter, not associated with
an academic institution, and have a production-oriented studio with
employees---like Berryware, for example-- I can see that going to NCECA would
not be worth the money or the time away from the business. Or, if you are
someone like John Glick, Steven Hill, etc. it might be fun to hang out with your
buds, llike at any other convention of professionals. Most people go to hang
out with their friends and talk, while getting a tax write-off. but for those
people who are in the middle range---NCECA offers lots to learn, new directions,
new thoughts, etc. I don't understand what the problem is. Nothing can be
everything to everybody.
Jonathan hit it when he asked...what do "non-academic" "studio potters" want to
know? How to ship? How to pack? How to set up your books? Try Wendy Rosen's
Craft Business Institute. It's the other side of the coin....i.e. how to earn a
living as a craftsperson if you're not an academic.
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lewing [SMTP:pjlewing@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 2:17 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: NCECA shortcomings
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
This discussion of what studio potters could get out of NCECA has been
real interesting to me. I've been going almost every year for many
years. The first one I went to was Portland, and the one in
Philadelphia is the only one I've missed since then.
My perspective is that some years there is a lot for studio artists and
some years there's not. There's a different theme every year, although
there's always stuff on the panels that doesn't relate to the theme.
But here's one thing that has always mystified me about NCECA, and which
I think is, in relation to it stated mission, more of a shortcoming than
the lack of topics for studio artists. In all the years I've been
going, I've never seen a single panel or lecture that dealt even
tangentially with the whole world of workshop teaching, as opposed to
teaching in a regular academic setting. I've seen a few breakout
sessions that addressed the topic, but never a panel or lecture. Which
seems really odd to me since workshops are the venue in which many
people get all their ceramic education, and the rest of the people who
get formal educations get most of their specialized information from
workshops. Isn't NCECA about how people get educated in ceramics?
Whoever started this thread said that he couldn't believe NCECA would
turn down a panel on a topic like glaze safety. Well, I know how he
feels. I proposed panels on various aspects of the workshop system for
four consecutive years, with panelists like Paul Soldner, John Glick,
Dave Shaner, and the directors of some well-known schools, and was
turned down every time. I gave up.
Last year, however, I did have a panel topic accepted, and on the first
submission. It was a panel on using glaze calculation software- a topic
of at least as much interest to studio potters as to academics. The
panelists were John Baymore, who both teaches and sells pots; Ron Roy,
who makes his money as a consultant; and myself, a studio artist. It
was moderated by Mark Pharis, who's primarily an academic.
But I learned a lot about the process by doing that. I learned that who
you know counts, just like in every other field of endeavor. And I
learned that NCECA likes a particular pattern for its panels. It
doesn't want it to be just each person saying, "Here's what I do". They
want give-and-take between panelists and between the panel and the
audience.
Anyway, there can be many reasons why a particular topic isn't accepted,
and a lot of them don't have anything to do with the worth of the topic.
I just know that, for me at least, NCECA is well worth the money it
costs. And I once heard one of the Directors-at-Large asked if his time
as a director had been worth the effort. He said it had been a very
hectic couple of years, but it had been the best career move he'd ever
made.
See you there.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
| |
|
