Llewellyn Kouba on wed 8 mar 00
Readers. Here is a short note copied from a friend. Anne pays some fine
words of exchange about Warren MacKenzie. {*I hope your pottery studio is
going well. I recently read an in-depth
profile on one of the great ceramicists, Warren MacKenzie, who has
received some very distinguished national awards for his work. He is a
Minnesotan, and from time to time we are graced with seeing some of
his work on exhibit. His philosophy was to create beautiful but
functional pottery that would be used in everyday life, thus he made
large quantities (but varied the work) and kept prices relatively low
so that many people could own his work. He worked all day, every day,
with great joy and (sometimes) abandon. }
The letter makes me think too about how to price my wares. That always
remains a big question mark for me- and of course we can't give it all away
either. But alas it could be that Warren also began in a simpler time? I
have also heard it stated that in todays world pottery is no longer made so
simple in price and pottery has changed much of its functionality and has
become a luxury item. Pricing is still very hard for me to reconcile.
Llewellyn Kouba
ABBEY POTTERY
http://www.assumptionabbey.com/Pottery
Nils Lou on wed 8 mar 00
As far as I know Warren is not yet dead; why are you referring to him in
the past tense? Nils
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Llewellyn Kouba wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Readers. Here is a short note copied from a friend. Anne pays some fine
> words of exchange about Warren MacKenzie. {*I hope your pottery studio is
> going well. I recently read an in-depth
> profile on one of the great ceramicists, Warren MacKenzie, who has
> received some very distinguished national awards for his work. He is a
> Minnesotan, and from time to time we are graced with seeing some of
> his work on exhibit. His philosophy was to create beautiful but
> functional pottery that would be used in everyday life, thus he made
> large quantities (but varied the work) and kept prices relatively low
> so that many people could own his work. He worked all day, every day,
> with great joy and (sometimes) abandon. }
>
> The letter makes me think too about how to price my wares. That always
> remains a big question mark for me- and of course we can't give it all away
> either. But alas it could be that Warren also began in a simpler time? I
> have also heard it stated that in todays world pottery is no longer made so
> simple in price and pottery has changed much of its functionality and has
> become a luxury item. Pricing is still very hard for me to reconcile.
>
> Llewellyn Kouba
> ABBEY POTTERY
> http://www.assumptionabbey.com/Pottery
>
Lorraine Pierce on thu 9 mar 00
LLewellyn, I admire Warren tremendously, however I believe he was a tenured
professor for years, not a production potter in the sense that his income
derived exclusively from his production of pots; as a matter of fact I knew two
of his students who were later trying to make it as production potters in
Georgia who were rather bitter because they felt thier college education left
them very poorly prepared for life in the real world. They were, and are,
excellent potters and you frequently see their work and articles in national
publications...twenty years or so later. Lori in New Port Richey Fl.
Llewellyn Kouba wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Readers. Here is a short note copied from a friend. Anne pays some fine
> words of exchange about Warren MacKenzie. {*I hope your pottery studio is
> going well. I recently read an in-depth
> profile on one of the great ceramicists, Warren MacKenzie, who has
> received some very distinguished national awards for his work. He is a
> Minnesotan, and from time to time we are graced with seeing some of
> his work on exhibit. His philosophy was to create beautiful but
> functional pottery that would be used in everyday life, thus he made
> large quantities (but varied the work) and kept prices relatively low
> so that many people could own his work. He worked all day, every day,
> with great joy and (sometimes) abandon. }
>
> The letter makes me think too about how to price my wares. That always
> remains a big question mark for me- and of course we can't give it all away
> either. But alas it could be that Warren also began in a simpler time? I
> have also heard it stated that in todays world pottery is no longer made so
> simple in price and pottery has changed much of its functionality and has
> become a luxury item. Pricing is still very hard for me to reconcile.
>
> Llewellyn Kouba
> ABBEY POTTERY
> http://www.assumptionabbey.com/Pottery
Lee Love on sun 12 mar 00
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:03:17 EST
> From: Lorraine Pierce
> Subject: Re: Tribute To Warren MacKenzie
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> LLewellyn, I admire Warren tremendously, however I believe he was a
tenured
> professor for years, not a production potter in the sense that his income
> derived exclusively from his production of pots;
I take issue with this statement. The man is one of the best
living production potters, East or West. Let me quote Ken Ferguson, from
the _Warren MacKenzie: 1999 Distinguished Artist Award, presented by the
McKnight Foundation_:
"Warren MacKenzie makes about 7,000 pots a year. He does this alone.
Hi is 75 years old and has been going at this pace for most of his working
life. Warren is totally committed to his life's work. Its a simple thing:
He loves his work, he works hard, and from this come very good pots.
MacKenzie has inspired many to follow. The area where he works has been
enriched by this bounty. There will be others who will keep this flame
burning. But it will never burn as bright as it does now. There are few
like him -- damn few!"
Making 7,000 pots a year _is_ a production potter. Very few people
could do this alone, even if they weren't doing another job. I think you
are confusing two different issues. Maybe the potters you speak of did have
problems with their college education preparing them for "the real world."
That maybe be a general problem with a college education and/or their own
short comings in not doing their own home work (they don't nursemaid you in
college.) There are many folks who have been educated by MacKenzie,
supporting themselves as potters. They are some of the best potters in the
country. But just like pots, not every student is going to be a prize
winner.
To me, it has always been important to do the right thing for my
work. Because of this, I haven't been in a rush to make my work support
me. I believe too many people hurry into making their creative work their
"business" and this subverts the muse for profit.
I've always been inspired by MacKenzie's pots and his remarkable
ability to produce so much on his own. I'm now working with an 80 year old
potter. Both great men show me that there doesn't have to be anything like
retirement, if you are doing what you love. We finished firing the
Noborigama last night. It was an awesome experience. I thank Warren
MacKenzie for helping make it possible. He is not only a great potter &
teacher, he is a wonderful person.
Here is another MacKenzie quote from the McKnight booklet. It is from
Randy Johnston's notebooks:
"I want to reinforce the sense of traditional values in people.
The sense that in our brief tenure on this earth, in spite of he great
problems we face, there are larger themes, maybe even timeless themes which
transcend us. At the same time, I want my pots to express those themes with
immediacy and emotional spontaneity."
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan Ikiru@kami.com
Ray Aldridge on mon 13 mar 00
At 08:36 PM 3/12/00 EST, Lee Love wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>
>> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:03:17 EST
>> From: Lorraine Pierce
>> Subject: Re: Tribute To Warren MacKenzie
>>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> LLewellyn, I admire Warren tremendously, however I believe he was a
>tenured
>> professor for years, not a production potter in the sense that his income
>> derived exclusively from his production of pots;
>
> I take issue with this statement.
(snipped Lee's spirited acclamation of Warren MacKenzie.)
> Making 7,000 pots a year _is_ a production potter.
(snip)
Yes, but as Lorraine mentioned, not *just* a production potter, in the
sense she defined.
There's no doubt in my mind that MacKenzie is a great potter, but he is a
very poor economic role model for a young aspiring production potter,
unless that young potter's career plans also include a tenured
professorship at a major university.
I admire MacKenzie's work, but I definitely do not admire his approach to
pricing his work, which seems juvenile to me. He is a production potter
who charges very low prices for his wares, but he has not spent his life
living like a production potter who charges very low prices for his
wares... which in my opinion contradicts the political statement he is
apparently making with his prices. As mel pointed out at Alabama Clay, his
prices are low, but that doesn't mean I can go out and buy a MacKenzie mug
for that price any time I want one. I would be astonished if there were
not a vigorous secondary market in MacKenzie pots, at substantial markups.
And if so, this means that MacKenzie has given up control of most of the
wealth his talent generates, to middlemen.
Furthermore, his approach is unworkable for other potters whose work is not
as amenable to low prices as his is. He works quickly, his forms are
simple, and largely unembellished. I happen to like this style of work,
but would you be willing to tell a Maria Martinez that she should no longer
spend a day burnishing a blackware pot, because if she does, she won't be
able to sell it for $5? Or would you say that the Mimbres potters who did
such magnificent polychrome slip paintings in their work were wasting their
time, because after all, you can store beans just as well in an undecorated
jar?
Finally, I suspect that the great Japanese potters whom Lee admires
unanimously regard Warren MacKenzie as a fool. A gifted fool, no doubt...
and certainly none of them would ever say as much publicly. But would any
of us be willing to instruct Shimaoka that $1000 is too much for a jar?
Would any of us be tempted to say to him: "Warren MacKenzie is as good a
potter as Shimaoka, and he would only charge $20 for a jar this size. Does
that make him in any way morally superior to Shimaoka?"
It may simply be that Warren MacKenzie likes to make a lot of pots and also
likes to see them go away as rapidly as possible. That's fine for
MacKenzie-- none of my business. But I suspect (and hope) that if his
family's well-being depended solely on the rewards of his work, he would
soon take a different view.
I hope no one will take this as an attack on a great American potter. It's
certainly not. I'm just pointing out that his approach to pricing is
quixotic to an extreme. It's fine to idolize MacKenzie as a potter, as
long as we realize that his prices have nothing to teach us about the
process of making a decent living from our art.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Paul Lewing on tue 14 mar 00
Ray Aldridge wrote:
> There's no doubt in my mind that MacKenzie is a great potter, but he is a
> very poor economic role model for a young aspiring production potter,
> unless that young potter's career plans also include a tenured
> professorship at a major university.
>
> I admire MacKenzie's work, but I definitely do not admire his approach to
> pricing his work, which seems juvenile to me. He is a production potter
> who charges very low prices for his wares,
I'd like to point out something about MacKenzie's "low prices". I once
took a workshop from him, at a time when I had been a production potter
for 15 years or so. One day he made teapots, and I sat at the wheel
next to him and made teapots, too. The next day we trimmed them and put
them together, taking about the same amount of time on both days. He
made 12. I made 5. He sold his for $12. I sold mine for $25. Do the
math. And I'm sure I spent at least twice as much time glazing mine as
he did his when that time came.
There's more to figuring out a fair price than just the final dollar
value.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Hluch - Kevin A. on tue 14 mar 00
Ray,
In the book "Warren MacKenzie:American Potter" Tatsuzo Shimaoka says the
following (pg. 139):
"Despite the high quaility of MacKenzie's work, he refuses to
overprice his pots. This is one of his basic principles. It should be a
bsic principle for all who aspire to be folk potters. In actual fact,
hoowever, it is not something to be lightly espoused. Speaking only of
the situation in Japan, the work of individual potters here seems to bring
heigher prices with each coming year. As a result, we Japanese potters
often have our heads turned and get carried away by the world around
us. In contrast, Warren Mackenzie's principled attitude is as refreshing
as an early morning breeze".
While we find in the American economy it is a good idea to subsidise
farmers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and practically everything
else in the name of the "free market" it is not feasible to do so with
pottery.
Perhaps MacKenzie has made the decision that he would prefer to have his
work in the hands of more people compared to fewer. That, certainly, is
his decision.
I remember the time twenty + years ago when living in Minnesota I could
afford the work of Randy Johnston and Mark Pharis. Yes, indeed, those
days are long gone and so is my patronage of their work. Both Mark and
Randy are now university professors which has not, obviously, been a
factor in suppressing the prices of their work. In fact, it seems that
there is some correspondence with that status and the price of work
commanded.
And it seems to me that a secondary market where the value of the item
goes up in price is preferable to one where it declines. The marketplace
sometimes speaks with forked tongue.
MacKenzie has elected to subsidise his own work so that it is accessible
to not only those who can fly in for an opening from their penthouse in
NYC but also to people who simply work for a living.
The last I heard this is still a free country. I celebrate his freedom of
choice to price his work according to his own priorities. He created his
position in life and he can live it as he chooses.
Others have emulated aspects of his life style and aesthetic but have yet
to be swayed by his pricing philosophy. In this he is a incontrovertable
failure.
Oh, but what an admirable one!
Kevin A. Hluch
113 West All Saints St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Ray Aldridge wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> At 08:36 PM 3/12/00 EST, Lee Love wrote:
> >> LLewellyn, I admire Warren tremendously, however I believe he was a
> >tenured
> >> professor for years, not a production potter in the sense that his income
> >> derived exclusively from his production of pots;
> >
> > I take issue with this statement.
>
> (snipped Lee's spirited acclamation of Warren MacKenzie.)
>
> > Making 7,000 pots a year _is_ a production potter.
>
> (snip)
>
> Yes, but as Lorraine mentioned, not *just* a production potter, in the
> sense she defined.
>
> There's no doubt in my mind that MacKenzie is a great potter, but he is a
> very poor economic role model for a young aspiring production potter,
> unless that young potter's career plans also include a tenured
> professorship at a major university.
>
> I admire MacKenzie's work, but I definitely do not admire his approach to
> pricing his work, which seems juvenile to me. He is a production potter
> who charges very low prices for his wares, but he has not spent his life
> living like a production potter who charges very low prices for his
> wares... which in my opinion contradicts the political statement he is
> apparently making with his prices. As mel pointed out at Alabama Clay, his
> prices are low, but that doesn't mean I can go out and buy a MacKenzie mug
> for that price any time I want one. I would be astonished if there were
> not a vigorous secondary market in MacKenzie pots, at substantial markups.
> And if so, this means that MacKenzie has given up control of most of the
> wealth his talent generates, to middlemen.
>
> Furthermore, his approach is unworkable for other potters whose work is not
> as amenable to low prices as his is. He works quickly, his forms are
> simple, and largely unembellished. I happen to like this style of work,
> but would you be willing to tell a Maria Martinez that she should no longer
> spend a day burnishing a blackware pot, because if she does, she won't be
> able to sell it for $5? Or would you say that the Mimbres potters who did
> such magnificent polychrome slip paintings in their work were wasting their
> time, because after all, you can store beans just as well in an undecorated
> jar?
>
> Finally, I suspect that the great Japanese potters whom Lee admires
> unanimously regard Warren MacKenzie as a fool. A gifted fool, no doubt...
> and certainly none of them would ever say as much publicly. But would any
> of us be willing to instruct Shimaoka that $1000 is too much for a jar?
> Would any of us be tempted to say to him: "Warren MacKenzie is as good a
> potter as Shimaoka, and he would only charge $20 for a jar this size. Does
> that make him in any way morally superior to Shimaoka?"
>
> It may simply be that Warren MacKenzie likes to make a lot of pots and also
> likes to see them go away as rapidly as possible. That's fine for
> MacKenzie-- none of my business. But I suspect (and hope) that if his
> family's well-being depended solely on the rewards of his work, he would
> soon take a different view.
>
> I hope no one will take this as an attack on a great American potter. It's
> certainly not. I'm just pointing out that his approach to pricing is
> quixotic to an extreme. It's fine to idolize MacKenzie as a potter, as
> long as we realize that his prices have nothing to teach us about the
> process of making a decent living from our art.
>
> Ray
>
>
> Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
> http://www.goodpots.com
>
rickmahaffey on wed 15 mar 00
I wonder if he (Shimaoka) would consider MacKenzie's University Salary
as a subsidy?
"Hluch - Kevin A." wrote:
>
>While we find in the American economy it is a good idea to subsidise
farmers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and practically everything
else in the name of the "free market" it is not feasible to do so with
pottery.
Ray Aldridge on wed 15 mar 00
At 02:07 PM 3/14/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt in my mind that MacKenzie is a great potter, but he is a
>> very poor economic role model for a young aspiring production potter,
>> unless that young potter's career plans also include a tenured
>> professorship at a major university.
>>
>> I admire MacKenzie's work, but I definitely do not admire his approach to
>> pricing his work, which seems juvenile to me. He is a production potter
>> who charges very low prices for his wares,
>
>I'd like to point out something about MacKenzie's "low prices". I once
>took a workshop from him, at a time when I had been a production potter
>for 15 years or so. One day he made teapots, and I sat at the wheel
>next to him and made teapots, too. The next day we trimmed them and put
>them together, taking about the same amount of time on both days. He
>made 12. I made 5. He sold his for $12. I sold mine for $25. Do the
>math.
Okay. If he were not Warren McKenzie, and he were not selling everything
retail, his wholesale price for the teapot would have been $6, or $72 for
12 teapots. Let's lowball his costs at $1.50/per for clay, glaze, and
firing, or $18 for 12. That's a gross of $54, which does not include any
overhead (the cost of maintaining a studio and so forth.) Doesn't sound
economically practical to me, even if, as I suspect, this happened many
years ago.
Doing the math for Paul, his wholesale price would have been $62.50 minus
$7.50 for clay, glaze, and firing, or $55. Already he's a dollar ahead of
MacKenzie, and we haven't yet considered the cost of selling those pots.
It takes less time to sell 5 pots than 12 pots, for most mortals.
I'm sure Paul knows this, but for anyone who doesn't understand the reason
why wholesale is sometimes a better deal for an individual potter-- it
takes time and money to retail pottery, whether it's in your own shop or at
shows. You can either take time away from production to help customers, or
you can hire someone to staff your shop, but either way, you incur
additional costs. So even if you emulate MacKenzie and sell everything
from your shop, you have to consider how much of your time and money it
would take to sell 12 teapots. The difference between wholesale and retail
in this instance is $72. How many hours are you willing to spend to get
that $72? And overhead marches on, whether you're making pots or selling
them (or goofing off on ClayArt) so in reality that $72 is much less than
it appears.
You know what I wish? I wish someone who knows him would ask MacKenzie if
he thought a young potter could make a living by pricing his pots as
MacKenzie prices his. I'm pretty sure he'll say no-- that his prices are a
luxury that not every potter can afford.
Please understand, everyone, that I'm not trying to criticize my betters.
I'm just asking that people take a clear-eyed look at the business side of
their work. Holding up Warren MacKenzie as an example of unrealistic
pricing practices seems to have generated some interest in an otherwise
boring (but absolutely crucial) subject.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Ray Aldridge on wed 15 mar 00
At 02:16 PM 3/14/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray,
>
>In the book "Warren MacKenzie:American Potter" Tatsuzo Shimaoka says the
>following (pg. 139):
>
> "Despite the high quaility of MacKenzie's work, he refuses to
>overprice his pots. This is one of his basic principles. It should be a
>bsic principle for all who aspire to be folk potters. In actual fact,
>hoowever, it is not something to be lightly espoused. Speaking only of
>the situation in Japan, the work of individual potters here seems to bring
>heigher prices with each coming year. As a result, we Japanese potters
>often have our heads turned and get carried away by the world around
>us. In contrast, Warren Mackenzie's principled attitude is as refreshing
>as an early morning breeze".
>
It should be noted that Shimaoka's admiration has not translated into any
actual action. I find this significant, though perhaps as a western
barbarian, I lack the subtlety of mind to understand why he has not yet
reduced his prices to match those of "folk potters," if it's such a great
idea. (I say this in good humor-- Shimaoka is my favorite Japanese potter;
I think he has greatly exceeded his master's accomplishments in clay,
though this opinion will doubtless garner me more grief from Hamada cultists.)
(snipped Kevin's interesting and erudite commentary)
>The last I heard this is still a free country. I celebrate his freedom of
>choice to price his work according to his own priorities. He created his
>position in life and he can live it as he chooses.
Of course.
>
>Others have emulated aspects of his life style and aesthetic but have yet
>to be swayed by his pricing philosophy. In this he is a incontrovertable
>failure.
>
>Oh, but what an admirable one!
>
Yes, indeed, though it should be said that there are thousands of other
American potters who also underprice *their* wares, because, like
MacKenzie, they don't need the money. Their philosophy is not as admirable
as his; it reduces to: "I can't get any more for this mug, so that's my
price."
But really, this is not about MacKenzie. It's about his prices. I hope we
can all agree that these are not at all the same thing. If not, it's a
terribly sad commentary on the inability of human beings to separate
personalities from practicalities.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Earl Brunner on thu 16 mar 00
The other thing about this thread that I think people are
forgetting is
that Warren Mckenzie aside, there are many other
professional potters out there that do a variety of things
to get by besides just production
throwing.
Tom Coleman used to do a lot of production throwing. He
doesn't anymore.
His studio uses a variety of ways to generate income. rent
space, give lessons, gallery, and Tom does a variety of
other things as well. He
does workshops, writes and sells a glaze book, messes some
with antiques.
I guess my point is, that the bottom line on production
isn't always,
"how many mugs can you make in an hour?" You might not even
have to
always make a profit. If you are doing what you want and
like and have
other sources of income, maybe you don't have to get rich,
as long as you aren't going bankrupt. Maybe a price can
still be fair and not be a significant profit.
Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> At 02:07 PM 3/14/00 EST, you wrote:
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >Ray Aldridge wrote:
> >
> >> There's no doubt in my mind that MacKenzie is a great potter, but he is a
> >> very poor economic role model for a young aspiring production potter,
> >> unless that young potter's career plans also include a tenured
> >> professorship at a major university.
> >>
> >> I admire MacKenzie's work, but I definitely do not admire his approach to
> >> pricing his work, which seems juvenile to me. He is a production potter
> >> who charges very low prices for his wares,
> >
> >I'd like to point out something about MacKenzie's "low prices". I once
> >took a workshop from him, at a time when I had been a production potter
> >for 15 years or so. One day he made teapots, and I sat at the wheel
> >next to him and made teapots, too. The next day we trimmed them and put
> >them together, taking about the same amount of time on both days. He
> >made 12. I made 5. He sold his for $12. I sold mine for $25. Do the
> >math.
>
> Okay. If he were not Warren McKenzie, and he were not selling everything
> retail, his wholesale price for the teapot would have been $6, or $72 for
> 12 teapots. Let's lowball his costs at $1.50/per for clay, glaze, and
> firing, or $18 for 12. That's a gross of $54, which does not include any
> overhead (the cost of maintaining a studio and so forth.) Doesn't sound
> economically practical to me, even if, as I suspect, this happened many
> years ago.
>
> Doing the math for Paul, his wholesale price would have been $62.50 minus
> $7.50 for clay, glaze, and firing, or $55. Already he's a dollar ahead of
> MacKenzie, and we haven't yet considered the cost of selling those pots.
> It takes less time to sell 5 pots than 12 pots, for most mortals.
>
> I'm sure Paul knows this, but for anyone who doesn't understand the reason
> why wholesale is sometimes a better deal for an individual potter-- it
> takes time and money to retail pottery, whether it's in your own shop or at
> shows. You can either take time away from production to help customers, or
> you can hire someone to staff your shop, but either way, you incur
> additional costs. So even if you emulate MacKenzie and sell everything
> from your shop, you have to consider how much of your time and money it
> would take to sell 12 teapots. The difference between wholesale and retail
> in this instance is $72. How many hours are you willing to spend to get
> that $72? And overhead marches on, whether you're making pots or selling
> them (or goofing off on ClayArt) so in reality that $72 is much less than
> it appears.
>
> You know what I wish? I wish someone who knows him would ask MacKenzie if
> he thought a young potter could make a living by pricing his pots as
> MacKenzie prices his. I'm pretty sure he'll say no-- that his prices are a
> luxury that not every potter can afford.
>
> Please understand, everyone, that I'm not trying to criticize my betters.
> I'm just asking that people take a clear-eyed look at the business side of
> their work. Holding up Warren MacKenzie as an example of unrealistic
> pricing practices seems to have generated some interest in an otherwise
> boring (but absolutely crucial) subject.
>
> Ray
>
> Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
> http://www.goodpots.com
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
ferenc jakab on thu 16 mar 00
As an Australian I haven't a clue who Warren Mackenzie is but I find the
idea that because he draws a lecturer's salary he can't be a real production
potter ludicrous. He obviously produces an enormous amount of work,
seemingly more than many 'full-time' potters.
Should he not produce because he teaches or not teach because he produces?
Should he not be paid for his teaching? Should a business man who lectures
in business studies not continue in his business? Many an Art school would
be poorer if working artists were not allowed to teach because then they
would not be full-time artists.
Mackenzie's pricing policy is his own business.
Feri.
taube wilson on thu 16 mar 00
Ray and everyone,
Ray Aldridge wrote:
>You know what I wish? I wish someone who knows him would ask MacKenzie if
>he thought a young potter could make a living by pricing his pots as
>MacKenzie prices his. I'm pretty sure he'll say no-- that his prices are a
>luxury that not every potter can afford.
Well, I don't *know* Warren MacKenzie, but I was lucky enough to get
to attend his workshop at the Lee Art Center in Arlington,Va. last
fall where I got up the nerve to ask him to discuss his philosophy
of pricing, both his own and others'.
Firstly, he said that he doesn't care what others charge for their
work - that's their business. He said he makes a comfortable living
selling his pots and he's happy to make them affordable enough for
anyone to buy/use. He said that when he does shows in Japan, the
Japanese always try to get him to raise his prices (they tell him
that the Japanese are accustomed to paying more for pottery) but
he won't.
However, he also said that when he was a young professor he used
to advise his students who wanted to be studio potters to skip the
MFA and just start making pots. But years later when Randy Johnson
was having trouble making ends meet and couldn't get a teaching job
MacKenzie realized that this was bad advice and started telling
his students to get MFA's. MacKenzie said he always felt bad about
that. (Johnson ended up going back to school.)
So I think you're right - he sees it as a privilege to be able to
offer pots that almost anyone can afford and enjoy using. I also
think he wants to keep his prices at a low enough level that people
won't be too intimidated to actually use his pots once they buy them.
He also told another story: one day he went into his salesroom and
saw a man who had gathered a huge number of pots to buy. The man
asked MacKenzie which were made by him and which by the other potters
in his workshop. MacKenzie said "Why, don't you like *all* the pots
you chose?", but pointed out the ones he'd made. When he came
back to the showroom later, all of the other potter's work was left
behind - the man only bought MacKenzie's. That was the day he stopped
signing his work.
Well, that's it for now.
-Taube
Taube Wilson
Annandale,Va.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Hluch - Kevin A. on thu 16 mar 00
Ray,
I think that one can't separate the work from the person, (or the
prices) especially in this instance. MacKenzie addresses this question
himself on pgs.31-34 in Lewis's book of whom he is the subject. To wit:
"The question I ask my potter friends is: what's the point of making
functional pots which are so high in price that people cant afford to use
them?"
MacKenzie's aesthetic harkens back to preindustrial times when ALL
utensils were handcrafted. This was the primary impetus in the writing
and work of Leach, Hamada and Yanagi. People whom MacKenzie was keenly and
acutely aware. He has been shaped by his experiences...and I, for one,
envy him.
Of course, prior to the advent of industrialism the craftspersons work was
part of the seamless fabric of existence. Therefore, these things did not
appear as something special. This is precisely why Yanagi could collect
works for his Folk Art Museum so inexpensively -- no one recognized their
value.
That fabric has been rent....now, what is unusual is precisely the kind of
work that MacKenzie and others like him create. Work like his, executed
by an accomplished master is rare today and, seemingly, should command
much higher prices. This is precisely why Mark Hewitt, Rob Barnard and a
host of others DO command higher prices. And this is why others on this
list have recently recommended that Michael Simon raise his
prices. (Hopefully, he's not listening.)
For some, that which is understood to have value think only in monetary
terms. For others, value is found not in high prices but in other places.
I don't understand your comment about "underpricing".
Although I've mislaid my copy of the "Communist Manifesto", certainly to
each according to his need with consideration of his/her ability is an
admirable thought. Or perhaps you're suggesting that unworthy work should
be artificially elevated in price in spite of the marketplace judgment as
to its lesser value? Alternately, perhaps you are saying all potters' work
should be priced significantly higher thus eliminating the ability of the
lower and middle classes from enjoying art in their day to day lives?
If art is only for elites and the rich then we have come full
circle. These, I think, are not the graceful orbs that describe the work
of Warren Mackenzie. If he can not make ends meet with the prices he
charges, the invisible hand of the market will eliminate him from the
competition. Let the market work its magic, if it can.
Lastly, I find it impractical and unsuitable to separate the person from
their work ... In this I agree with Carlyle, Morris, Ruskin, Leach, Hamada
an Yanagi.
Kevin A. Hluch
113 West All Saints St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ray Aldridge wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> At 02:16 PM 3/14/00 EST, you wrote:
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >Ray,
> >
> >In the book "Warren MacKenzie:American Potter" Tatsuzo Shimaoka says the
> >following (pg. 139):
> >
> > "Despite the high quaility of MacKenzie's work, he refuses to
> >overprice his pots. This is one of his basic principles. It should be a
> >bsic principle for all who aspire to be folk potters. In actual fact,
> >hoowever, it is not something to be lightly espoused. Speaking only of
> >the situation in Japan, the work of individual potters here seems to bring
> >heigher prices with each coming year. As a result, we Japanese potters
> >often have our heads turned and get carried away by the world around
> >us. In contrast, Warren Mackenzie's principled attitude is as refreshing
> >as an early morning breeze".
> >
>
> It should be noted that Shimaoka's admiration has not translated into any
> actual action. I find this significant, though perhaps as a western
> barbarian, I lack the subtlety of mind to understand why he has not yet
> reduced his prices to match those of "folk potters," if it's such a great
> idea. (I say this in good humor-- Shimaoka is my favorite Japanese potter;
> I think he has greatly exceeded his master's accomplishments in clay,
> though this opinion will doubtless garner me more grief from Hamada cultists.)
>
> (snipped Kevin's interesting and erudite commentary)
>
>
> >The last I heard this is still a free country. I celebrate his freedom of
> >choice to price his work according to his own priorities. He created his
> >position in life and he can live it as he chooses.
>
> Of course.
>
> >
> >Others have emulated aspects of his life style and aesthetic but have yet
> >to be swayed by his pricing philosophy. In this he is a incontrovertable
> >failure.
> >
> >Oh, but what an admirable one!
> >
>
> Yes, indeed, though it should be said that there are thousands of other
> American potters who also underprice *their* wares, because, like
> MacKenzie, they don't need the money. Their philosophy is not as admirable
> as his; it reduces to: "I can't get any more for this mug, so that's my
> price."
>
> But really, this is not about MacKenzie. It's about his prices. I hope we
> can all agree that these are not at all the same thing. If not, it's a
> terribly sad commentary on the inability of human beings to separate
> personalities from practicalities.
>
> Ray
>
>
> Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
> http://www.goodpots.com
>
Elca Branman on fri 17 mar 00
>"Mackenzie's pricing policy is his own business."
>Feri.
Well said.
Please, lets not have the Pure Potter Police deciding how each of us is
to enjoy our muddy clay lives.
And if I choose to support my clay habit by combining teaching and mugs,
or if i prefer to do really theatrical workshops, or hand paint tiny
cherubs,or make really really craggy macho lumpy pots..why not? And if
someone chooses to produce nothing but mugs and give them all away, it's
no glaze off my pot.
We're all doing our best to enjoy our clay AND make a living(for those
that do) and there isn't one right way...ditto about living a life.
Old Blue Eyes knew what he was singing about...I'll do it my way.
Elca..sulking at home in Sarasota,Florida,USA because she is going to
miss all the fun in Denver.
Elca@Home.Com
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Ray Aldridge on fri 17 mar 00
At 01:00 PM 3/16/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>As an Australian I haven't a clue who Warren Mackenzie is but I find the
>idea that because he draws a lecturer's salary he can't be a real production
>potter ludicrous. He obviously produces an enormous amount of work,
>seemingly more than many 'full-time' potters.
>Should he not produce because he teaches or not teach because he produces?
>Should he not be paid for his teaching? Should a business man who lectures
>in business studies not continue in his business? Many an Art school would
>be poorer if working artists were not allowed to teach because then they
>would not be full-time artists.
>Mackenzie's pricing policy is his own business.
>Feri.
>
You may have misunderstood the point of the discussion. No one is saying
that Mackenzie ought to charge more. It's his business what he charges.
All we're trying to get across is that most of us who are trying to make a
go of fulltime potting would go broke charging his prices, unless we, like
MacKenzie, had other sources of income. But because MacKenzie is such a
great and well-known potter, some folks evidently believe that his pricing
structure ought to be just fine for everyone. And anyone who disagrees
gets accused of attacking MacKenzie, or worse, being lazy and unskilled.
I've begun to wonder if perhaps there isn't a bit of magical thinking going
on here, along the lines of: "Mackenzie is a great potter. Maybe if I
price my pots like MacKenzie's, I'll be a great potter."
I don't think that's how it works.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Ray Aldridge on fri 17 mar 00
At 01:48 PM 3/16/00 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray,
>
>I think that one can't separate the work from the person, (or the
>prices) especially in this instance.
This seems a remarkably slippery concept, when examined carefully. Are you
saying that if MacKenzie doubled his prices, his work would be different?
Worse? There is a sense in which you are correct, of course, in that
MacKenzie's prices impose a limitation on the complexity of his work, but
surely the aesthetic came first and the price followed. In Japan, they
play at mingei and still get thousands of dollars for a pot that would have
earned a folk potter a couple of coppers, so simplicity need not mean
simple prices.
MacKenzie addresses this question
>himself on pgs.31-34 in Lewis's book of whom he is the subject. To wit:
>
>"The question I ask my potter friends is: what's the point of making
>functional pots which are so high in price that people cant afford to use
>them?"
>
To which I respond, "What's the point of charging prices so low that I
can't remain in business? No one is going to use pots I haven't made." Of
course, since I'm not MacKenzie, my words don't seem quite as weighty.
Still, they have a certain undeniable resonance, for me.
>
>For some, that which is understood to have value think only in monetary
>terms. For others, value is found not in high prices but in other places.
I assume you would classify yourself in the latter category. I'm curious
about *your* prices. Care to comment? Mine are quite humble.
>
>I don't understand your comment about "underpricing".
I recommend you read Cardew.
>
>Although I've mislaid my copy of the "Communist Manifesto", certainly to
>each according to his need with consideration of his/her ability is an
>admirable thought. Or perhaps you're suggesting that unworthy work should
>be artificially elevated in price in spite of the marketplace judgment as
>to its lesser value? Alternately, perhaps you are saying all potters' work
>should be priced significantly higher thus eliminating the ability of the
>lower and middle classes from enjoying art in their day to day lives?
Is it your opinion that pricing a mug at $16 rather than $8 constitutes a
form of class warfare? Interesting thought. I must, however, point out
that some of us who pot are members of the working class too, and oddly
enough, feel a certain wistful attachment to the idea of a living wage.
>
>If art is only for elites and the rich then we have come full
>circle. These, I think, are not the graceful orbs that describe the work
>of Warren Mackenzie. If he can not make ends meet with the prices he
>charges, the invisible hand of the market will eliminate him from the
>competition. Let the market work its magic, if it can.
MacKenzie is safely outside the market, because his work is
self-subsidized, as surely you must know. Market forces do not apply. I
have little doubt that he could give away his pots and not go hungry.
>
>Lastly, I find it impractical and unsuitable to separate the person from
>their work ... In this I agree with Carlyle, Morris, Ruskin, Leach, Hamada
>an Yanagi.
>
Hey, pretty safe company, if a bit dead.
I hope you don't mind if I josh you a little, Kevin. I don't mean anything
malicious by it. I've pretty much given up on making my original point,
which is that it's impractical to set one's prices by a political
yardstick, unless you're someone like MacKenzie, who is both enormously
productive and has other sources of income. Prices must be set at a
minimum level, derived from the cost of production plus a living wage, and
this is the only way an independent potter gets to stay in business, unless
he can subsidize the work with outside income.
I hope your worldview has a place in it for those potters who are not as
talented as MacKenzie, and who have no other way to earn their living but
by selling pots. I realize this applies to very few of us, but I'd hate to
see the species extinguished completely.
I have a feeling Warren MacKenzie would agree with me in this.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Hluch - Kevin A. on sun 19 mar 00
Ray,
I would not have a contract to write a book about contemporary American
utilitaian pottery if I did not appreciate the work or support it. And I
think we went round and round on this list on the subject of talent.....
If your humble prices are so low that you can't remain in business then I
would suggest you raise your prices, or cut expenses. (Hopefully the
demand is there no matter the price.)
Concerning subsidies, if your wife works full time at a good job then
consider yourself subsidised. As a result of the unfortunate death of
Warren's first wife Alix, early in this life, he certainly is blameless on
this account.
Or perhaps you are unaware MacKenzie apprenticed with Bernard Leach
for two and half years in the early fifties? This certainly had an effect
on his pricing priorities and the character of his work. Whether you like
it or not, Mackenzie is a historic and influential figure in the
development of contemporary American pottery.
Also, I am certain your own words have an undeniable resonance to yourself
but I find the words of others, even though they happen to be dead, to
have much greater resonance.
By the way, Pioneer Pottery came in handy while I was in Kenya... I
designed and built four kick wheels for Kenyatta University while
there. I appreciate Cardew's help, even though was deceased. Having
been fortunate to have heard him lecture twice I have the utmost
appreciation for his words as well.
I wouldn't speak ill of the dead if I were you. We shall be in their
company soon enough.
I suspect that in the future all crafts will be very expensive...and I'm
not talking about craft masquerading as art...I mean utilitarian
pots. There are too few good potters out there and there is a growing
demand for that work. Certainly, even a $650 teapot is not much cash for
a wealthy person. It's a small price to pay for something that is
great work of art and rare. In the future, I think only the
educated and wealthy will buy those pots. And I think they will even more
rare than they are currently.
Your point is well taken...I wish there could be many more potters like
MacKenzie instead of just one. More people, compared to fewer could then
enjoy the beauty of utilitarian pottery.
Due to other priorities this is my last word on the subject:
Mac's seventy-six...let him do want he wants.
I would suggest you get up there and buy some pots --while you can.
Kevin A. Hluch
113 West All Saints St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Ray Aldridge wrote:
>
> This seems a remarkably slippery concept, when examined carefully. Are you
> saying that if MacKenzie doubled his prices, his work would be different?
> Worse? There is a sense in which you are correct, of course, in that
> MacKenzie's prices impose a limitation on the complexity of his work, but
> surely the aesthetic came first and the price followed. In Japan, they
> play at mingei and still get thousands of dollars for a pot that would have
> earned a folk potter a couple of coppers, so simplicity need not mean
> simple prices.
>
> >"The question I ask my potter friends is: what's the point of making
> >functional pots which are so high in price that people cant afford to use
> >them?"
> >
>
> To which I respond, "What's the point of charging prices so low that I
> can't remain in business? No one is going to use pots I haven't made." Of
> course, since I'm not MacKenzie, my words don't seem quite as weighty.
> Still, they have a certain undeniable resonance, for me.
>
>
> I recommend you read Cardew.
>
>
> Is it your opinion that pricing a mug at $16 rather than $8 constitutes a
> form of class warfare? Interesting thought. I must, however, point out
> that some of us who pot are members of the working class too, and oddly
> enough, feel a certain wistful attachment to the idea of a living wage.
>
> MacKenzie is safely outside the market, because his work is
> self-subsidized, as surely you must know. Market forces do not apply. I
> have little doubt that he could give away his pots and not go hungry.
>
> Hey, pretty safe company, if a bit dead.
>
> I hope you don't mind if I josh you a little, Kevin. I don't mean anything
> malicious by it. I've pretty much given up on making my original point,
> which is that it's impractical to set one's prices by a political
> yardstick, unless you're someone like MacKenzie, who is both enormously
> productive and has other sources of income. Prices must be set at a
> minimum level, derived from the cost of production plus a living wage, and
> this is the only way an independent potter gets to stay in business, unless
> he can subsidize the work with outside income.
>
> I hope your worldview has a place in it for those potters who are not as
> talented as MacKenzie, and who have no other way to earn their living but
> by selling pots. I realize this applies to very few of us, but I'd hate to
> see the species extinguished completely.
>
> I have a feeling Warren MacKenzie would agree with me in this.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
| |
|
